Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Straw poll regarding lists of mathematics articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result

[edit]

The only proposal with any significant support here is that the pages are moved to Wikipedia-space. It seems that none of the uses that the WikiProject has for these pages would be lost through such a move, and no convincing arguments showing they are of substantial benefit to our readership have been put forward; certainly, none that have succeeded in convincing a large number of editors that it is worth the time and hassle of keeping these articles in mainspace. I therefore endorse the outcome of the poll: these pages should be transitioned into WP-space, where they need not be touched my bots enforcing MOSDAB. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Straw poll

[edit]

This is a straw poll to determine which of several options should be pursued with respect to the controversy addressed in the discussions at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov#Please teach your bot to stop adding redundant disambig links to lists of mathematics articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Mathbot has been blocked from editing "List of mathematics articles". Although the conversation above has produced some spirited debate, and a significant number of people have contributed to this discussion, it has primarily been dominated by a small number of people. In an effort to give equal weight to all participants, I have distilled from this discussion the options below, and would like to convene a straw poll of Wikipedians to determine which options the community favors pursuing.

Please note that there are no technical barriers to implementing any of these proposals. Members of the disambiguation WikiProject have volunteered to any editing needed to create/clean up lists and/or carry out page moves, and to write whatever bot programming needs to be done. User:Oleg Alexandrov, who maintains Mathbot, has also indicated that he will be able to implement any changes needed to that program.

Please also note that the straw poll results here won't result in any changes in the Disambiguation project or its guidelines. Results that leave a contradiction between these guidelines and those should be taken up instead at the village pump. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this poll was initiated at 18:30, 23 May 2011, I propose to keep it open until 18:30, 2 June 2011. There has already been significant participation, and ten days should be enough time for everyone who want to comment to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that two changes have been made to this poll since voting began. First, option #5 ("Leave the content of the lists in its present format"), was added; second, level four subheaders were added under options #1a and #3a (shifting the options below them to #1b and #3b, respectively), although no change has been made to the substance of either option. Please review options carefully, as you may consider small differences to be critical. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
[edit]

Obviously, if Mathbot ignored disambiguation pages altogether when compiling lists, and the links were not otherwise added by human editors, there would be no conflict. Editors wishing to monitor math-related disambiguation pages would need to watchlist these, or check Changes related to "Category:Mathematical disambiguation".

Support
  1. Weak support. If no other option is carried out, this one would solve the problem from the disambiguator's perspective, even if the cost is reduced access to the disambiguation pages themselves. The fact that these pages are currently long and blocky enough to discourage effective browsing ameliorates some of this concern for me. bd2412 T 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Some of our disambiguation pages are quite enlightening. One of the stupidest possible ideas is that disamibuation pages and topics lists are only for navigation. Navigation means you have in mind, even if only vaguely, something specific that you're looking for. There's also such a thing as browsing, maybe in some contexts called fishing expeditions. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. {{mathdab}} pages only contain links to mathematics articles (at least AFAIK). That makes them very useful to the Mathematics WikiProject, as opposed to a standard disambiguation page that may contain a single math article and a slew of non-mathematics topics. So I'd say keeping mathdabs in the lists is a strong net positive for browsing and searching. Of course, implementing WP:INTDABLINK still keeps them in the lists. --JaGatalk 21:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not listing all the mathematics disambiguation pages means not listing all the mathematics articles. That defeats the purpose of these lists. Ozob (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1b. Update Mathbot to comply with MOSDAB
[edit]

When an editor wants to create an intentional link to a disambiguation page, standard procedure is described by WP:INTDABLINK. If links to disambiguation pages are still desired on the lists, Mathbot would have to exclude mathematical disambiguation page Foo and instead use Foo (disambiguation), a redirect.

Support
  1. The bot should be changed to adhere to policy. We should never change policy to accommodate a bot. --JaGatalk 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should and have, where we believe that change benefits the encyclopedia. Moreover we have changed policy to discommode automated processes for precisely the same reason. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2. It seems like this would only require minor changes to MathBot, would eliminate the problem for WikiProject Disambiguation (or at least sweep it under the rug), and would allow members of WikiProject Mathematics to continue to rely on these lists to monitor changes to math-related disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the most sense. It meets everyone's needs and does not create additional lists. However, it is only a good solution if the dab subjects actually belong encyclopaediacally on the lists. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  4. This is unavoidable. WP:INTDABLINK does not have exceptions. If you intend to link to a disambiguation page, you use the "(disambiguation)" title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, though I think #3 might be a better option -- move the lists out of article space. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Mathbot does comply with MOSDAB, which explicitly says there will be exceptions to the general guideline. There are good reasons to link directly to these disambiguation pages - in order for "related changes" to work, for example, — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that something complies with rules because it's allowed to ignore the rules it doesn't comply with is hardly useful. There is nothing gained by not following WP:INTDABLINK, so no reason to ignore that guideline. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding related changes, Related changes for Category:Mathematical disambiguation gives you all mathdabs in a single go instead of having to click through Related changes for what, 27 lists? Also, fixing Current activity to include redirect targets is not difficult as I've shown here, and I do say fixing because it's a bug; the lists link to hundreds of non-disambig redirects and Current activity misses all of them. --JaGatalk 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree with CBM: Mathbot should be considered already in compliance as it is. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathbot should be considered in compliance. MOSDAB's exception clause should be determined by this WikiProject or by general consensus, not by WikiProject:Disambiguation consensus. Furthermore, this "solution" doesn't solve the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Seek an exemption from MOSDAB

[edit]

Some editors believe that these pages merit an exemption from the Manual of Style for Disambiguation pages. I am not aware of any process through which such a decision has been made, but if a consensus has not previously been reached on this point, we can begin a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation as to whether such an exception should be made in this case. This is particularly important in light of the policy at Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot requirements, which requires that every bot "performs only tasks for which there is consensus" and "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". A consensus must then be achieved at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation to make an exception in this case so that these edits will not be in violation of this policy.

Support
  1. Mild support: This list contains invisible links to discussion pages for a reason: so that when you click on "related changes", those will appear. If you link to a redirect, then changes in the page it links to do not appear when you click on "related changes", as far as I know (but tell me if I'm wrong about this). Michael Hardy (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that. This is bad, because it breaks "Related changes" for readers. For that reason I will now support completely separate lists. Rich Farmbrough, 08:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Support. Except no explicit "exemption" is needed; the guideline already says there will be exceptions. In other words the exemption is already there. Michael Hardy is correct: the related changes tool does not bypass redirects. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please point me to the discussion where it was agreed that this particular instance constitutes an exception? After all, absent some process to determine when an exception exists, anyone could make such a link in any article, call it an "exception", and counter any attempts to fix it. bd2412 T 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I believe that this is acceptable. I do see why it might be problematic for disambiguators, however. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. That clause in MosDab seems questionable, anyway, and probably should be revisited. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Since bot policy requires a bot "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines", it would be wrong to seek an exemption to accommodate a bot. Especially since the owner of the bot, Oleg Alexandrov, is willing to make whatever changes are decided upon. --JaGatalk 18:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The MosDab is (well that part of it) founded in reason. No sense in making un-needed exceptions. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  3. If they are disambiguation pages, they are disambiguation pages. If you want them to be "not-disambiguation" pages (a la set indexes or whatever), then they're not disambiguation pages. If ambiguity remains, though, actual disambiguation pages will be needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The case for making an exception is not persuasive. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There is no need for an exception if the maintenance tasks for which the exception is sought can be accommodated by means that do not trench on any policies or guidelines. bd2412 T 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2a. Tag sections to warn disambiguators from editing
[edit]

User:Ozob has proposed that a tag could be placed on these pages (either visibly or invisibly) to warn editors that edits to the page may be overwritten by a bot. If the community determines that an exception is warranted permitting direct links to disambiguation pages to be included in these articles, such a message could specifically warn disambiguators that disambiguation fixes will be undone.

