From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 14:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Digital (disambiguation)Digital – to stimulate wikipedia community participation in disambiguation of this vague and often misused adjective. No one article covers every possible meaning of the adjective "digital". This solution of making an adjective title a disambiguation page seems to be working fine for the antonym "Analog." Oicumayberight (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support and speedy move: I think that, in principle, this was already agreed as part of the intended outcome of the move request now recorded at Talk:Digital data#Requested move. I think this could have been handled as an uncontroversial technical request. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't oppose this, but note that WP:FIXDABLINKS applies. Moving this disambig page over the existing redirect will require fixing well over 1,000 other articles that currently link to the redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
That's where the wikipedia community participation comes in. It's a wider division of labor. Each person who clicks on the link will either be satisfied with the disambiguation page, or will direct the link to the more specific article. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to WP:FIXDABLINKS. I wasn't previous aware of the policy or the python robot tool (although I had previously noticed a lot of links get mysteriously fixed very quickly and wondered how it happened and figured there must be some automated process for it). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not the kind of link that can be fixed automatically (unless you believe that every link to digital really should point to digital data). There is a WikiProject devoted to fixing ambiguous links and many volunteers. However, Oicumayberight, mostly we are fixing links that were introduced inadvertently; it is not encouraged to add to the already monumental task deliberately. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Pointing every "digital" link to digital data is what is already in effect now with the redirect. Moving and automating is no worse than the way it is now. Not automating after changing the dab title would just be a tradeoff. What would be lost in accurate links would be gained in removal of inaccurate links and due attention brought to oversimplified links that need to be more specific than "digital data." Eventually, the accurate links would be restored, while more careful consideration would be made towards fixing inaccurate or oversimplified links.
I don't think we are questioning whether or not to move the page. The critical question is whether to do the quick-and-dirty automated fix after moving the page or let the community participation do a slower, yet more accurate case-by-case correction of the links. I doubt many of the links that need correcting will be corrected if they all point to digital data. Most users will probably just click on those links, and then go away confused after a little bit of reading. And they may never know that there were more accurate and specific articles written to describe the concept in the context of the article they linked from. I think there will be less confusion, and the inaccuracy/oversimplification problems will be corrected quicker if the links initially point to the disambiguation page. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • STRONG support. "Digital" is too broad. Worry about the work later, just get the right title first. Red Slash 07:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, provided that the links currently pointing to Digital are first fixed to point to the correct target articles (presumably most are intended for Digital data) to avoid a lot of noise in the list of disambiguation links needing to be fixed. bd2412 T 22:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation page[edit]

This is a disambiguation page. Please see WP:D (esp. WP:PTM) and WP:MOSDAB. Rather than claiming WP:IAR in an edit summary, please show need (and consensus) for ignoring the rules first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained the need above. Did you not read the talk page? The disambiguation effort needs more careful effort from the wikipedia community than a bot can provide. Just linking to the lists of the hundreds of alternative links does not make it much easier for editors to find the most relevant articles that aren't oversimplified. Whatever style guide suggestions or rules you are using is obviously inconsistent or weak considering the importance of the links you allowed to be deleted and the unimportance of the links you allowed to remain.
