Talk:Word (disambiguation)

Removal

Forstkraut is a vocable discovered 2003. We are desparetely in need of the meaning of this term.

I suspect this is a candidate for "bad jokes and deleted nonsense," myself. But this deathless prose has been preserved here, and will be there, even as I have removed it from the article in chief. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:27, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

The reference in this article to "urban slang" was hopelessly vague. "Urban" of what time, place, etc. I presume this means "hip-hop slang", which certainly uses this in this way, so I am changing it. If someone meant something broader, they can edit and clarify.

---

Major, major reworking of the article in order to transform it into a disambiguation page. The Logos stuff in the Christian religion section would probably be better off moving to Logos, but I'll keep it here for now. --Ardonik 21:59, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Why is suddenly this disambiguation page? IMHO, word (linguistics) is by far the most important meaning of the word word, so it should be here. --romanm (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. If this topic doesn't gather any more opposing comments, someone should swap the pages. -Hapsiainen 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

String

I had added a link to String at the word string, but the last major edit by Jiy has removed it. Is there any good reason for that? --fudo 11:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages): "Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line..." -- jiy 12:38, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I actually like the current version of this page more than the earlier versions. --Ardonik.talk()^* 22:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I didn't know that. However, I think that a link to String (computer science) (maybe to the Formal theory section) would be desirable, at least in the Automata theory page. My research is mainly focused on words in that sense, and I'm not quite satisfied with a one-line definition. fudo 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

On the Automata theory page it would be quite appropriate to link to String (computer science) (in fact, there is no link for it at the moment). On the other hand, a disambiguation page is simply a navigation aid to help people find the article their looking for, not a page for exploration; other links on the line distract from finding a desirable article quickly. Ideally, if someone wishes to know more about something on the disambiguation page (i.e. string), they can follow the main article and find appropriate info and wikilinks within the article itself. -- jiy^Talk 20:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I understand, and I have read the manual of style you previously cited. Hence I'm going to modify automata theory slightly. Thanks for your help. fudo 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Move succeeded, Word→Word (disambiguation) and Word (linguistics)→Word.—jiy (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

---

To make way for moving Word (linguistics) to Word. The linguistic term is the main usage. All others are minor, specialized, and/or derivative of the linguistic term.--jiy (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Voting

• Support.--jiy (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Mihai cartoaje 04:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Gareth Hughes 12:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Kusma (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The linguistic term is not overwhelming in encyclopedic lookup usage; see discussion. -R. S. Shaw 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I disagree that it is clear that the linguistic term is the main usage when accessing an encyclopedia article (although it would be for some people, such as the proposer I'd wager). People use the word 'word' very frequently, but that does not mean they frequently wish to see an article on the linguistic attributes of the familiar concept. Phonetic boundaries and minimal free forms are interesting and all, but they are specialized and not necessarily predominant over the alternative meanings that may want to be accessed in Wikipedia.

The other meanings are not "minor" in some circles. Many people are interested in computers and may find Microsoft Word and computer word interesting subjects. These are not minor subjects in that arena, as might be suggested by the fact those articles are longer than the Word (linguistics) article. The other terms may be etymologically derived from 'word', but that seems irrelevent to the issue of article naming. -R. S. Shaw 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the what links here for word -- the amount of editors who naturally link to the linguistic usage is overwhelming. The argument that a person would be less likely to wish to read about word (linguistics) on the grounds that it is common to them is weak. Conversely, a person is probably more likely to wish to read about a common subject they are familiar with and expand upon their knowledge of it as opposed to reading a technical, specialized subject they are completely unfamiliar with such as Word (computer science).

As a parallel situation, Tree (graph theory) may also be of major interest to some circles, but it would be aburd for anything but the woody plant to reside at Tree.--jiy (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the page per this discussion. —Cleared as filed. 16:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Word Processor

I think listing only one word processor is pov, as there are more than one of them. -- Mihai cartoaje 04:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the purpose of a disambiguation page. Are any word processors besides Microsoft Word called simply "Word"? In common speech, when people say "I'm opening my essay in Word" they mean they are opening it in Microsoft Word. People don't say "I'm opening my essay in Word" when they are using WordPerfect. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation - lists of articles of which the disambiguated term is only part of the article title, such as "word processor", don't normally belong on disambiguation pages.--jiy (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read the page at that link and part of what is written on it is, "Dictionary definitions don't belong here, nor do lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms a part of the article title." "word" is a part of "Microsoft Word", so we cannot list the latter.--Mihai cartoaje

