Talk:Bruiser

Ordering of items on DAB pages

Clarityfiend Hi, I recently added an item to this article for my new article, Bruiser (bull). I've added articles to DAB pages before w/o giving the order of the items on the page much thought. Today, I put the items in the section where I added mine in what I thought were alphabetical order. After my edit, you changed the order of the items. I also see you've been acting as a steward to this article in the history and have more Wikipedia experience, which is why I'm writing you rather than making any more changes. I realized that I wanted to understand the order of the items clearly so I looked it up on this policy page: MOS:DABORG.

This is what the manual of style recommends for sections in DAB pages (quoted):

4. Within each section, entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. Entries are typically ordered first by similarity to the ambiguous title, then alphabetically or chronologically as appropriate. A recommended order is:

1. Articles with a clarifier in parentheses: e.g., Moss (band)
2. Articles with a clarifier following a comma: e.g., Moss, Monterey County, California
3. Articles with the item as part of the name: e.g., Moss Bros (Only include articles whose subject might reasonably be called by the ambiguous title.)
4. Synonyms: e.g., Tincture on Spirit (disambiguation)

Looking at the order in the section where my item is, I'm not sure what order the items in this section follow or are meant to follow. They definitely do not follow the recommended order in the 4 steps (Yes, I know it's not required to use this method). It is also not clear if they are in alphabetical order. And I have no way to know if they are in chronological order. Can you clarify (pun intended)? It would be much appreciated. Thank you. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You skipped point 2: "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below." The spirit of that guideline takes precedence over the "recommended order" IMO. Royal Navy ships are more notable than a bull (and that's no bull). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend You didn't answer my real question. And point 2 was not meant for sections, point 4 was. See Mojave like the policy said. Is Mojave War more important than Mojave rattlesnake? Never mind, I wasn't trying to get justification to get my article moved up, but that's how you took it, so I can't get a serious answer to my question because all you care to do is defend why my item is where it is. That's not what I am interested in. I don't care where my article is, I was looking for a real answer on how you are sorting the items on the DAB page. Thank you, but I will ask someone else. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend p.s. Point 2 did not mention notability. It said what is the reader's likely target. You said that you discriminate based on notability. So I have my answer. You order articles according to your POV. I am not interested in reading about Royal Navy ships even if they are more notable, since I am not British. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Greater notability = more likely to be searched for. Are you seriously claiming that people look for a bull more than they do warships? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You asked me a question and I answered it, only to receive a hostile response. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend First, your claim that I was hostile: Was I antagonistic? Did I make any personal attacks or show a hostile and menacing attitude? No, I have only discussed your actions, not you, in a forthright manner per WP:CIVIL. Respectfully, I constructed a detailed question on DAB order on the talk page, rather than making changes on the article which could have started an edit war. I left the matter of making any changes up to you so, you had no reason to be defensive. Your reply was defensive and only addressed your movement of my item. You backed that up with Rule 2, which does not apply to items in a section, Rule 4 does. So it seems you did not assume good faith, but assumed I wanted to argue placement of my item, which I did not. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The Pageviews Analysis tool shows that HMS Bruiser is a link to a DAB page! Oh no you didn't! Yes, a link to another DAB page is more notable than an article? Never mind, the two actual HMS ship articles have the following page views: HMS Bruizer (1895) gets an average daily view of 2 hits. And the article HMS Bruiser (F127) gets an average daily view of 2 hits. If these HMS Royal Navy ships are so notable, why so many red links of the ships on that DAB page? Ok, now I have to ask one of my mentors where a link to DAB page belongs in the order of items on a DAB page. I never expected this in a million years, my brain is going to explode. It is not even mentioned in the MOS:DABORG policy. You have provided me with my amusement for the evening, thank you. Also, just an fyi, if you had a print encyclopedia where would you find items? By notability or alphabetically? LOL! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bushwacker gets 258 hits average per day. And Bruiser, who I just moved to mainspace on 5/2 is already averaging 18 hits per day. What were you saying about which articles get searched the most again? [1] dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Oh, yes who is Bushwacker, the greatest bucking bull the Professional Bull Riders have ever seen, worth $1 million at the height of his career in 2014. Bruiser is in not quite as good, but he's in any list of the 10 greatest and worth 6 figures too. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you get a third opinion as to your attitude, from your mentor or someone else. "I never expected this in a million years, my brain is going to explode." Seriously? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You can't upset me. Yes, I meant it would explode from laughing so much... hehe. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time! My attitude is that it's funny as hell. And I expect that the purpose of DAB pages is not to provide links to other DAB pages, in general. It's hilarious that you would be protecting the notability of a Wikiink to a DAB page on a DAB page. I can't believe I only figured it out by accident after the discussion was basically over when I came in to clean up my last message. You can say whatever you want; I'm not going to take it seriously after finding this out. dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend Okay, time to be serious now. In the interest of what's best for the article, this is how the link to another DAB page is supposed to work according to policy:

According to WP:DOUBLEDAB, WP:HOWTODAB and WP:INTDABLINK, the wikilink of the link to the other DAB page should look like this for the HMS Bruiser link: HMS Bruiser (disambiguation).

And according to WP:INTDABLINK, linking to DAB pages is permitted occasionally, those reasons are listed therein on that policy. I believe the HMS Bruiser link falls under the second bullet point reason: "Links from one disambiguation page to another for further disambiguation: British has a link to Britain (disambiguation) for further disambiguation."

There you go. Organize the links in any order you want. But do add the (disambiguation) to wikilinks that purposely are linking to DAB pages so us editors know it is an intentional link to a DAB page (and that it is a link to a DAB page per policy). Happy Trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You began the procedure for handling disputes correctly, but then went off the rails with your attitude. Belittling others is not the way to go. Again, I recommend you check this with others whose opinions you value more, otherwise you will continue to cause unnecessary conflicts and make Wikipedia a more toxic environment. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)