Rather than violate WP:EW instead of applying WP:BRD, please show the specific guidelines or rules that you think have been violated for each link you've deleted and the need (and consensus) for applying the guideline or rule. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't undo a bot's edits. You reverted an editor's edits that cleaned the disambiguation page according to the manual of style agreed upon by the broader community for disambiguation pages. I deleted links that are not needed in a disambiguation page. If they are needed for exploration (as opposed to disambiguation), then an article (article, set index article, broad concept article) is needed in addition to this disambiguation page, which is needed for efficient navigation of topics that could have an ambiguous title "Digital". WP:PTM for the partial title matches, which was the only type of entry I deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
You are neither making a case for why they aren't needed, nor are you making a case for why the ones you allowed to remain are needed. In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. You don't have consensus for your specific edits on this page just by pointing to a WP:MOS. The broader community that created the MOS is only agreeing to what guidelines should be included in the MOS, not the actual edits to other articles that one person considers to be based on those guidelines or rules. You've already made edits where you've deleted multiple links to important articles without discussing the specifics as to why you've deleted them. The MOS is not a badge for you to do a hatchet job on other people's edits without consensus. I'm open to discussion of each link you want to remove in a more surgical manner, rather than a hatchet job. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't undo bot edits? Forgive me for mistaking you're very bot like edits for actual bot edits. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
My edits were also not bot-like. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DexDor has only mentioned 1 link specifically were WP:PTM applied. That one can obviously go. At least 10 of the 13 other linked article's subjects (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title. Examples: Digital infinity "spoken language is digital" [1] Digital signal "digital is clearer" [2] Digital media "digital is more durable" [3] Electronic media "Digital instead of print" [4] Digital physics "The universe is digital" [5] Digital philosophy ""we think digitally" [6] Digital Revolution "the world has gone digital" [7] Information Age "ever since the digital age" [8] Digital divide "most digital countries" [9] Digital native "young digital generations" [10] Oicumayberight (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

    • The references might be helpful for discussion purposes, but so far as disambiguation is concerned they are irrelevant unless the linked articles support the claimed usage. And in any case, I don't think these arbitrary gleanings from Google actually do much to support the usages you claim. In many cases, they show little more than informal conversations on chat boards, not usage in reliable sources. olderwiser 21:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
      Oh! So now we are reinterpreting WP:PTM to say " article's subjects (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context except for informal conversations on chat boards." Go ahead. Keep up with WP:CREEP in your search for a one-size-fits-all bot-like solution. Keep rendering disambiguation pages useless. Keep making it difficult for editors to find the specific article that may better describe the context in which they intend to link to. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      Reliable sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia; no reinterpretation has occurred. Keeping disambiguation pages uncluttered by partial title matches makes disambiguation pages more useful, not useless. Editors who want to search for occurrences of the word "digital" should click on "containing... Digital" at the bottom of the search box. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      First, as mentioned, there are hundreds of links to sift through using that method. Talk about a needle in a haystack. So you want to go from a page with practically no links that have partial title matches to pages with an overwhelming hundreds of links? How's that gonna make looking for a more specific usage any easier? Second, that doesn't cover any of the links that do not include the word "digital" in the title such as electronic media or information age. You are really showing how your one-size-fits-all solution is not a solution at all. It's just a way to make everything look sharper, user-friendliness be damned. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      Or, it happens to look sharper as a side effect of being more efficient for user navigation, user-friendliness be praised. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
      Oicumayberight (or wrong as the case may be), what would help is if the articles you want to link to on this disambiguation page actually supported the claim that the articles are ambiguous with the unmodified term "digital", preferably with reliable sources per WP:V. olderwiser 03:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You are expecting something in print from a well-known respected author that says something to the effect of "digital is used generically to describe electronic media" or "digital age is used to colloquially describe the information age" or "digital could mean digital media?" I didn't know that well-respected publishers were in the business of stating the obvious. Think about what you are saying here. You're basically claiming evidence of absence by claiming that the meaning of "digital" has never been mistaken for any of the meanings I've listed. And then when I show you evidence, you dismiss it because it wasn't in print by a well-known author or it's "informal conversations on chat boards." I doubt you'll accept anything as proof for your subjective PTM guide posing as policy. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. A citation in a reliable source showing the unmodified term "digital" is used to refer to a subject is all that is needed. olderwiser 04:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess I missed the part of WP:PTM that added that specific criteria that "informal conversations on chat boards" doesn't count as a source showing evidence of unmodified term "digital" is used to refer to a subject. Probably because it's not there. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You giving links on a talk page is what is irrelevant. What is needed is for the articles themselves to support the ambiguous usage that you claim. olderwiser 11:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. Regarding digital media, explain why these articles are not notable: [11] [12]. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the section on self-published sources (online and paper)? [S]elf-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. But let's suppose for the sake of discussion that the external links you provided were reliable sources. What precisely are they supposed to demonstrate? That is, what term is it that you think these links demonstrate ambiguity with "digital"? olderwiser 11:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That's referring to statements of fact, not evidence of ambiguity from wikipedia editors. You are mixing policies here. Think about what you are saying here. The disambiguation page is for the wikipedia users and editors. Do you think a well-respected highly paid (but not self-publishing) author fits the profile of an average wikipedia user? You are saying that a term is ambiguous only if a well-respected highly paid author (that isn't publishing his/her own work) has been proven to have used the term generically. Under those requirements, a well-spoken author of a book on the subject of digital media must never used the phrase "digital media" in the book, or you could say that the meaning was clear throughout the book. So nothing is ambiguous unless a well-spoken well-respected highly-paid authors have been unclear in print. Got it! Oicumayberight (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the only confusion around here is yours. Disambiguation pages are navigational aides to help readers find articles where the subject of the article may be known by an ambiguous term. In general, the title of the article makes the ambiguity obvious. E.g., Barton, Cambridgeshire and Barton Transport. Either could be referred to as simply "Barton". In some cases, the ambiguity may be an alternate name, or a topic addressed in a section of an article with another name. E.g., Barton is also the name of a computer processor. But in these cases, the ambiguous usage is clear in the linked article. As Theoldsparkle explained below, PTM are excluded where there is no indication that the subject is known solely by the ambiguous term. If the linked article gives no indication that it may be known by the ambiguous term, there is no reason to include it on the disambiguation page. olderwiser 16:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There's your evidence of absence again. I'm just the only one willing to discuss the confusion on the talk page. Most user/editors don't have the patience if they even know the talk page is an option. And after what I've experienced, I don't blame them. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"evidence of absence"!?!, excuse my French, but WTF are you going on about? How is that concept even remotely applicable here? It is certainly not anything that I or anyone else here has been talking about. How you imagine it to be relevant is simply beyond understanding. It is absolutely possible to produce positive evidence that a term is ambiguous. Period. Full stop. For an article to be considered as ambiguous, the article should make the usage clear. If there is verifiable evidence that reliable sources use the unqualified term "digital" to refer to a topic, that detail should be noted in the article. olderwiser 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The "evidence of absence" was based on you're claim that I was the only person who found it confusing just because I'm the only person who was willing to discuss it. Could you show an example of a proof positive for anything that you've allowed to stay on a disambiguation page? And should all entries now be sourced with a link to the reference to comply with your strict standard so that nobody will ever question that it's ambiguous? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Oic, if I were to pick a random internet forum right now and post a comment there saying "The English rock band, The Beatles are also know as Digital", that would be enough of a basis in your view to add *The Beatles to this page? bd2412 T 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
No. But if the Beatles could be generically or colloquially described by the adjective "digital" for whatever reason (e.g. band member coined the term, first band to use digital audio, etc.) enough to make the adjective used generically or colloquially in multiple forums, that would make it a candidate for a link on this disambiguation page. Whether that generic use was common enough to include is a matter of judgement worth discussing case-by-case, not a matter of someone applying WP:JUSTAPOLICY without discussing why it's removed. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur with JHunterJ and Bkonrad on what uses the disambiguation page should generally include. I'm not sure the reasoning behind this opinion has been made clear. The issue behind including any given meaning on a disambiguation page, at least from my view and I believe the view of the MOS, is: is it reasonable that a user seeking this topic would search or navigate to the disambiguated term? For example, it's reasonable that someone who wants to read about a song titled "Digital" would go to Digital. It seems less reasonable and likely that someone who wants to read about digital philosophy would go to Digital, as opposed to Digital philosophy. Even if there's a blog post that establishes it's talking about digital philosophy and then uses the shorthand "digital" to refer to digital philosophy, that doesn't mean someone who reads the blog post and wants to know more about digital philosophy will go to Wikipedia and search for the single word "digital." Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This was never about someone searching for "digital." This was about editors who've linked to "digital" but didn't realize that there was an article that was more accurate or more specific than digital data. This was about including the most common articles that are more accurate or more specific than digital data. Most wikipedia editors who link terms aren't going to go digging through hundreds of articles just to find the more accurate and more specific usage. If you don't believe that, just look at what links to digital data. By removing the most common meanings from the disambiguation page, it's defeated the purpose of the disambiguation page. Now it's barely any different from doing a search on the term. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Good. It should be barely any different from doing a search on the term. Disambiguation pages specifically index direct uses of the term as reflected in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Too bad there's no way to keep track of that other than to manually comb the history looking for evidence of confusion. If disambiguation pages were intended to be no better than searches, then we should just speedy delete them all. It would be the same effect. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Further Disambiguation in See Also[edit]

