Talk:Grid

Rdr

Why was this page created? I thought that "X (disambiguation)" pages were only required when the base page was occupied with a "more important" article.

Grid is just a redirect back to Grid (disambiguation). Pretty meaningless really. Gaz 02:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

• That was a few months before my time, and i don't recall when i learned abt Rdrs to Dab pages. In any case, now the principle is
  1. to use the sfx "... (disambiguation)" as the Dab page

     only... when the base page [is] occupied with a "more important" article [more specifically, a primary topic: one most users will assume is intended when told "i'm going to show you an encyclopedia article entitle ....], and

  2. to use that sfx as a Rdr to the (unsuffixed title) of the Dab page, which will be the proper link
     1. (with the suffix hidden by piping) whenever the page intended is the Dab page, and not some specific article (for instance, if an author today names a character "Ulysses", and that character evokes both Odysseus and Leopold Bloom, our article might well say "He chose the evocative name Ulysses" if the point being made as too small to say more; this alerts editors and bots not to bypass the Dab.
     2. (without piping, so the suffix is visible to every reader) whenever the reference in question to that Dab page is from another Dab page -- i don't recall what i read about this practice, but it make sense to me to alert users (who expect the lks on a Dab pg to point to articles) not to be confused when they follow the lk and are reading Dab entries instead of prose.

--Jerzy•t 05:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Belated self-sig

Merge

I agree with the proposal to merge GRID into into the disambiguation page, especially as GRID in a distributed computing context is not an acronym as far as i'm aware. On the issue of the disambiguation page in general, there doesn't seem to be a base article, as 'Grid' as a visual pattern seems to be grid plan instead. ora 10:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Grid computing

At first I disagreed with the edit removing Grid computing, but after reviewing WP:MoSDab, I see there is ample justification, because an article does not qualify simply because the ambiguous term occurs in the title. I am aware of various grid computing projects like Seti's, and in usage, it is true you wouldn't use it alone as a noun- only as part of a noun phrase- so that appears to be like the example for "Oxford".

I still have misgivings though. Among technical type folks you might use it as modifier, eg: "Seti is using a grid approach". If someone read that remark somewhere and wanted to know more I'm not so sure we have great support in WP for finding it. Sure, Search nowdays has the word wheel feature, but "grid computing" doesn't appear in the list (as of the time of this writing). So the user is out of luck. I'd say- leave this term on the disambig case even though it breaks the rule somewhat. If someone else feels the same maybe consider reinstating grid computing. It's a popular concept and may be otherwise difficult to find in WP.-J JMesserly (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting. I'm sympathetic with your misgivings, tho they only think they are looking for an article that could be entitled "Grid". I like to use the "See also" section when such misgivings occur to me; how about

* Grid computing

as the first item in a new closing "See also" section?
--Jerzy•t 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Style

I broke the list into subjects per the WP:MoSDab. However, as I'm still learning to edit WP, I'm not completely sure how to interpret the manual. In the "order of entries" section it shows to be sure to list articles with a clarifier in parentheses and and with the item as part of the name first and then other things afterwords. In the "longer lists" section it shows how to break it into subject areas, but how long does the list have to be for this to be necessitated? It seemed that it was already broken up somewhat so I attempted to bring it to conforming with the Manual of Style. Any opinions? - Behrat (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grid in Amateur radio

The Maidenhead Locator System is often informally known as the "Grid" in amateur radio terms: http://www.arrl.org/locate/gridinfo.html http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19192129.html and http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/Operating_Aids/Grid_Squares/ It would be useful to many users who are not familiar with the exact name. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see it being named the "Grid" anywhere, but it does use the terms grid locator and grid square. Ok, so I relisted an edited version of your entry since it appears to be an important/obscure concept for amateur amateur radio operators. +mt 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Media section?

Apparently there *used*to*be* a newspaper. Now, there is a "GRID.news" website. I came to Wikipedia hoping to learn more about it; so many of these sites turn out to be heavily-ideological propaganda rather than "journalism" per se.  :-( WP had nothing, but I found these: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/25/unusual-origins-news-site-00001776 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/news-media-publication-grid-launches-with-focus-on-interconnected-storytelling-301459473.html https://www.adweek.com/media/news-publisher-grid-interconnected-approach/ Does this qualify "grid.news" as WP "notable"? With two different media/journalism uses, should there be a section of those (pulling the newspaper out of "Periodicals"? Thanks! 73.15.69.75 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

No new section needed — if it is notable as a newspaper it can go under periodicals. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)