I am quite happy to grant this article WP-room, in fact I found it while looking for a link, but some of the material badly needs sourcing and more lucid construction. I am not sure why it is represented as being related to Euclidean geometry. I added the category Architecture, but I am not even sure that that is appropriate. Is anyone out there sufficiently familiar with the intended senses and practical usage, to be able to assist? JonRichfield (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The article lacks references and is frankly poorly written - for starters 'pendant' isn't 'better' used as the noun, it is the noun. The correct architectural term is pendentive and the concept is at least given a comprehensible although incomplete explanation there. The reason for removing the category is that It puts the article on a list of just 135 articles at Category:Architecture#Pages in category "Architecture" which is clearly not right, this is not one of the key articles among thousands of articles on the subject. ProfDEH (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club that finds the article unsatisfactory as it stands, and I trust that you soon will be making some constructive and corrective contributions. Beware in doing so however, that you don't fall foul of common usage. I bet you would find that today John Citizen hardly realises that there are two spellings, much less that the two have different meanings (Differences in what? Parts of speech? Ah, gidadahere! Good luck in that little quagmire.) I observe that you omitted to make the restatement of that text yourself; did you have any reason for the omission? If your reason has to do with the prickliness of the illiterati towards any form of prescription or proscription, I sympathise, but then perhaps best not mention it at all.
- I beg to point out however, that this article is about the adjective. It says so explicitly, no matter how poorly, and it is in that context that it mentions the fact that for the noun it is better to use "pendant" (which IMO, it certainly is, but feel welcome to contradict me). Accordingly in making your improvements, please avoid errors such as the claim that the correct architectural term is pendentive, which not only specifically is a noun in the context of the linked article, but has very little to do with the concept of "pendent", so it is hard to make out what you mean by claiming it to be "correct". It is not clear what the incompleteness of the "Pendentive" article has to do with the matter, since, last time I looked, that term neither is correctly used as an adjective, nor in fact applies to anything pendent. However, no doubt you had something in mind that I overlooked?
- On a more pertinent point, note that the policies concerning whether to categorise articles according to whether they are key articles is not clear and in fact in WP and WikiMedia the whole mechanism and even the philosophy of categorisation is arguable; so arguable that in spite of my personal interest in information theory and search efficiency, I recuse myself from serious engagement in the matter, though I would not refuse to discuss salient points of interest informally. However, it is in the nature of things that some items might well have application in wide ranges of fields, and that some fields are relevant to wide ranges of terms; so your objection is unpersuasive so far at any rate. I welcome any more cogent thoughts on the matter. JonRichfield (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Is this really a disambiguation page?
There seem to be so many uses that a disambiguation page seems in order here. Otherwise the article seems to ramble around multiple meanings and loses clarity. Lumos3 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)