Talk:Reverse

Untitled

Reverse is also a legal term, i.e. to reverse a decision. Someone knowledgeable on this should add this. Dismalscholar (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Obverse and reverse

Moved from User talk:Deacon Vorbis

 – –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have given a detailed explanation for why "Obverse and reverse" shouldn't be hidden as a one-item "Other" paragraph on the Reverse disambiguation page. I am reading and editing on my phone, maybe I'm missing smth., but I don't see any explanation for you undoing my edit.

I arrived at this conclusion out of a concrete need, while editing and coming across the abbreviation "rev.". It's quite opaque for many, so I wanted to link it to an article. I found the disamb. page, but ON THE PHONE the very important meaning used in numismatics and the like, didn't show up. Then I discovered it hidden under the heading "Other", as a nonsensical, one-item paragraph. IMO this meaning has far too much relevance in an encyclopedia as to be left hiding there. It is very unlikely that anything else WITH A RELATED MEANING can be associated with it, therefore I gave it its own paragraph.

So the pro arguments are1. Importance/relevance', and 2. Visibility for the user, specifically on the phone, probably the most common device for accessing Wiki.' What are your counter-arguments? If they prove to be less significant, please do re-revert. Stay well and enjoy the reverse side of the corona scare! Arminden (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Disputes about edits to a page should be made on its talk page, not mine. I will say, though, that I reverted as vandalism because the nonsensical edit summary combined with the strange deletion and re-addition made it look like vandalism – sorry if I misinterpreted. As for the merits of the change itself, every item on the page is the most important to whomever is looking for that particular one. Creating a tautological section header for a section with only one entry isn't good practice. It's standard on dab pages to group related types of entries together. Entries that don't logically belong to any good groups often get relegated to an "Other uses" section, like this one. As for your complaint about the mobile view, if you didn't know what "obverse and reverse" meant ahead of time, it would have been even harder to find the item you're looking for, since "other uses" would have been a natural place to look if what you're looking for doesn't belong in any of the other, existing sections. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Deacon, sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. A one-item paragraph under its proper name is "bad practice", but under a generic "Other" it's not. And two-step access makes more sense to you than one-step.

Please remember, in all likelyhood, most Eng. Wiki users are not native speakers. "Rev." is very opaque, and it is widely used. I trusted you to agree to the logic of my edit (sequence of steps have no bearing whatsoever, let alone lead to considering them as vandalism.) That said, since you disagree, I will move this whole discussion to the talk page. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Please indent your replies, see Help:Talk for more info. You may wish to take a look at MOS:DABGROUPING:

Entries which do not fit neatly into any section should be placed in an "Other uses" section or subsection, at the bottom of the page or section (but above any "See also" section).

This appears to apply directly to this case. "Obverse and reverse" is simply the name of the entry; it doesn't make any sense as the title of a group of related entries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Upside down 2600:100F:A020:DB30:495:4195:75FE:1383 (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)