Talk:Transparent

Talk is currently going on at: Talk:Transparency. Please check there first. -- Ravn 15:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad piping all over the place

This page contradicts MoS:DP#Piping on every link, without good reason.

Let's have a look at what MoS:DP#Piping says:

Piping
[edit]

Piping means concealing the actual title of a linked article by replacing it with other text, typically to suppress parenthetical expressions.
Don't pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed (for example, Moment (physics)). In many cases, this may be all the user needs to distinguish the article.
Exceptions:

Use piping if you're linking to an anchor point on the target page.

Use piping if the article title differs from what it should be due to technical limitations per {{Wrongtitle}}; for instance USS Adder (SS-3) or L^AT_EX.

Use piping to italicize or quote the title portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (movie) or "School" (song).
If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link.

Let's look at that:

"Don't pipe the name of the links to the articles being listed (for example, Moment (physics))."

Let's look at the first one on the page:

Transparent (animal) - eel

What do we have here? A piped link. The link to the article Leptocephalus is being shown under then name "Transparent (animal)", i.e. the original name of the article is being hidden and replaced with a different one. MoS:DP#Piping tells us explicitly not to do this. Do any of the exceptions apply here? No, they don't.

Conclusion: This is bad piping and should be fixed.

If we review each link on this page, we see that they all use bad piping, and should all be fixed.

In my mind this comes under the category of wildly bad content that warrants a speedy fix, i.e. no need to wait for a consensus to be reached.

So I may make the edit straight away. The changes should not be reverted without first answering the issues raised here.

Duckbill 00:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links are relevant

I've looked through the links here and none of them are relevant. WP:D says:

Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics. In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term.

OK, let's look at that:

In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term.

In this case "this word or phrase" is "Transparent". So what we are looking for is topics which could be named "Transparent" or a similar term.

So let's review Leptocephalus. Well it starts to fall apart pretty quickly. "Leptocephalus" is nothing like "Transparent". So it shouldn't be here. That also applies to all the animals, V.42bis, Replication (computer science), Celsian, Fengite, Imprimatura, Voile, and Wet T-shirt contest.

How about Transparent bridge? That includes the whole word "Transparent", so that's good right? Sorry, no. Looking further down in WP:D we see this:

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

So "Transparent bridge". Any good? I don't think so. Would the term "Transparent" be used, on its own, to refer to a "Transparent bridge". I don't think so. Perhaps if you were answering a question on a type of bridge, but that is a highly contrived example. In normal usage, you would never see the term "Transparent" used to refer to a "Transparent bridge". So that entry shouldn't be here. The same argument also applies to some of the other ones (Transparent latch, Transparent Network Substrate, Transparent aluminium, Transparent pudding, and Transparent alumina).

"In normal usage", Depends on which field you are working in, what is not common for you might be normal usage for people working in that field like computers or construction. Mion 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what's left? Nothing sorry.

But doesn't that just mean I delete loads of valuable content? Yes. If you really think it is worthwhile content, perhaps you may want to consider making a page listing things which are transparent (which is what this page appears to be at the minute).

That's all fine and lovely, but it doesn't belong on the disambiguation page for "Transparent".

This page does appear to be wildly off the established practices, so I won't necessarily wait for a consensus to be reached, and may make edits immediately.

Duckbill 01:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No content

If we fix all the bad piping, and remove all the irrelevant links, we end up with no content other than:

Wiktionary links
a "See Also" linking to "Transparency".
language interwiki links

We could then replace it with a redirect to "Transparency".

We would still have the Wiktionary links because "Transparency" contains Wiktionary links for both "Transparent" and "Transparency"
We wouldn't need the "See also" because we would be redirecting to the only page mentioned
If there's no real content, the language interwiki links aren't relevant
We would be in-line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives)

So it looks like we would be good to go on replacing this article with a redirect to "Transparency".

Duckbill 01:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tomorrow I will give some answers why I reverted. Mion 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you are going to undo changes which I have documented cogently, at great length, and with reference to accepted guideline documents, you need to document your reasons first. The page doesn't belong to anyone. No-one has a "god-given" right to make unjustified changes. If you want to make large-scale changes, you need to provide significant support for your changes. I have done this. You haven't. Duckbill 10:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely convinced that my actions are all completely rational and justifiable, and that yours are totally off-beam by a mile. You could argue that I am biased towards my own POV. Perhaps we need to bring in a third party to review the situation and decide who is talking the most sense. I have entered a request for mediation by the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-14 Transparent - unsupported reverts by Mion. Duckbill 11:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idear . Mion 13:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are on the mediation page, would you mind placing the page back ? Mion 14:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Vandalism

duckbill First you ask mediation in the issue and then you start reverting as a vandal. Mion 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Transparent (TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]