Talk:Albatross (disambiguation)

I cannot believe there not a single mention of the First World War fighter aircraft

Albatross Soaring Machine

The following entry was removed with the claim that it is only a partial title match. It doesn't have its own page, but would surely deserve one, so in the interim I have added a redirect.

The Albatross Soaring Machine, an unsuccessful flying machine designed by William Paul Butusov in 1896

The edit summary that removed it was "2 editors agree this is a partial entry per WP:PTM, fails pipe WP:MOSDAB -do not add without gaining consensus, spirit WP:BRD)"

The following text from WP:PTM is what I believe applies: "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, since that name is used by the U.S. state article, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi"."

In the context of this page, I believe this means: Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. For instance, the Albatross Soaring Machine article could not feasibly be titled Albatross, since that name is used by the article about the birds, but it is included at Albatross (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Albatross".

To me, it is very clear that the Albatross Soaring Machine belongs on the Albatross (disambiguation) list. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors do not agree with you. They removed that entry - giving the same partial match reason. I was in the middle of explaining this on your talk page, when you canvassed WP:CANVAS at the plant project [1] . This resulted in this undo by a canvassed editor user:Obsidian Soul [2] which also removed (lookfrom, intitle lines) intended as a compromise to cover such partial matches. There was no reason given in the edit summary or here for removing them. Why? Also, we don't pipe entries on DAB pages. I chose not to engage in such a situation. I've recently marked this for DAB cleanup and will leave for now thanks. Widefox; talk 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above allegation of canvassing is false, as was fully explained before the above edit occurred. The explanation is given on my talk page and in the ANI that the above editor started (currently here). The supposedly canvassed editor is an experienced content editor who responded to seeing part of the discussion on their watch list, and made their own decision about content for this page.

Really? That was about another page. For the record, I'm sure Obsidian Soul will tell you he didn't see this page on your talk page. Facts are important "for the record" [3]. Widefox; talk 14:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued bad faith assumptions is astounding. Yes I learned about this page from WT:PLANTS, but no, I was already aware of the discussion and already had my own stance on your apparent massive misunderstanding of what WP:PTM means and how it applies to reader navigation. Your early posts on Sminthopsis84's page were congenial, and I thought it was going to be resolved quickly. But no. Apparently, you don't like a consensus where there are more than two editors. Your continued accusations that I was canvassed (including your taking this to AN/I) is insulting to me as an editor. No, I was not canvassed, drop the stick and start defending why you think Albatross Soaring Machine does not deserve to be here rather than avoiding the issue by wikilawyering. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record, the lookfrom and intitle lines mentioned above were inadvertently removed because user:Widefox had bundled them with the contentious deletion of Albatross Soaring Machine. They are now restored. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's happened twice now. Mistakes happen in edit warring. Irony is, it was the compromise being a casualty. Normally, controversial edits are discussed FIRST, rather than edit warred, and blamed on someone else! Widefox; talk 13:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, normally they're discussed rather than taken to AN/I as soon as another editor joins the discussion. So discuss.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine to have at this DAB, it serves a purpose, reader access, where albatross is a designation in aeronautics for assorted flying machines. It would be odd and incovenient for the reader, and pointless, to remove only one of the albatross flying machines. Eau (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly because there's three editors here from the unrelated WT:PLANTS there's no environment for a constructive discussion. One of the two issues I pointed out (the piping) with that controversial entry has now been fixed by Bkonrad. I don't see further progress on this page which still needs cleanup, so guess it will have to wait. As to why Sminthopsis84 came here after me I do not know but don't appreciate. Widefox; talk 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]