User talk:JHunterJ/Abtract Sesshomaru Neutral Ground

This is a "neutral ground" page for Abtract and Sesshomaru to talk to one another without running afoul of the agreement not to use each other's talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have some suggestions Sess. If you are interested in discussing it so that we can move forward, indicate here please. Abtract (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got an idea of my own. First, what do you have in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe if we told each other what we found annoying about the other, there might be lessons to be learned about our own behaviour ... and I have a feeling in some respects we are similar so discussing it may bring that out. I already believe we do both want a better wp, just that we have slightly different ways of going about it. What was your idea? Abtract (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two things I want to ask of you:

1. What pages are on your watchlist (which you believe are also on mine) that you don't ejoy editing? I'm thinking you'll keep an eye on "your" pages, whilst I keep an eye on "mine".

2. Why do you place primary meaning(s) on a dab that doesn't have "(disambiguation)" as part of the title? That's one of the things that keep bothering me.

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. This may be a good idea but I am hoping we can come to such a good understanding that it will not be necessary.

2. This is easy in my mind but may be harder to write so forgive me if you don't understand it first time. You are correct that, when a dab page does not have (disambiguation) in the title there is not a primary topic because that would necessitate the creation of a "term (disambiguation)" page to make way for "term" as the primary topic article ... except when there are spelling variants include in a dab page. When variants occur, I have argued (mainly with JHJ I seem to remember) that the variant could become the primary term if it was a "bald" article name so to speak ... so if we had Term as the dab page and one of the entries was Terms then I argued that this would become the primary topic simply because it was a legitimate item and was "bald" (there is probably a better word but I hope you get my meaning). JHJ has convinced me that this is only the case if there is more than one "terms" articles, in other words if Terms would have been the primary topic of its own dab page Terms (disambiguation) and this was combined for neatness into Term, then Terms would be the primary topic. Abtract (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can list every dab from my watchlist, so we can decide who will watch what. Now as far as primary topics go, it would be best if that was specified in the guidelines. Think there needs to be consensus first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with my point? (do you understand it? apologies if you don't).

What else about my editing annoys you? Abtract (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest thing that annoys me is that I don't like it when you keep doing that, and I believe SlackerMom and Bkonrad agree (notice how they turned the "primary topic" into a regular entry, Bkonrad also made a similar edit here). However, if WP:WPDIS and/or the MoS say it is ok, I would concede. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why does it annoy you? Surely it isn't that big a deal. And if it wasn't that it would be something else ... you are always annoyed with me. Or at least that's how it seems to me. Abtract (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't follow our manual of style Abtract. That's pretty much the only qualm I have with you. If you're going to follow the rules, follow them to the letter. That's all I ask. Ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my biggest annoyance with you is that you spend too much time following what you perceive to be the letter of the rules rather than the spirit and this sometimes leads you down the wrong path imho. What can it matter if it says "Rock(s)" or "Rock and rocks"? Is it worth annoying other editors to make tiny little changes? Is it worth making work for other editors by asking them a stream of questions on tiny points of detail? Abtract (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there'll never be a compromise. We'll always have opposite views. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK but we don't need a compromise ... we just need to understand where the other is coming from, and not to react against that viewpoint. Abtract (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. BTW you can make those changes to Here, War Machine (disambiguation), Shine, and any other pages you see fit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your offer but thanks. So why don't we just accept the fact that we are different and try to build on each other's edits (when we inevitably cross paths again)? If we started from the assumption that we are the "best of friends" working to the same ends I am pretty sure the time is right to move forward and abandon agreements" and just edit normally as JHJ recommended. Abtract (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this, go ahead and change any instances of repetition in disambiguation pages, which you so profoundly advocated. I have nothing else to say. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that I "profoundly advocate" it but I just feel repeating "song" for example is a waste of time and perhaps more importamt looks a tad inelegant ... it certainly doesn't add anything to the process of disambiguation. You may disagree with me but don't you at least think I have a point? I certainly think you have a point when it comes to sticking to the letter of the guidelines. Indeed I can be a bit of a stickler when it suits me ... Abtract (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting aside[edit]

The idea that I advocated was that a dab entry should follow one of two formats:

Dab target
Dab target, a thing that is referred to as dab

Either the entry doesn't need a description (which is good), or the entry needs a description, and the description should define the entry. In the case where the entry includes a dabbing noun phrase, this usually means that I would repeat the noun phrase:

Dab target, a play by Shakespeare
Dab target (play), a play by Shakespeare

The description of the Shakespeare play would remain the same regardless of which link or redirect to the article was used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold, you are confusing the needs of disambiguation with good English. Sure, if we were worried about grammer, " Target (play), a play be Shakespeare" would be where we should go but mos:dab (somewhere) says something like "descriptions need not be a complete sentence" ... taking that one (very logical) stage further there does not need to be a subject of the clause (eg play) when this is clear from the name of the article (eg Term (play)). And from another part of mos:dab "keep the description to a minimum". Repetition of "play" does not add to the readers ability to find the article, indeed imho it looks inelegant. I don't think we should repeat any part of the article name unless it is necessary for the description to make sense ... but it's no big deal which is really my point to Sess - it's no big deal and certainly not worth an edit to "correct" - it surely cannot be wrong to see "Term (play), by Shakespeare" can it? Abtract (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions should not be complete sentences, no. They are phrases that would complete the sentence "Term may [also] refer to ...". Descriptions should be kept to a minimum while still being clear and correct. The best description is no description, if the linked title is clear and correct. However, "Term may refer to Term (play), by Shakespeare" is not good English, no. In good English, you may drop parenthetical phrases without changing grammatical statements to non-grammatical statements, so that should read just as easily "Term may refer to Term, by Shakespeare". And that is better written "Term may refer to Term, a play by Shakespeare". But I agree with the conclusion: If there is disagreement with another editor on this interpretation, it should be brought up on the dab Talk (or on WT:MOSDAB), and not (re)reverted without discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments. Even when the entry forms a complete sentence, do not include commas or periods at the end of the line" is followed immediately by "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link". I see no mention of the description completing a sentence (but I can see where you are coming from). Abtract (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic makes sense Abtract. I shall makes those tweaks in good time then. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward[edit]

I think it's time we went out for a drink ... what say you we abandon "agreements" and just act like we want the same thing ... a better wp? With understanding of the other's foibles. Abtract (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. I'm just afraid of getting banned by J again. Well, he does have higher authority, being a sysop and all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask him what he thinks of our new-found friendship ... Abtract (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to put S at ease, since "edit civilly and build consensus" appears to be insufficient. I'm ecstatic if your new-found friendship means that you will be avoiding edit wars with each other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both realise that we will always be bound by the normal rules and that for a little while our interactions with each other may be under more scrutiny than is normal. I am more than happy to move forward as two editors who are different but have some understanding of the other's position; to this end I suggest we formally abandon the "agreement" and simply act like the adults we are. If Sess is happy with that, perhaps JHJ would be kind enough to strike out the whole ageement and signatures. And thanks for your help throughout JHJ. Abtract (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That agreement was never helpful IMO. I was a fool to sign it in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be but I think JHJ might be looking for us to say specifically that we want the agreement to be completely struck out so that we can simply act with a normal degree of civility and consensus buiding to each other (and of course to others)... in other words just like we should have done all along before we unfortunately rubbed each other up the wrong way. I want that, do you? Abtract (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]