Talk:Split

Using piping in links

While the MOS generally discourages piping on dab pages, it does essentially say they are appropriate when the associated description provides the necessary context: "When the link is in the description, rather than at the start of the entry, piping can be used more freely." --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at the MOS talk page here. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fictional magazine

Lambtron asked: "would someone ever seek this with the search term "split" and, if not, does it belong on this dab ?"[1] I think it's possible -- it does seem frivolous, but then, so does the existence of an article for the episode and its mention of the magazine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's beyond frivolous: the magazine is not even mentioned in the article about the episode. -- Lambtron (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see "In preparation for an interview with Splits Magazine, cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) demands that new cheerleader Mercedes Jones lose 10 lb in a week." on Home (Glee). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it now (search case mismatch, duh!). At any rate, the issue really boils down to this: Dabs are "used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." Said article is called "Home (Glee)", which is unlikely to be sought with the lone search term "split". Also, the section of the article that mentions the magazine has no "split" in its heading. If this qualifies for inclusion in this dab, then why not every wp article that contains the word "split"? -- Lambtron (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that was rhetorical, but not every article that includes the word "split" should be included here. The differences between them and the ones listed are (a) the "splits" listed are different topics; the other articles's "splits" would refer to one of the existing topics; and (b) an editor took the small time to include the ones here. Topics (like fictional magazines) covered by articles that are called something else (like "Home (Glee)") are explicitly allowed in the guidelines MOS:DABMENTION -- the section title does not have to be the ambiguous title. Which article should readers looking for the fictional magazine be directed to, if not Home (Glee)? I delete entries from dabs all the time, but that's when they aren't mentioned on the linked article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it quite a stretch to treat Splits Magazine as an encyclopedia "topic"? I can't envision a Wikipedia article about it -- there doesn't seem to be enough substance to warrant even a stub. That lack of substance, and commensurate lack of significance, is exactly why the magazine is not listed in any heading. Perhaps I'm being a stickler here, but I feel that until such a stub exists, or at least a critical mass of information that would justify a stub, the dab entry should be omitted. Otherwise we run the risk of degrading this dab to nothing more than a dictionary of obscure trivia. -- Lambtron (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation guidelines do not require a stub, so you're not being a stickler for the existing guidelines. I delete a lot of entries from dabs that are too obscure -- too obscure meaning that they aren't mentioned on the linked page. MODE magazine also has no section header, but is correctly listed on Mode (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant stickler for common sense. A dab entry is not inherently justified just because it's permitted by wp guidelines. Furthermore, there is not always a strong relationship between obscurity and inclusion in wp. I've taken a good faith, unbiased look at this and here's what I see:

• The mere mention of a fictional magazine does not constitute material worthy of a stand-alone article. It's extremely unlikely that this brief mention will develop into something more substantial. There will never be a Splits Magazine article, or even a section header containing that title because there's nothing more to say about it. It is not a "topic" that will be sought by any researcher.
• The function of the split dab is to enable researchers to find a specific topic among identically named topics. Since the magazine is so obviously not a notable topic, and it is extremely unlikely to be confused with notable topics entitled "split", its entry is only cluttering the dab page and serving to make it more difficult to find truly notable topics.

