Talk:Source: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reverted due to lack of sectioning |
m →Disambiguation and partial title matches: linked to sectioning |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[[WP:D]] says,"Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." I think that many of the items listed in this article are included simply because they have the word "source" in them, which is inappropriate, and that users don't require disambiguation for most of them. --[[User:Pnoble805|Pat]] ([[User talk:Pnoble805|talk]]) 09:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
[[WP:D]] says,"Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." I think that many of the items listed in this article are included simply because they have the word "source" in them, which is inappropriate, and that users don't require disambiguation for most of them. --[[User:Pnoble805|Pat]] ([[User talk:Pnoble805|talk]]) 09:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
:While, yes, links that merely contain "source" but are not referred to as such don't belong (e.g. Counter-Strike:Source), I felt that removing the sectioning went too far -- it looked like a mix of topics with no afterthought. So I've reverted. Individual items should be removed, and perhaps as a result the sectioning could be reduced but should not be eliminated whole cloth. --[[User:Goldfndr|Goldfndr]] ([[User talk:Goldfndr|talk]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
:While, yes, links that merely contain "source" but are not referred to as such don't belong (e.g. Counter-Strike:Source), I felt that removing the [[MOS:DAB#Longer_lists|sectioning]] went too far -- it looked like a mix of topics with no afterthought. So I've reverted. Individual items should be removed, and perhaps as a result the sectioning could be reduced but should not be eliminated whole cloth. --[[User:Goldfndr|Goldfndr]] ([[User talk:Goldfndr|talk]]) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:05, 6 April 2008
does that red link for "literature reference" need to be there? I'm not quite sure what such an article would contain. Visviva 01:13, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguation and partial title matches
WP:D says,"Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." I think that many of the items listed in this article are included simply because they have the word "source" in them, which is inappropriate, and that users don't require disambiguation for most of them. --Pat (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- While, yes, links that merely contain "source" but are not referred to as such don't belong (e.g. Counter-Strike:Source), I felt that removing the sectioning went too far -- it looked like a mix of topics with no afterthought. So I've reverted. Individual items should be removed, and perhaps as a result the sectioning could be reduced but should not be eliminated whole cloth. --Goldfndr (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)