Talk:Ten

Cleanup

The little words "a", "an", "the", etc., should not be removed for items that do not relate to real life individuals. Redirects that match the dab term are preferred per WP:PIPING (for instance, Ten (character) should be in the place of Tien Shinhan). As for the see also section, WP:DISAMBIG#Links to disambiguation pages wants us to link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if it is a redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am misunderstanding WP:PIPING, I do apologize, and am willing to engage in discussion. As it is, I have read the section several times and do not believe that I am misunderstanding it, though if you have a different perception of what it says, then we should probably work on improving the docs. However, let's please keep focused on discussing the articles, and not other editors, thanks. --El on ka 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's of any consolation, I wanted to talk about your edits, not you in particular. Anyway, WP:PIPING explains the Delta example well. What part do you think you don't misunderstand? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PIPING does not indicate that redirects are preferred, only that redirects can be helpful in some circumstances. I don't think the Delta example is applicable here, unless you are suggesting that there might someday be an article about the character Ten separate from the article on Tien Shinhan. The example on cell phone is perhaps more apt, but again it is only suggestive (i.e, can, not should, or must). The appropriateness of using a redirect, IMO, depends in large part on 1) how commonly the subject is referred to by the redirected term (that is, whether editors are likely to create links in non-disambiguation articles using the redirect or if the redirect is created merely for producing a sanitized disambiguation page) and 2) whether the redirect helps to avoid awkward circumlocutions. older ≠ wiser 03:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it in another perspective: Tien Shinhan and tenuto don't look much like the dab term, however, the redirects Ten (character) and ten. do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Delta disambig page is a mess, so I wouldn't take it as an example of disambig "best practices". To be honest, I've been working on disambig cleanup for years, easily over a hundred disambig pages, and I've never seen anyone format a disambig page the way that you seem to think it's working. If I've been doing it "wrong" all that time, well, it's because that's how I've seen other disambig pages already formatted, and no one has ever come along to change anything that I fixed! Which doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but it may mean either that no one else is really sure about it either, or that the docs are so confusing that no one is willing to speak up. :) My own sense of disambig pages is that often there are multiple ways of handling things anyway, so as long as the page ends up fairly clean, it's not worth making a big fuss about it. But since you seem to feel pretty strongly about this, okay, let's get more specific and see if it helps: In the case of Tien Shinhan, my understanding is that the correct entry for him on the "Ten" disambig page should be:

* Ten, or Tien Shinhan, fictional character in Dragon Ball media

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the correct formatting would be:

* Ten (character) or Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media

I've never seen a disambig page formatted as you propose, where we'd link to a redirect "Ten (character)" which redirects to Tien Shinhan. In my understanding, per WP:MOSDAB and WP:PIPING, the whole point of the disambig page is to direct people to the correct link, not to the wrong one. Can you give examples of other "clean" disambig pages which do it the way that you're describing? --El on ka 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know User:JHunterJ? He's the one who taught me to list entries that match the dab's name, even if they're redirects. He, a sysop who has been working on disambiguation pages longer than I, follows this practice. Here are a couple of edits he did which I think may convince you: [1], [2] and [3]. If you really think I'm going about this the "wrong" way, go ahead and ask him. I'm 100% certain that he'll tell you otherwise. Hell, ask User:Abtract while you're at it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, in all of the example links you provided, there is a significant difference with the entries under discussion for Ten: in each case, the before phrasing did not have term being disambiguated at the beginning of the line; JHJ's edits produced a line in which the term being disambiguated was at the front of each line. However, in one case, Buu, the edit was contrary to the guidance for acronymns, and the current version of that page does not use the redirect. In the other cases, it would have been equally acceptable to use lines such as

Gouki, aka Akuma, a fictional character in the series Street Fighter
Goku, aka Son Goku, a fictional character from the Dragon Ball franchise

Although in the case of Goku, since the character is the primary topic for the term, a redirect works better. older ≠ wiser 04:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec responding to Sesshomaru) But when the entries are written as

Ten, aka Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media
Ten. or tenuto, a direction used in musical notation

the dab term begins each line, there is little risk of confusion, and there is no need for a useless redirect. In short, there is nothing about the above entries that are contrary to anything in WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Regarding this edit, there is no reason why we shouldn't use redirects. If you take a look at every dab I've mention here, you'll find that the practice is not uncommon. Actually why does it matter anyway? It's not causing any harm, we should encourage the use of redirects. See WP:PIPING for more information. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the preceding section. There is no more reason why we shouldn't use redirects than why we should. While the practice may be used in some cases, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very good rationale. There is nothing that requires using them, please see WP:PIPING, which is quite clear that such practice is not required and offers only a suggestion that redirects might be helpful in some situations. In the discussion you linked to, the current Francis, Dauphin of France disambiguation page doesn't use any redirects, so I don't see what you're point is in mentioning it. No, we should not blindly encourage the use of redirects, especially if there is unlikely to ever be a separate article under the redirected term. Finally, if it doesn't matter to you, then why do you bother about it? older ≠ wiser 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:PIPING and WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. I've conveyed myself well, you're the one who isn't listening to anything I'm saying. The reason why I wanted you to look at this is to see the precedents I referenced, not to look at Francis, Dauphin of France. And if it doesn't matter all that much to you, why do you care about it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both and have indicated as much many times in the previous discussions. Sorry if I'm a bit dense, but there is an awful lot of confused back and forth chatter at Talk:Francis, Dauphin of France#Request for Comment. I honestly couldn't make heads or tails out of the discussion. If you wanted to point out something in particular in that lengthy exchange, it would have been helpful if you had been more specific about what you were referring to. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please keep discussions focused on the content, and not on the contributors. I have to admit confusion as to why this is a matter worth getting angry about. Since WP:PIPING keeps getting referenced here, that section of the guideline probably needs to be rewritten to make it more clear. Shall we move this discussion to the guideline talkpage? --El on ka 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to make things easier for everyone. Do you really think WP:PIPING needs to be amended again? If that's what it takes, then fine, we'll continue this thread somewhere else. Where exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping and redirects. --El on ka 17:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: moved to Ten (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 (disambiguation) → Ten (disambiguation) – While "10" and "Ten" usually have the same meaning, there are several unrelated uses of "Ten" and "TEN". A combined disambiguation page is acceptable, but "Ten" would be a more accurate title for it. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move disambiguation page back to "Ten". At present 10 leads to the year, as is the norm for all numbers, and Ten leads to 10 (number). As "ten/Ten/TEN" can have many meanings apart from the number, the dab page would be more appropriate at the basic word. I see that it used to be so but was moved in January of this year after discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Historical_years_again, where the argument for the move seemed to be consistency within the treatment of numbers. (There was no formal WP:RM and no discussion elsewhere, as far as I can see - the move was suggested during a discussion on another topic, and implemented within two hours, by an admin who didn't need to wait for RM discussion as an ordinary editor would have had to). I don't think many readers will be concerned whether Ten and other numbers are treated the same way - what we need is the best disambiguation service for readers, and I think that in this case more readers will be better served if we move the dab page for ten/Ten/TEN back to the name Ten. Leave 10 as the year, with hatnote there linking to 10 (number) and the dab page, as at present. PamD 15:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me consistency of how these pages were organised rather than seeming potentially controversial appeared to me as mere common sense. What we had was a mess with these numbers organised this way, those numbers organised that way, other numbers organised other ways, etc. If there's a better way of organising them, I'm all for it, but I hope we're not proposing the reinstatement of a confusing mess. JIMp_talk·cont 00:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: "Ordinary editors" don't have to wait for RM discussions any more than admins. If the move seems uncontroversial, be bold. Had the tidy up seemed controversial, it would have had more discussion before it was done. Given that it has taken three months for a single voice of dissent to emerge, I still would be hard pressed to call it controversial.

Pam, I agree whole-heartedly that what we need is the best disambiguation service for readers. I'm suggesting that consistency is an important, even an essential, part of a good disambiguation service. Consistency makes navigating WP that much simpler. Certainly there may be cases where other factors my trump consistency but these should be shown to exist. If a restaurant manager asks a waiter why he put beer glasses on one table where the other tables have wine glasses, is the waiter going to reply that he didn't think many customers would be concerned? If we're going to single ten, or for that matter eleven, out for special treatment, I'd suggest we come up with a decent reason for doing so (and I'm afraid I can't help you there). JIMp_talk·cont 06:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"didn't need to wait for RM discussion" - the target had more than one revision, so a non-admin would have make a request for an admin to delete the redirect, which could have been taken to RM as requiring discussion.

I agree that consistency is an issue, but unlike most others this isn't just a number disambiguation page, it's also a name/acronym page for "TEN" and unrelated uses of "Ten"; "10" would be a partial disambiguation of it. 10 (disambiguation) would still exist as a redirect. There is already Seven (disambiguation); most other pages consist entirely of number-related entries. Exceptions are 1 (disambiguation), 4 (disambiguation) and 6 (disambiguation) and possibly 20 (disambiguation). Peter James (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just how does tenuto (which is in this DAB page) relate to the number 10? Having this at ten (disambiguation) is more appropriate. 4.238.4.111 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything listed here relates to meanings of "ten", but not everything relates to the number 10. There are other meanings of "ten" unrelated to the number. RightGot (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, preferably back to ten, but even ten (disambiguation) is preferable to the current name. Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.