Yes, it's true that the guidelines permit such entries but, frankly, a little common sense should sometimes be applied along with the guidelines. I believe that hasn't happened here. -- Lambtron (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it was resolved.[2]. I'm not sure how your view is unbiased, nor how common sense can be stickled. I have not claimed any entry is inherently justified just because it's allowed. I have noted, in my own unbiased look, that this entry appears to be justified and allowed. The topic does not need a stand-alone article. The entry does not appear to clutter the dab page nor making any of the other topic (all of which appear in exactly the same position they would without the new entry) harder to find. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently many millions of people have watched this TV show - at least some of them might be wondering what "Splits magazine" is, and including it in this dab page will make it easier for them to find out.--Kotniski (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree that this fictional magazine is not notable, it appears to be noteworthy enough to merit a mention in the article. This makes it a valid dab-page entry, in my opinion. And per Kotniski's comment, a viewer might try looking it up thinking that perhaps it is a real magazine.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it out myself. Splits Magazine is not a topic that is covered in any article in WP. There is nothing about the topic in Home (Glee). It is merely mentioned in passing; the sentence could have as easily said "a magazine". Like a redlink entry, these entries should guide a reader to "some meaningful information about the term", although whether info is "meaningful" is of course subjective. MOS:DABMENTION seems to assume the topic may have a section in another article, or, as in the examples there, be an alternative term for the topic or contain a great deal of information integrated throughout the article. In my opinion, many dab pages are way too cluttered. It seems unlikely many readers will search for or link to "Splits" expecting an article about a magazine mentioned in one episode of a fictional show, but if they do and click on the link, they won't find out any meaningful information about the topic. Station1 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They'll find out that it's fictional, and in which show it appears. (Which they might not have known/remembered beforehand.) That's probably what they want to know. Just because we wouldn't be interested in such things ourselves doesn't mean we should make it harder for other people to discover them if they want to. (I mean, it's not a huge deal, but as a matter of principle, we shouldn't be removing paths to information because we think the quantity or "seriousness" of the information is insufficient - someone else might think the same about some information that you will one day want.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The dab entry itself already says everything there is to know: it's a fictional magazine that appears in a Glee episode. It's unproductive to direct researchers to an article that fails to provide additional, in-depth information about the dab topic, which is a fictional magazine, not a tv show. The dab entry holds out promise of expanded facts about the magazine, which is not forthcoming in the Glee article. This would be well suited as a line item in List of Glee trivia, but it serves no practical purpose as a dab entry. Lambtron (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A dab page is a navigational tool: its purpose is to direct readers to articles. The topic is a fictional magazine. The article that mentions the topic is an article about a TV show. If you wanted to create List of Glee trivia, that could serve as the blue link in the description of the topic's entry instead of the TV show article, sure. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a dab is to direct readers to articles that expand on the dab topic, which in this case is a fictional magazine. This dab entry fails to do that. Lambtron (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly what it does. (The article may not expand on it much, but better to give the interested reader what we've got than to give them nothing.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And if it happens that the dab entry tells a reader all they wanted to know about the topic, that's all the better - we've enlightened them without even making them click another link.--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the function of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Lambtron (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

?? Dictionaries tell about words; I don't think a fictional magazine name would make it into a dictionary. (Or a normal encyclopedia; but Wikipedia is not normal, and that's what makes it so valuable.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand the opposing opinion, I'd side with including the magazine in this case. Occasionally I do exclude entries from disambiguation pages that technically meet MOS:DABMENTION, but either a) the topic is so obscure that it seems wholly implausible that anyone would ever search for that item, and/or b) the article mentions it but really provides no information whatsoever likely to be helpful to someone searching for that topic. In this case, I can see someone wondering if the magazine exists outside of that one Glee episode, and the dab page would inform them. The reasons for including it are kind of anomalous, in my opinion, but I'd include it nonetheless. Propaniac (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The source of this controversy boils down to the loosely-defined guidelines set forth in MOS:DABMENTION. I have started a thread here in an effort to resolve the issue at its source. Lambtron (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling this a controversy is a bit ambitious. You disagree with the guidelines (and call them loosely defined as a result) and have started a thread to discuss whether they should be changed. That's not a controversy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to label it any way you like, though I'm not sure how this issue could be considered non-controversial. From my perspective, this discussion came about due to what I believe to be shortcomings in the guidelines at DABMENTION, and that's why I started a thread there. My only agenda here is to improve Wikipedia. That's not a bad thing, is it? Lambtron (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Split and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that kind. I am of the opinion that the Splits Magazine entry should remain. I would not be of that opinion if it were not mentioned in an article, but as it is, I think that is enough to cause it to be in this dab list.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Split, Croatia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)