Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

Definition of "disambiguation"

I've changed "ambiguity" back to "equivocacy" in the first line of this article. Circular definitions are poor linguistics. People who don't know what "disambiguation" is won't know what "ambiguity" is either. For those people who don't know what "equivocacy" is, there's Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster,, etc. Wikipedia is about the transmission of knowledge, not the flouting of logical liguistic practices in the name of "readability."

Birtweiser 17:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Birtweiser

"Equivocacy" doesn't even appear in my dictionary. I have no objection to a definition that is less circular, but it should be one that is less obscure. And please propose a change on the talk page first instead of just making the edit to the guideline. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic"? --Russ (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds much clearer - good suggestion! -- Natalya 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I dig that, Russ. You diplomat, you :) 02:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Birtweiser
I like it. Go for it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a small amendment to propose: to replace the words "can be" with the word "is", in order to reduce the likelihood of being interpreted as "it could possibly have a small chance of meaning this, therefore it should be disambiguated" rather than "it might refer to this".
(I was going to say it makes it less subjective, if you see what I mean, though strictly speaking that's not quite correct...)
On second thoughts, maybe replacing the words "can be associated with" with "can refer to". Either way (with "refer to", "can" works well enough). Neonumbers 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Four days and no comments... does anyone mind if I replace "can be" with "is" in the first sentence? Will proceed after 10 January 2007 if there are no objections. Neonumbers 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
How about "may refer to"? Though there was some disagreement about this before, "may" is used quite often for the leading lines for disambiguation pages. Either way, whichever change you make should be good. -- Natalya 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Disambiguation

I'm trying to figure out the best way to make a top link that heads in two directions, without creating a disambiguation page. In specific, Bros. It currently goes to the boy band, & links to Brös, which makes sense. It misses out on the sub-culture, Bros, however, & while all three are completely different topics, it seems that a disambiguation page might be a little much. Am I wrong in thinking that, & if not, how does one go about making a staggered disambiguation? I've seen doubles before (like Ariadne), but those were two different templates. --mordicai. 17:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it frowned upon to go about it like Ariadne does? That seems to work out okay. -- Natalya 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would say that the three meanings is enough to merit a disambiguation page. Ariadne is unique because one of them is of type "Foo redirects here", which does need to be present, as well as the usual disambig note. However, I agree that Bros is a bit unusual as well and may merit the double dab. Bro is the odd man out there, and wouldn't really belong on a Bros (disambiguation) page, nor would the other two really belong on Bro (disambiguation). I don't like pages with multiple dablinks because I think they look messy, but this might be one case where it's merited. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that Bro (disambiguation) does in fact exist, and that Bro has been listed for deletion, which may in fact render the discussion moot. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be of pretty similar minds about this. I mostly was curious, intellectually, since it did seem strange to have a situation where (I felt) a double disambiguation was needed. That said, I still don't have any idea how I would go about doing it. --mordicai. 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think a full disambiguation page is in order. As another related term, Bros. redirects to Brothers. olderwiser 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dominant usage?

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic

How dominant is dominant? I'm curious because I'ms urprised to see that Richard Harris is about the actor with a separate dab page for other Richard Harris people. The listed reasons were because it was "more likely to be searhced" sa the other Harrises were deceased. Is that reasoning valid? Becuase of Harris' Harry Potter work, does he deserve the primary topic status? Hbdragon88 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That is something for editors of that collection of pages to decide. If it's a fair bet that someone looking for a Richard Harris is intending to look for that one, then it should be the primary topic.
There does not necessarily need to be a justification for the selection of one topic as the primary section. This becomes obvious in situations like Basketball, Shampoo or White House. Only one being still alive does not automatically qualify him for primary topic status; in some cases the primary topic may be deceased. Generally, the only measuring stick is whether someone looking for Topic is most likely to be looking for that Topic.
In the lack of consensus, the general convention is to go for the generic topic system. If you ask for my opinion, I'd say the current primary topic is the best option. Neonumbers 10:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

what about when the dominant usage is wrong?