Support
  1. This is a good idea, independent of the disambiguation problem. These lists are an anomaly in Wikipedia; mainspace articles, but in all reality not editable since changes will be overwritten by a bot if they don't fit the bot's specifications. For instance, if an editor decides to change the layout of the lists, that will be erased without discussion. These lists aren't free to evolve the way a normal article is, and any editor should be warned before they waste their time on one of these lists. --JaGatalk 19:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, should be done anyway, as things stand. Possibly a hint here to think about this problem generically - tuck auto generated content in Template:-space and transclude? Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  3. Sounds fine to me. R.F. probably knows this already, but moving the auto content to project space would stil necessitate the disambiguators finding a way to deal with (transcluded) links from these lists in mainspace to dab pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as proposer. We should do this regardless of the outcome of any of the other proposals. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Ozob - no matter what outcome, editors should be alerted to the fact that a bot may overwrite their work before they invest time in making edits. bd2412 T 16:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, regardless of other outcomes or problems. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. If the page needs to be tagged to keep it from being formattted as a disambiguation page, the correct way to do this is to make it an article instead of a disambiguation page. Article-appropriate tags could then be added, of course. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal refers to the lists, not the dab pages. Rich Farmbrough, 08:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

3. Move maintenance lists to project space

[edit]
3a. Move maintenance lists to project space
[edit]

As User:Sławomir Biały pointed out in the original discussion, this option has apparently been discussed before on this project because the characteristics of these lists repeatedly lead to objections of the sort typified by this discussion. Since these kinds of problems are likely to occur again in the future, moving these lists to project space may prevent future acrimony involving this project.

Support
  1. I think we should just move the lists to project space and not bother about keeping an article version. The lists are not about some topic external to Wikipedia and the article space functions are covered by categories and user made lists. As to the general disambiguation guidelines I wish the hell they'd stop messing around removing intermediate redirects and they should get their act in order about marking links properly so they don't mess them up. Their pointing at an article which deals with the topic in passing just causes trouble when an article directly about the topic is put in instead of the redirect. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can't think of a compelling reason why these need to be kept in main space. Are these list of practical use for readers?--Salix (talk): 22:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I wouldn't mind having a much-reformed set of lists with this title in article space, the maintenance tasks for which they are used practically demands that they be these oversized, ugly, blocky link-walls. bd2412 T 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If there are merely maintenance list then the should be in project space. Are the 27 pages of use to readers? Do their traffic stats warrant all the effort? If they are maintenance pages is Category:WikiProject Mathematics articles sufficient? I would rather see one page replace the current 27 that had a selection of the top couple of hundred articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support now I know that the lists are broken in other ways as content pages (Per Michael Hardy they include links to talk pages). Rich Farmbrough, 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Support. I think this is the best option. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This would be acceptable. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: per Dmcq. It's been pointed out that having a bot maintained article in the main namespace is usual and it was probably inevitable that this kind of issue would pop up. I've read the arguments for keeping the list in article space for browsing purposes but I'm not convinced. The fact that the list is maintained by a machine means that there is are articles that don't really belong in a list of mathematical articles. People who insist on browsing can do so just as well in project space and articles that currently link to the lists could just as well link to a more discriminating, manually maintained article such as Lists of mathematics topics or Outline of mathematics.--RDBury (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. As noted elsewhere on this page by JaGa, it is anomalous (at best) to have articles on Wikipedia that effectively cannot be edited by anyone, even administrators, because their edits will invariably be overwritten by a bot. (I noticed Carl's comment that some kinds of edits are not overwritten, and stand corrected to that extent; but still, much of the content of these lists is effectively untouchable by editors.) Moving these pages to project space would eliminate that issue, as well as eliminating concerns about linking to disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Suppport. Plus explicitly allow article-space pages to link to it, as is done presently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection in principle to allowing articles to link to a list maintained in project space. Bear in mind, however, that because these lists are required by their maintenance function to list every one of the thousands of articles in any mathematics category, they are quite unweildy, and I would contend, not particularly user-friendly. bd2412 T 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

(none at this time)

3b. Keep two sets of lists
[edit]

It has been pointed out that some other articles link to these lists, which would be impermissible if the lists were in project space. User:Zundark has thoughtfully proposed that, in order to continue to have lists in article space, Mathbot could maintain two sets of lists. User:Dmcq also considered this to be "a reasonable suggestion". Specifically, one set of lists would be in article space, with no disambiguation links, or disambiguation links conforming to MOSDAB; and a second set of lists in project space including the direct disambiguation links.

Support
  1. This allows maximum flexibility: for example inclusion of non-articles in the list, such as important redirects, templates, the lists we are talking about and others. Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Caveat: only if the content pages conform to all content rules. I.E. no hidden links to talk pages, user editable, no cross namespace lists, etc. Rich Farmbrough, 08:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    These lists are user editable; if you add an article, it will not be removed. But if you mistakenly remove an article that should be included, it will be added back by the bot. That does not mean that the pages cannot be edited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What if you attempt to reorganize the page in a more user-friendly fashion? For example, what if you tried to group together theorems, or other related concepts, in one section of the page? bd2412 T 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mild support. After reflecting on all the options, I think the least disruptive solution is to move to project space only whatever material is problematic to have in article space - dab links, possibly some redirects and talk page links. This would work also, but it would take a bit more effort to get in order. bd2412 T 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These lists have two purposes. Not only do they serve as normal lists; they are also used as monitoring tools by the Mathematics WikiProject. The role as a project's monitoring tool in article space is the source of our problems. As Rich pointed out, there's a lot in these lists that should not be in article space. If people are unwilling to move the lists themselves into project space, then this monitoring functionality should be split into project space. --JaGatalk 05:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Mild oppose. I think now better to have human generated lists with proper annotation in article space. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No compelling reason to have two sets of lists has been presented. It's unnecessary effort in planning, development of code, and maintenance. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. I guess I'm not really sure I understand why links from article space to these lists might be needed. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Having two lists is asking for something to go wrong. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. People will just end up diverting their attention to two sets of mostly identical lists. (I am mathbot's owner, but from that perspective I'll just follow whatever thing is decided.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the proposal below to separate out only the disambiguation pages, into one additional list maintained in project space? bd2412 T 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Ozob; it's just asking for problems. If human editors want to create and maintain math-related lists that meet WP standards for inclusion, that's great, but having two sets of bot-maintained lists seems like overkill. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3c. Keep one additional list for disambiguation pages
[edit]

This option would require the addition of only one additional list to the existing set of twenty-seven lists. The existing lists would remain in article space, but would contain no direct links to disambiguation pages (although they could contain "Foo (disambiguation)" links to those pages). The additional list would contain only links to disambiguation pages, and would be maintained in project space. Mathbot and other bots referring to the lists would be able to use this additional list to track changes to math-related disambiguation pages.

Support
  1. I think this is the best option. Of all the options before us, I believe this one would require the least amount of work to set up and the least amount of upkeep going forward. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'd like this as well as moving to project space. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A separate list of dabs is aesthetically pleasing, and the only question is whether it is useful. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose
  1. As above, this is unnecessary work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is that a consideration if others who believe this to be necessary are happy to do the work? Since the content of these lists has spurred debate before, it is likely that a lot of "work" will go into arguing over them in the future, as new groups of objectors seek to address them. bd2412 T 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably this straw poll will be used to answer future objections. The people who believe a change is necessary don't have the technical means (access to both MathBot and Jitse's bot) to change things, nor are they likely to volunteer to be permanent maintainers of these two bots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Move all mathematical disambiguation pages to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles

[edit]

User:CBM (Carl) has proposed moving all mathematical disambiguation pages to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles. Although this would also require these pages to be an exception to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, it would be a less egregious violation than including direct links to disambiguation pages at a primary page title, because it would not inconvenience disambiguators. User:David Eppstein has suggested that redirects to disambiguation pages should be on these lists also, but that does not seem to be true, since they are not currently included.

Support
  1. It seems to me that this would be consistent with 1a above, and might also eliminate problems with monitoring redirects. I see this as an "exception" to the naming conventions for dab pages, not a "violation" of it. However, it would also require some modification of other tools (such as WP:MDP to account for the exception. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is my second choice, after keeping the list of mathematics related disambiguation pages in project space. If this is the option selected, I'll see to the necessary page moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawing support of this option in light of arguments set forth below; there is no reason to perpetuate strife if an option exists whereby the maintenence function of these lists can be preserved without requiring a change to any guidelines; such an option does exist in moving the offending links to project space. bd2412 T 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm willing to support this compromise, but I'd prefer to just see Mathbot fixed. --JaGatalk 19:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Again, support as an action, but not as a solution. If the dab pages should not be in the lists, then they should not be in the lists. having dab pages at foo (disambiguation) is a perfectly good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  4. Weak support. Although this would create an exception with regards to malplaced disambiguation pages, that seems a lesser exception than having intentionally inappropriate links to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These are intentionally appropriate links to disambiguation pages, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if an exception to the current guideline is allowed -- as presently formulated, these links are clearly inappropriate per the guideline. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been noted above, this discussion will determine whether there is consensus to allow such an exception. The import of this discussion has been posted on both the Mathematics and Disambiguation projects, and anyone who wishes to opine is welcome to do so. bd2412 T 17:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. If there's no primary topic, the disambiguation page goes at the base name. This wouldn't change that, and would just cause more churn from the malplaced dab work. Would need to go through the village pump. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This substitutes one problem for another. If we do this, then eventually someone will move these "(disambiguation)" pages back to their base names, and we'll end up with the same problem all over again. Ozob (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per JHunterJ. That would just cause more malplaced disambiguation pages. Logan Talk Contributions 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but it would solve the problem of the numerous intentional disambiguation links on these pages. I understand your opposition to this proposal, but are there any solutions proposed on this page with which you agree? Some solution must be arrived at, after all. bd2412 T 03:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe this would just cause more problems in the long term. --Zundark (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Leave the content of the lists in its present format

[edit]

There is no problem with the content of the lists that needs to be fixed. Editors who remove links to dab pages are encouraged to develop a way to mark a page that is intended to link to dab pages, as these lists are. This option does not conflict with item 2a (adding an editnotice). It only refers to the content of the lists themselves.

Support
  1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This would be an acceptable outcome for me. Ozob (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Best option (together with 2a). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. There is no question that it is possible, through one of the solutions proposed above, to insure that these lists serve all maintenance functions required of them without requiring any exemption or exception from any guideline. There is nothing magical about the status quo that prevents it from being brought in line with the rest of Wikipedia. In fact, the only argument that seems to have been adduced in favor of maintaining a perpetual problem is not wanting to do the work (or even to allow someone else to do it). bd2412 T 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The way to mark pages as intending to link to disambiguation pages is to use the "(disambiguation)" links or redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is often a situation where the encyclopaedia itself can be used as a reference work to manually or automatically perform maintenance tasks. This is not such a situation. Rich Farmbrough, 08:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  4. See my entry at option 3. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. These lists have project maintenance features that do not need to be in article space, and are causing problems and confusion for non-WikiProject Mathematics editors. --JaGatalk 06:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The lists are not actually causing any problems; the difficulties expressed by disambiguators are, in the end, self-made by failing to take the existence of lists such as these into account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No amount of taking these lists into account will remove them from the "what links here" pages that disambiguators rely on as their primary tool for finding links that need repair. You could just as easily say that these lists are failing to take into account the existence of the project space in which they could sit. bd2412 T 20:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Straw_poll_regarding_lists_of_mathematics_articles&oldid=1142156900"