Then the page above needs to be amended. "Word" just means "Microsoft Word" in many contexts, and people will expect "Word" to somehow point to MS Word. I have reverted your change. Kusma (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is free to shorten the name of their favorite word processor to "word", and everyone is free to expect "word" to somehow point to their favorite word processor.--Mihai cartoaje 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

But people don't usually do that. An encyclopedia should reflect common usage. --Kusma (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes, "word" is used to mean "a word processor". For example, the name kword can be interpreted as, "a word processor for the k desktop environment"--Mihai cartoaje 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's all quite simple really: the program is called Word, so there should be a way from "Word" to "Microsoft Word". It's not an abbreviation, it's just the name of the program. Shinobu 02:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Other programs are, similarly, named word, such as EZ Word and Lotus Word Pro.--Mihai cartoaje

That is irrelevant. I could repeat the arguments from above, but you seem to not want to understand them. Please accept the consensus, which is that Word should have an entry for Microsoft Word. --Kusma (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Many, maybe most, word processors contain "word" somewhere in their name, but only one is commonly known as "Word". Only that one qualifies (and should) be on a disambiguation page for "word". It's not that we are M$-lovers; we just recognize the reality of the usage. -R. S. Shaw 03:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I started doing disambig. link repairs on Word and found several entries that link to Word when they obviously mean Micro$oft Word. I'm not an MS lover either but I think it's in common enough usage to warrant inclusion. Gimboid13 08:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

EZ Word and Word Pro are not commonly referred to as Word. I've removed the pov-notice. Ask anyone (go ahead, out on the streets, and do it!) which program is meant when one says Word. We're not including MS WOrd in this list because we like Word so much, but because it's called Word. Whether you like Microsoft or not, they still can call their program anything they want (within normal trademark restrictions) and they decided to call it Word. Since usually people refer to a product using the name the producer calles it, practically everyone calles it Word. Shinobu 10:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The name of microsoft word is "microsoft word" --mc

Well, no. Microsoft is the company name - as such not part of the given name proper. Same goes for Windows, Word Pro, etc. Of course I don't know the legal technicalities, but they are largely irrelevant. Main point is that most people call the program Word, usually without Microsoft prefixed to it, and that in all splash-screens, promotional material, etc. Word is given in a large bold font, and Microsoft only in a thin font so as to create a strong visual separation of company and brand. Shinobu 08:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not have a link on this disambiguation page that points to a list of computer programs that have word in their name or something similar? - Squilibob 10:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

MS Word Dispute

WP:DR

Avoidance

Unfortunately there is nothing much that can be done here - one party wants it on the list, the other party wants it off.

First step

talk to the other parties involved

This has been done, but that didn't work.

Informal Mediation

Let's try this then.

My mediated response is given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/07_12_2005_Word_%28disambiguation%29

Steven McCrary 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Uses" vs. "Usage"

Regarding this edit, is there that big a difference? I've been following the "In other usage" layout for quite some time. What exactly is wrong with it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Order of entries

Hi, Fyrael, thanks for this edit.

I see that you are a member of WikiProject Disambiguation so you're just the person who may be able to help me further.

I can't see the overall logic of the section on songs. It's long enough to need some more sorting IMO. Perhaps

• by date, and I think it's good that most of the entries have dates and the rest should, or
• alphabetically by artist and it looks as though it might have once had this order but that it hasn't been maintained as new entries were added

Is there a convention (formal or just in practice) for this?

Or any other advice you can give? Andrewa (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

At present the section is sorted on two levels. First, the songs that have their own article are placed above songs that don't. After that it actually is in alphabetical order by artist, albeit in a way that is unfortunately favored by some Disambiguation members, but that I find unintuitive. Specifically, if the artist given is a person's first and last name, it uses the last name for sorting. That's why Skylar Grey's song is sorted as G, for example. It's not done this way on all DABs and isn't written into the MoS as far as I know, so feel free to do as you like here. -- Fyrael (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again! That now makes sense.

There are 21 songs listed, 9 with articles and 12 without.

I think a start would be to add section headings to those two (currently implicit) subsections of Songs.

Songs with articles and Songs mentioned in other articles would be my proposed section headings, each at the ==== level. Tweak the TOC if necessary so as not to list that level of section heading there.

Then at the top of each of these subsections I would add a line in italics saying (for the moment) In alphabetical order by artist.

Both of these would IMO be a great help to someone who comes to the page looking for a particular song. Also it would not look quite so much of a mess.

I'm thinking that, in view of the various opinions regarding sorting by artist name, sorting by date might be better. But for the moment, just filling in the rest of the dates would be a start. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)