Honestly, I don't like the policy of always linking to the most common usage. I was just working on a case which brought into highlight why. Evolution (just plain evolution) is not about the origin of the species. It is a process of generating diverity, selecting on that diveristy, and passing on traits to the next generation. There are many examples of nonbiological evolution. I want to write an article on evolution (not just a disambig page, it would be an umbrella for topics ranging from modelling evolving systems to evolution in process philosophy). The curent article titled 'evolution' refers specifically to biological evolution. The confusion between evolution proper and biological evolution is a common one, but I don't think that Wikipedia should cater to it - rather Wikipedia should try to clarify it (that is, educate the user). So, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that the policy to always use the most common usage is fine except when the most common usage is wrong.-Psychohistorian 13:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a case where you'd want to bring it up at the specific disambiguation page (if you haven't already). If you can convince people that the primary topic shouldn't necessarily be the primary topic, then it can be changed to have the main page be a disambiguation page. However, it seems like it's not a flaw in the disambiguation system, but rather a specific example that can use the system to decide which is correct. Remember, you need to make sure that there is general agreement before any changes go through. -- Natalya 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Any article just about the term "evolution" would be mostly a dictionary definition and should probably be deleted—so there would be no other Wikipedia article more common than that for biological evolution. —Centrxtalk • 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
We do have articles about terms, though. Everything from expletives like Fuck and Nigger to controversial regional names like Macedonia (terminology). So if you can write an encyclopedic article without resorting to original research, go ahead. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that there are some other pages that are essentially a descriptive overview that distinguished between related uses of a term. I think the consensus was that such pages are exceptional, but may be useful in some cases, and that they should not be tagged as disambiguation pages. Sadly, I am unable to recall an example at this time though. It is probably in the talk archives of this page or one of the related pages. If there is agreement about such usage and suitable examples can be found, perhaps they should be added to this page or to the MOSDAB page. olderwiser 13:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The closest I can think of are multi-stub pages, but I don't think that's quite right. -- Natalya 14:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One example which seemed to work out to everyone's satisfaction was Congo, which tried to both define the term in article style and provide disambiguation, and was reverted back and forth several times when people tried to make it one or the other. Given that someone linking just to "Congo" probably doesn't know which African entity they mean, it is now a short page explaining the history of the multiple meanings of the term in Africa, with a hatnote linked to Congo (disambiguation) for additional meanings.
It's not exactly parallel and the same technique might not work, but I'd tend to agree that there's a good rationale for making an overview article for evolution. The only way to proceed, however, is to lay out your reasoning and try to build consensus among the editors at evolution and evolution (disambiguation). Whether your article ends up at evolution (with the current article at evolution (biology)) or at something like evolution (process) will be up to the consensus. — Catherine\talk 16:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That's a really good example, Catherine. Thank you for remembering that! And you make good points about the process of going about proposing something of the like. -- Natalya 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agree with Catherine and Natalya. Another similar one that went back and forth between a pure disambiguation and an overview is grass. But there is another one that is tickling my memory, a somewhat technical term used similarly but with enough significant differences between various disciplines as to warrant multiple articles and an overview page with a short paragraph summarizing the various conceptual distinctions. olderwiser 19:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I just searched through all of the old archives for the words "summary", "overview", and "multi" (that was interesting! What arguments there used to be!). The most promising things I came up with were two different topics. One was about comic book characters by the same name, especially referring to Thor (comics) and Hercules (comics). The second was a discussion about the term 'Water Treatment', which covered the use of Summary Style for pages. Hopefully some of that will help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalya (talkcontribs) 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

This sounds like an interesting article; but we are here to serve the reader. Most people who type in "evolution" are looking for Darwinianism, and should get there. A reference in the header (as opposed to a dab link) may be the best way to provide the information that there is a wider meaning; we shouldn't force it on anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Referee (disambiguation)

Quick gathering of opinions: does Referee (disambiguation) need to exist? Neonumbers 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the primary usage is not the only usage, and remaining uses on the disambiguation page are too much to try and capture in a hatnote. olderwiser 04:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess. I added a Wiktionary link, and the uses on the page seem kind of like dictionary definitions, but there are valid articles, so I guess it makes sense to have it. -- Natalya 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've heard the term used in peer review, so it makes sense to have a way to find that article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thanks all. Neonumbers 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


