Template talk:Lists of symphonies

Disambiguation links

I understand the principle of linking to "X (disambiguation)" rather than "X", and for the most part I agree with it, yet I have to register my objection to its application in this particular case. It has been a long-standing practice to clear redirects from navboxes so that a link will appear black and bold when the page to which that link leads is viewed. As the template currently stands, the link remains blue and clickable at all times, and therefore the proper formatting is missing and it becomes possible to click on links in a cyclical pattern, returning to the page of origin through the redirect. In this context, I believe it would be reasonable and appropriate to treat this rare template (as navboxes are rarely used for disambiguation pages) as an exception to the rule, and therefore to have the links therein lead directly to their intended targets. Waltham, The Duke of 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid point that should be discussed. I've copied your comment to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Concerns about WP:INTDABLINKS vs. templates. (If you aren't OK with that, please feel free to revert.) --JaGa^talk 08:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also suggested a (rather clumsy) workaround to the problem there.--Kotniski (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps not all that clumsy. I've implemented it in this template - does it satisfy everyone's needs?--Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It certainly satisfies mine. Nice work, Kotniski. Waltham, The Duke of 10:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, useless and harmful redirect that is a waste of computer resource does not ameliorate yet. If you desire to use not Symphony No. X but Symphony No. X (disambiguation) in this case, you should move Symphony No. X to Symphony No. X (disambiguation) and edit Symphony No. X as #REDIRECT [[Symphony No. X (disambiguation)]]. If so, I completely approve using Symphony No. X (disambiguation) instead of Symphony No. X. --220.102.72.14 (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to worry about performance; whatever decisions we make on these and other matters should be directed by convenience and common sense, rather than "[our] (probably limited) understanding of performance issues". On the matter of redirects, I do not understand how they are harmful, but I do know they are not useless. Linking to disambiguation pages instead of specific articles is a serious navigational problem throughout Wikipedia, and the guideline on only linking to the versions of dab pages containing (disambiguation) in their title aims at making clear the distinction between accidental and intentional links to such pages, and thus aiding maintenance. Regarding the titles of dab pages, the accepted practice is to only use (disambiguation) if the primary topic for a name is already taken and used as an article (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page). This inevitably leads to linking to redirects in several cases, which was apparently not deemed a serious issue. If you disagree with the guideline, you can take up the matter at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, but unless and until it changes, we continue to follow it. Personally, I find it quite reasonable and would prefer not to see it change. Waltham, The Duke of 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind reply. Even if it is wasteful and irrational (at leaset for me), linking to X (disambiguation) is more recommended than X directly, right? Since another problem has been already solved by Kotniski's good improvement, I understand and accept them all (whether I like or not). --60.237.151.2 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC) (former 220.102.72.14)

And even if resource consumption by redirects were a problem, then the suggestion of moving all dab pages to "X (dsiambiguation)" would make the problem worse, not better. Because each such page would then require a redirect from "X", and this redirect would need to be followed every time anyone entered "X" in the search box.--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages?

Currently the "Symphony No. [X]" pages are defined as disambiguation pages (the 22 pages in that format are listed at List of symphonies by number), although they take some licence w.r.t. the disambig page format, e.g. including redlinks and more than one link per entry (see e.g. Symphony No. 1).

I propose to convert these pages to "List" pages, with a further advantage that a nav template can connect them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case the individual pages should probably be renamed along the lines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by 'the individual pages' in the above comment - presumably the 'Symphony no. X' pages, which would become, e.g. 'List of Symphonies numbered [X]' (?). And I suppose the present 'Symphony no. [X]' pages would just be links to the relevant 'List' pages?--Smerus (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

NB: I now see that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(long_lists), which you cite, actually gives Symphonies as an example - "*The sub-articles of List of symphonies by number are Symphony No. 1, etc. Overly-rigid interpretation of this guideline and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists might have resulted in names like List of numbered symphonies: 1, but this obviously would not have been helpful for readers." - which suggests that your proposal may not be regarded as necessary.--Smerus (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, they have been long list before (should have remembered, my apologies) – the question is: if we convert them to that again, shouldn't something be done about the page names, I mean, make them more stable so that they aren't inadvertently recast as disambig pages again? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Pokorný and Segerstam

As they both have a number of symphonies (~140 and 285, respectively) far higher than Haydn, they are not relatively known. Should we still include them, or not? McLennonSon (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)