Why was Diego Moya's edits reverted [13]. WP:SEE ALSO states "unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page." The guide is clearly leaving these matters to judgement with subjective language. What's the criteria here? Why is one link allowed to stay (but with no description), while other links with seemingly equal ambiguity being removed. This is beyond cleaning. This is stripping the wall paint and floor covering. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The All pages beginning with "Digital" and the All pages with titles containing "Digital" links aren't very helpful because the number of hits are too numerous to visually scan, especially for those who don't know what they are looking for. And it doesn't cover the terms that don't have the word "digital" in the title or the article, but may be mistakenly interpreted as digital. Eventually the articles may clear up the confusion, but the disambiguation page could only help in pointing to those articles most commonly mistaken to be synonymous or summed up by the adjective "digital." Oicumayberight (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have particular strong feelings about the items currently listed under "See also" (actually, I don't understand at all why Boolean algebra is there, but I'm assuming that there's a decent reason because it hasn't been a subject of contention, as far as I've seen). I reverted User:Diego Moya's additions to "See also" because they appeared to be based on a misunderstanding. His edit summary said, "Non-ambiguous but related articles belong in the See also section, per WP:SEEALSO and WP:D#Usage guidelines." But a dab page can't have "related articles", because a dab page has no topic that those articles can relate to. WP:SEEALSO is a guideline applying to articles, not disambiguation pages. (And WP:D#Usage guidelines is discussing the use of hatnotes on articles, not disambiguation pages.)
WP:SEEALSO includes a passing reference to disambiguation pages, by saying that disambiguation pages can be linked from other disambiguation pages, but not from articles. I don't think any of the links Diego Moya had added were to a disambiguation page, so that doesn't seem relevant. WP:SEEALSO also links to WP:MOSDAB#"See also" section, which does discuss what belongs in a dab page's "See also" section; the links Diego Moya had added don't seem to fall within the described boundaries. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You probably don't understand at all why Boolean algebra is there because the explanation for why it was there was removed by one of the wikiproject disambiguation members, making it ambiguous as to why it was listed on a disambiguation page, the same user who moved it to the see also section. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Source for ambiguity notability[edit]

For some strange reason, a stricter standard has been pushed while editing this page requiring references beyond casual conversation or blogs and obviously misdirected links on wikipedia for including some links. IMO, this is a ridiculous WP:CREEPY stretched over-application of subjective policy using WP:JUSTAPOLICY with little or no discussion to back it. But in an effort to collaborate, I'm starting this talk section to list references. They could also be listed in the articles themselves according to WP:DABREF, but I'm putting them here for those who are only interested in deleting the link before reading the article.

Are you still trying to prove that people refer to these topics as just "digital"? I honestly don't know a) what specific links you're arguing to include at this point, or b) what link is supposed to be supported by this reference. I have to ask you something: my understanding from your comments at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation is that you have no objection to using a broad concept article instead of a disambiguation page to meet your purpose, but you decided to use the dab because it seemed easier. Does the dab still seem easier than the broad concept article? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you were using this article to support including a link to Analogue electronics on this page? I'm not sure how to politely comment on that. Just, seriously, do the broad concept thing already. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not initiating the broad concept article in any way other than discussion. I haven't the patients for hours of edits deleted by seconds of deletionist failing to see a problem or subjective interpretation passing for objective. That article would take a long time to develop, and I'm not even sure everyone is sold on the idea. At this point, judging by the quickness which they are reverted without little discussion, I already feel like too many of my article edits regarding digital are not welcome.
In your comments you said "It seems like quite a stretch to assume there's a high enough likelihood that users will go to Digital looking for Analogue electronics that we need to include the link to the latter here." That's not the likely scenario as I see it. More likely, a user will assume that "digital" is synonymous for "electronic," never knowing that there's a distinction between analog and digital electronics. The word, electronic may never even occur to them when talking about what powers their digital devices, assuming that the batteries and power supply are also "digital." Never overestimate the limited vocabulary of teenagers born in the digital information overload age. It should be at least mentioned as an in contrast to "analog electronics" in the link description for digital. Something tells me that it's OK for anyone but me to make that change. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Further reading for doubters of ambiguity[edit]

Here's some external links that may help any doubters to the extent of the "digital" adjective's ambiguity, use more than bot-like consideration when removing links.