Talk:Augustus (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bkonrad in topic Middle names
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Middle names
editHello there brother. OK if you insist. What happened to the middle names? I'm of two minds about it myself but I would like to know what you did with them and why. If you are inclined to work on these disambigs right now the whole Augustus/Augusta set can use some additions and in addition I think I'll have to create an Augustan one. Discussion's not an intrinsically bad thing you know and there's no rule that says we have to say something in no more than 3 words.Dave (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unless a person is commonly known only by their middle name, that is not something to include on a disambiguation page, which are intended to disambiguate pages that might share the same title (or might reasonably be confused by persons looking for that term). older ≠ wiser 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- All right - I notice you actually have been going along behind my current run of disambig work. That's fine, I have only minor preferences, nothing to fight you for. You aren't insisting on reversions and your way and my way together seem to be producing useful and good-looking disambig pages. When the disambig gets really bad in the area of my interest I do some work and then get on with it. I did notice the number of items in search far exceeds the items in the disambig list, but I'll have to let many of those go for now. I'll be going on to something else when I finish with this Augustan thing. Ciao.Dave (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- In case you haven't seen it, you might want to look at WP:MOSDAB, which contains some guidance about what to include on disambiguation pages and how to organize them. In general, disambiguation pages should not contain partial title matches of entities that just happen to contain the term being disambiguated but are unlikely to be referred to by simply that term. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks brother, I'm taking your point. You refer me to the help page. Ho, ho, ho! Article 2.1 on that page clearly states that where a link to Wiktionary is available you should not give the definition! You have no idea how I argued this out with some disambig editor on here who was absolutely determined to have both, and sure enough everywhere I look now are both. He just ignored 2.1 and ignored anything I said and reverted everything I did. Single-minded man (or woman). WP:MOSDAB is quite clear and quite helpful and yet when it came to what the public wants it was out the window. I see a LOT of things in here that are not according to Hoyle. That's what the people want! So I had two choices. I could compromise or give up articles and start with the judicial issues and apply for a job as an administrator. Then I too could sit in the bully pulpit and people would talk to me with the respect I deserve instead of calling me the a-hole I am not. I chose the articles. Although cops are absolutely necessary I am not one and you cant really do both. So my policy is, not to go around cutting things out that people want in without a very good reason, such as its being just plain wrong. I'm not doing this to fight with people. I don't mind your sprucing up and I do try to follow the help but frankly it can't be put into effect without a major effort and a whole lot of MB wasted on angry argument. Thanks for the advice however.Dave (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you bring up section 2.1 here, but in any case, I think you are misreading it. It does not forbid including a short definition. It addresses those cases where some editors attempt to duplicate non-article dictionary material on a disambiguation page that is better suited for Wiktionary. Further, administrators do not have any special authority; they are nothing more than users that have gained some level of trust by the community to perform some functions (such as deleting pages) that could be dangerous to allow anyone and everyone to do. Administrator opinions have no special authority (apart from whatever respect for experience might be accorded to individuals). Guidelines, such as WP:MOSDAB, represent current best practices. Following every detail in the policies and guidelines is not a pre-requisite for editing; however, raising a fuss defending content that goes against such guideline may cause problems. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, sure. No excuses. Like any other set of rules the players interpret them to their liking. I could play that game with you but I refuse; the conclusion is foregone. You will interpret the rules your way and will not admit any other (just like everyone else). Further, administrators do have special authority as you perfectly well know; they can block. If they can do that, they can threaten to block. Nobody talks back to administrators unless they have gone berserk and do not care if they get blocked or booted. Moreover, the rules are often selectively applied. Suppose there is a disagreement as to whether content goes against the rules? The administrator's opponent is arbitrarily defined to be raising a fuss concerning the rules and that is that. I've seen administrators break most of the rules and have had to tell them to start following the rules please. It seems clear to me that 2.1 is an example of a rule that administrators do not follow. It does not exclude short definitions from the rule. To apply the same principle to the content, you can interpret with considerable leeway when something should go in the disambig. Anyway I do not know if there is any halp for the problem of interpreting rules; the difficulty seems to be in all rules. So, we are agreed on one point, that it is often better not to be a stickler for the rules. As for raising the fuss, well, what are you saying, if you defend what is right you are causing problems? My impression is that you can defend what you think is right, right up to a final higher-level decision. Anyway I do not see yor edits to my edits as a problem at the current time. Naturally there will always be disagreement as to the exact content but we generally agree. I'm pretty well done with the disambig concerning Augustans at least at the moment so if I do not see your reply right away it isn't because I am ignoring you. If you really get to feeling ignored and want to talk, send me a message.Dave (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well you seem to have made up your mind already beyond the point of persuasion (even though it borders on the delusional). Ciao. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks brother, I'm taking your point. You refer me to the help page. Ho, ho, ho! Article 2.1 on that page clearly states that where a link to Wiktionary is available you should not give the definition! You have no idea how I argued this out with some disambig editor on here who was absolutely determined to have both, and sure enough everywhere I look now are both. He just ignored 2.1 and ignored anything I said and reverted everything I did. Single-minded man (or woman). WP:MOSDAB is quite clear and quite helpful and yet when it came to what the public wants it was out the window. I see a LOT of things in here that are not according to Hoyle. That's what the people want! So I had two choices. I could compromise or give up articles and start with the judicial issues and apply for a job as an administrator. Then I too could sit in the bully pulpit and people would talk to me with the respect I deserve instead of calling me the a-hole I am not. I chose the articles. Although cops are absolutely necessary I am not one and you cant really do both. So my policy is, not to go around cutting things out that people want in without a very good reason, such as its being just plain wrong. I'm not doing this to fight with people. I don't mind your sprucing up and I do try to follow the help but frankly it can't be put into effect without a major effort and a whole lot of MB wasted on angry argument. Thanks for the advice however.Dave (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- In case you haven't seen it, you might want to look at WP:MOSDAB, which contains some guidance about what to include on disambiguation pages and how to organize them. In general, disambiguation pages should not contain partial title matches of entities that just happen to contain the term being disambiguated but are unlikely to be referred to by simply that term. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- All right - I notice you actually have been going along behind my current run of disambig work. That's fine, I have only minor preferences, nothing to fight you for. You aren't insisting on reversions and your way and my way together seem to be producing useful and good-looking disambig pages. When the disambig gets really bad in the area of my interest I do some work and then get on with it. I did notice the number of items in search far exceeds the items in the disambig list, but I'll have to let many of those go for now. I'll be going on to something else when I finish with this Augustan thing. Ciao.Dave (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)