there's currently a fierce debate over whether to move the article on the Apple iPhone to Apple iPhone. It's unambiguous, and if it's really the primary topic we can keep a redirect, so should an ambiguous name bbe preferred just because it's shorter by a word? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ipod isn't located at Apple IPod; shouldn't consitancy be followed? -- Natalya 13:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IPod is unambiguous. Apple Lisa and Apple Newton on the other hand...Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If disambiguation is needed, it should be at iPhone (Apple). In this case, the apple version is way more notable so I think it's justifiably the primary topic. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is possible to argue that the proper name for the unambiguous article is "Apple iPhone" (if the company name is a prefix for its product's name) — depending on how it's looked at.
In my opinion, however, ambiguity is not a justification to move it to "Apple iPhone", because I see the Apple meaning as the primary topic.
If disambiguation is needed, it should be at Apple iPhone, not iPhone (Apple), because the former is the more natural name, though as I say, I don't think ambiguity's an issue. The issue really just comes down to what editors of that article thinks its proper name is (a matter on which I hold no view) — there is nothing wrong with making "iPhone" a redirect to "Apple iPhone". I just don't think it's a disambiguation matter. Neonumbers 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about appropriate. Untlike Apple Lisa and Apple Newton, I don't think many people will confuse things with the iPhone. "Iphone" is an unambiguous name. As Neonumbers said, it's now up to what is the proper name for it. -- Natalya 19:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Right now, there is no ambiguity only because we have only the Apple Inc iPhone article. But legally, the Apple Inc iPhone doesn't exist because Cisco owns the trademark and they make the only iPhone that actually exists (or is ever likely to exist if they can't reach agreement). Note that I said Apple Inc, not just Apple - because the Beatles own the Apple Corps trademark and they have an agreement that the Beatles won't do computers and Apple won't do music. (!). --Concrete Cowboy 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


Would folks please take a look at talk:Moot to comment on the debate there. Is it legitimate for a disambig article include topics that have no articles? --Concrete Cowboy 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted at Talk:Moot, but per MoS:DP#Redlinks, redlinks are allowed, as long as the subject is notable enough that an article could be written on it. -- Natalya 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DAB page needed

I have been trying to find out how to make a dab page, but I find it tricky. So would anyone be so kind as to make a dab page for 'Stephen O'Brien'. There used to be only one but there are 2 now. (one a politician, the other a musician) The links are the following:
Many thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emmi1988 (talkcontribs) 10:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Emmi1988, please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen O'Brien (musician) and Wikipedia:Notability (music) and see if you can add to the article to establish notability. The situation may have changed since August 2005. Thank you. CarolGray 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Single disambiguation template

I've been itching to propose {{2CC}}, {{3CC}}, et al for deletion. I see that it was proposed about a year ago, and that no consensus was reached. I'd like to revisit that decision in a friendlier forum than TfD.

Why do we need any disambiguation templates other than {{disambig}}? If you really want to categorize n-letter combinations, you can make a category 3CC and add it to the appropriate dab pages. --Smack (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

hide "redirects here"

On {{redirect}} and the like, it would be nice if there were some sort of html "magic" that a user javascript (and maybe eventually a standard script perhaps controlled by preference) can automatically hide it if the page was not reached through the redirect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Random832 (talkcontribs) 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Those things can get annoying (and confusing) if you got to the page normally... Neonumbers 09:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration needed

Speed (disambiguation): a colleague adds iitems like J. B. Speed School of Engineering claiming that it is called simple "speed" and refusing to provide references. I consider this a violation of the very basic wikipeida policies WP:Verifiability & WP:CITE. Please comment. `'mikka 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

O.o it has the word speed in it, so it sounds like reasonable logic to me. I do not believe this is an issue for WP:V or WP:CITE. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I gotta ask: why does this bother you so much? It seems like a very minor issue that could go either way. -- Ned Scott 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm with Ned on this. Let it slide for a month, then go change it if you think it's a problem. I put up with a lot of irrelevant crap on dab pages, and then clean it all out in one hit. That way no-one takes it personal, like. Josh Parris 23:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That's what I normally do too. This one makes sense though, especially since search on Wikipedia is not that great it helps for users to find this school. Garion96 (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I would definitely agree with mikka that the school of engineering doesn't merit inclusion on that disambiguation page. (Having the word "speed" in it isn't enough — disambiguation pages are not search engines. We have a search engine for that purpose, and my search of "speed school" gets me there fine.) Though "cleaning it all out in one hit" after waiting a while as Josh Parris said could work better (from a productivity perspective). Neonumbers 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes; without any proper evidence that it really is referred to as just "Speed", it really doesn't belong. I echo many editors thoughts though, about dealing with semi-irrelevant material. If we think about it, leaving the entry there for a bit isn't going to do a whole lot of harm, and knowing all our work with disambiguation pages, it will soon be removed. Sometimes a slightly laid-back attitude towards entries (while of course removing the really ridiculous ones right away) can make things not too antagonistic, while still keeping the pages clean. And if you don't remove the entry right away, someone else may also take care of it. -- Natalya 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be disambiguated?

There are two places in New Jersey called Society Hill, so I redirected Society Hill, New Jersey to the Society Hill disambiguation. Alansohn took offense and has changed it to a redirect to Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey, where I moved it. Who is in the right here? --NE2 22:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The present solution of having a hatnote at the top of each page seems about right. The CDP article probably could have stayed at Society Hill, New Jersey, unless it can be demonstrated that the development in Jersey City is commonly known as "Society Hill, New Jersey". Generally neighborhoods within cities are not referred to as placename, statename. I'd support moving the article back, but don't feel all that strongly about it. olderwiser 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The neighborhood in Jersey City is often known as Society Hill, and an unknowing editor could easily link it to Society Hill, New Jersey, as I almost did on Journal Square Transportation Center. --NE2 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That's why hatnotes are useful. Having Society Hill, New Jersey redirect to the general Society Hill disambiguation page, as you suggested would not have helped. olderwiser 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it would have helped, since eventually someone fixing links to disambiguation pages would have come along and corrected it. --NE2 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Disambiguation and Redirection templates

The subject Category is referred to by the documentation for the Otheruses templates 1 through 4 on their talk pages, for instance "We have lots of disambiguation templates already, see Category:Disambiguation and Redirection templates" on Template talk:Otheruses4. Please either:

  1. Create the subject Category and put every template in Template:Otheruses templates in the subject Category (my preference, the subject Category has its uses, but only an Admin can do this) OR
  2. Remove the references to the subject Category, perhaps changing the text to "We have lots of disambiguation templates already, see the 'Otheruses templates' box above or Otheruses templates for details".

Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The category Category:Disambiguation and redirection templates (note capitalization) does exist, and AFAICT does contain the templates listed in the otheruses documentation -- I haven't bothered to go through every single item, if you happen to come across a useful template (there have been a lot of spurious templates created, and there are many editors who dispute usefulness of all the permutations that are listed there), either add the category yourself, if it is unprotected, or add {{editprotected}} to the talk page and add a comment with your request. olderwiser 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have changed the documentation for the Otheruses templates 1 through 4 on their talk pages to comply with the above capitalization change, as well as current documentation standards. I wish Freakofnurture had been more careful when renaming the Category to change the capitalization on 5 March 2006 starting at 05:48 (UTC).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You certainly find things quickly. I've been here for over two years and I didn't know we had any "documentation standards" so to speak. Since you've just performed the same edit to several template_talk pages containing the same content, it would probably be better to put all of this information on one page and transclude it on the talk page of each template_talk page. On the other hand, most people learn by example, editing articles, rather than actually reading such pages, and the lack of viewing is probably the primary reason nobody noticed a red link. If nobody cares that something's broken, there's little point in fixing it. —freak(talk) 22:06, Feb. 4, 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on CC templates...

...has been started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Let.27s_clarify_with_the_various_CC_templates_once_and_for_all (goodness that is a long link!). Just in case you don't watch both pages, please add your opinions there! -- Natalya 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The four CC templates are now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 9, in case anyone hasn't already seen. -- Natalya 19:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Primary Topic in relation to Cities

After dealing with extensive debate over on the Settlement Convention page, a common millstone that pops up is the use of "Primary Topic". At its root, this seems to vague and subjective with nearly anyone being able to make an argument that one things is more primary then the other-like the recent Cork debates. But I think a broader problem is when there is a topic that more notable but several others with similar name that have relevant notability in their own right. Individual these "other topics" don't stack up against the "Primary topic" but collectively they do give a significant alternative search and linking topic. An example would be any name with a disambig page that has a laundry list of alternative topics of relevant notability like Chicago (disambiguation), Vancouver (disambiguation), Philadelphia (disambiguation) and Boston (disambiguation). As a whole, it seems like there is a culture of aversion to the use of disambig pages and to have the Primary topic be a disambig page. I think a large part of that is the way "Primary topic" is presented on this page and I would like to discuss and revisit it. AgneCheese/Wine 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been a bit of debate on the primary topic topic before; if you'd like to read the most recent discussion, which describes points that will surely be brought up here, take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_20#Movement_to_get_rid_of_the_primary_topic_guideline.
As for having the primary topic be the disambiguation pages, it seems like one could lean either way. However, the guidelines are pretty clear. If there is an article that is far more mainstream than all the other articles by the same name, then it is appropriate for it to be the primary topic. If there is great debate about which article is "more primary", then that in itself seems to signal that there is in fact no primary topic, and that therefore the disambiguation page is appropriate to be considered as primary. -- Natalya 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Thanks for the prompt reply and the link. I would say the bulk of my concern is not necessary discussions over which topic is more primary but rather the consideration that the "other topics" taken as a whole constitute a fair degree of relevance as well. Take Vancouver which is currently the title of the Canadian city article. Undoubtedly it is the most notable Vancouver. However, the laundry list of Vancouvers on the disambig page are fairly significant-from Vancouver Island, to the other areas of the Canadian Vancouver municipality, to the Washington city, to the reference style, to George Vancouver himself. Taken as a whole, the amount of links and reader searches for these alternative Vancouvers are significant even though non of these isolated Vancouvers could compare to the Canadian one. A counter example would be Prague which is undoubtedly the primary topic even when compared to the whole of the Prague (disambiguation) page. In that scenario, there is no need to considering moving to a disambig page. AgneCheese/Wine 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Since it is a specific issue, however, it would probably be more productive to bring it up at either Talk:Vancouver or Talk:Vancouver (disambiguation) (or both), since if anything were to be changed, editors there would have to agree on the change. -- Natalya 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well it is actually a broader issue that has come up in several city naming issues and I would wager comes up in a fair amount of other disambiguation topics. I am actually not in hurry to request any particular page move but would rather want to see some clarification in this oft cited guideline about Primary Topic. I think the current culture is used to thinking of Primary Topic as a "race" with the most notable contender of the bunch getting the proverbial "crown" and having their article unambiguated. The aversion to disambig pages stem sharply from this. It like the race can't end in a "tie", there has to be a winner. In the end, I think that is counterproductive and is more of a disservice to the reader who in some cases is just as likely to be searching for an "alternative" use as they would be the primary topic. AgneCheese/Wine 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry no one else seems to be responding to this topic, for you're only getting my point of view, which certainly isn't all encompassing. To me at least, I've never considered it a race of sorts; I (and other disambiguators, I know) are happy to leave the primary article as the disambiguation page. I can't say that I personally feel any need for there to be a primary topic for every disambiguation page. In fact, that's kind of counterproductive, because the whole point of disambiguating is to make the navigation of similiarly-named pages easier.
Semi-related, I added a sentence to the primary topic section of the guidelines here. That at least should make it clearer why there is not a primary topic. It seems that I'm not being of much help to your issue though, I do apologize! -- Natalya 20:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, as someone who routinely deals regularly with this sort of thing, your views are quite helpful and quite reasonable. Your recent addition does help clarify some of the murkiness. I appreciate the response. AgneCheese/Wine 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change?

I think the line that most concerns me under Primary Topic is the definition

  • "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other..."

This seems to convey that determining the Primary Topic is a "one on one" comparison with the other alternative usages rather then taking in the whole consideration of all the different alternative usages. I would like to propose a simple change to that first line to....

  • "When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than all other alternative usages...."

I think this simple change, coupled with Natalya previous addition, would help quell some of the dispute of which topic "wins the race" to be the Primary Topic. Is that a reasonable proposal? AgneCheese/Wine 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about:
...much more used than all other uses...
I would prefer to make the addition as small as possible because the sentence is already rather long, and I can't see a way of breaking it up without losing the flow. CarolGray 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see what you mean about the wordiness. I think that revision is fine. AgneCheese/Wine 20:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
CarolGray's "...much more used than all other uses..." eliminates the redundancy of "other alternative usages", but it's still ambiguous. "Hinchcliffe has more experience than all other candidates" is not identical to "Hinchcliffe has more experience than all other candidates put together". Chris the speller 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)