Can anyone explain what is going on in the edit section? It looks like people are using it to discuss the article. That's what the discussion page is for. Discussing things on the edit page itself makes it very confusing for people who actually want to edit it. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, this ip has invented the term "edit section", by which they mean the wiki source code, which (unlike the plain text and formatting wiki-markup that affect what's seen in the most popular views of any page) is apparent to many users only via the edit view.
I had suppressed (by commenting them out) a number of entries pointing to articles that could not at that time be justified as Dab targets (for lack of content worth consulting a encyclopedia to find), and considered that my addition of comments on how they fell short would assist editors who wanted to create a basis for reviving the entries. I suppose this fourth edit by ip 98... (and 2nd talk contrib out of their 9 talk or article ones) convicts me as a Pollyanna: it reflects their interest in
- Widow Maker, the name of Pecos Bill's horse
- -- an entry i commented out while remarking in the comment
- The horse is the subject in the article of one sent, which is 2/3 about fiance, not horse.
- They restored the entry and discarded my objection to it. Since then, someone fixed the entry to "Widow-Maker, Pecos Bill's horse in American folklore", and someone added adequate content on the horse to the target article; i forgo any attempt to estimate whether the ip colleague would have hastened the needed rewording of the entry, and/or the additional material on the horse, by at least leaving my objection to the old entry intact as a comment.
--Jerzy•t 23:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Source citations should never go on disambiguation pages. The source that is used has been moved here to this talk page: