Talk:Francis, Dauphin of France

Another approach

As to the current state of the accompanying Dab, i would have hidden the first two entries in comments, bcz the coverage of their topics is less than a dictdef: the user who is looking for an article on either of them is better served by being left to wondering whether we consider the topic insufficiently notable for an article, or (knowing that WP is a WiP) we haven't gotten around to it, than by being sent off to futilely search the article for what you'd expect when you consult an encyclopedia.
And speaking a little more broadly, i'm inclined to create List of dauphins of France by name, with content from the list Dauphin of France (which, appropriately, includes red-lk dauphins) reorganized into a section for each given name. (Or make that the second half of the existing list page, or make the table into a user-sortable 2-index one.)
IMO, the Dab was one more mis-written one trying combine the functions of a list and a Dab on one page, and needs as a fix not only one page serving the functions of a Dab, and no others, but also, elsewhere on a different page (whether new or not), the function of a list.
I'd very much like to hear what others think.
--Jerzy•t 03:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just finally saw SlackerMom (talk · contribs)'s response in her summary on another page
remove tag - I just cleaned this one up Jerzy, all the redlinks are valid for inclusion per WP:MOSDAB and have relevant blue links.

I was aware of the recent changes, may not have studied them sufficiently, and now will be sure i do.
--Jerzy•t 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piping issue

The following text has been copied from WP:PIPING, emphasis mine:

Where redirects can be helpful:
- A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article only if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article." For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrant. Use this technique when the link is the subject of the line, not when it is in the description.
- Linking to a redirect is also helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and the target article uses an alternative title; for example, linking to cell phone (instead of mobile phone) on the disambiguation page for cell.
- In either of the above cases, the link to the redirect should begin the line on the disambiguation page, as when linking directly to an article title.

I have used the redirects because they contain "Francis, Dauphin of France", which is the term we are disambiguating on this page. I know this guideline was rather buried, so I hope this helps clear it up. SlackerMom (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That section makes no real sense for cases such as this; the example is a different case: cell phone and mobile phone are equivalent names of for the target, of which we chose one arbitrarily. Francis II of France and Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536) are the same person, but they are not equivalent.

The reason for doing dab pages as we do is so that disambiguators, even those completely ignorant of the subject, will find an appropriate link; for readers, it would be much more convenient to link all terms. Any disambiguator who links to [[Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536|Dauphin Francis]] when he could link to [[Francis II of France|Dauphin Francis]] not only puts the system through an unnecessary redirect (a trivial cost, but inelegant), but makes the edit space harder to read and to follow. First, don't make Wikipedia worse, even in small ways.

But since the guideline has not thought this through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:R#NOTBROKEN -- the cost is not only trivial, it is explicitly irrelevant. I do not understand the edit space complaint; your examples use pipelinks, and the edit space does not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis II of France is infinitely more intelligible than Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536). Having the latter the link in the dab encourages disambiguators to substitute it for Francis, Dauphin of France, or at best to put [[Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536)|]]. Neither of these leaves Francis II visible, even in edit space. We should not compell editors (or readers) to jump through links to find out who we mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in seeing the formula that yields "infinity" in that case. How does someone who finds "Francis II of France" more intelligible end up at Francis, Dauphin of France? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WT:MOSNUM, on the subject of dates of birth and death. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

You misunderstand the question; how does a reader (the person to whom the disambiguation page is rendering navigational aid, not a Wikipedia editor looking at a guideline's talk page) end up at the Wikipedia page Francis, Dauphin of France after entering "Francis II of France" in the search box? Or describe another scenario where a reader who would find "Francis II of France" more intelligible than "Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536)" somehow ends up at the Francis, Dauphin of France dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should render our articles unintelligible to editors; the formulation to which you revert tends to encourage other articles to use [[Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536)|]]. This itself makes WP worse, and is my chief reason for opposing.
A reader will get to this page by two routes:
- Either he has met Francis, Dauphin of France elsewhere, and (by hypothesis) has not understood it - and has typed it into our search box to find out who is meant. He should be given the choice among the names by which these four persons are actually known, and under which we file their articles; the two who died in infancy should be redirects to the relevant section of their fathers' articles.
- Or he has met an undabbed link to Francis, Dauphin of France in some other article, and has clicked on it to find out who this is. Again, he should be given the choice among intelligible common names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The old form of this text is doubtfully consistent even with the present form of WP:MOSDAB: cell phone is indeed "more or less synonymous" with mobile phone, but the bizarre form Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560) - no-one intending to speak of his whole life would call him Dauphin - is not synonymous with Francis II. We do often speak of kings by their titles and numerals before their accession (as the article says: [Francis II] was the grandson of Francis I, King of France, and of Claude of France, and the brother of Charles IX, King of France, and of Henry III, King of France.) but rarely do we speak of a King as Dauphin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't need to be disambiguated by "Francis, Dauphin of France", then that entry needs to be removed from this dab page. If he needs to be disambiguated by "Francis, Dauphin of France", then that entry needs to be on this dab page and the redirect that includes "Francis, Dauphin of France" is the preferred link for it, according to WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both the disputed entries are for historical people who were known as Francis, Dauphin of France, at least sometime in their lives. That's why they are on this page. Agreeing with JHunter, if they are to be included on this page, then the redirects are proper. If you do not think they should be on this page, that is a different question. The redirects do not assert that "Francis, Dauphin of France" is the MOST common way to refer to either of these men, simply that it is A way that they have been known. SlackerMom (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia is to be made worse because a guideline is obscurely written? Thank you for doing harm to the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The only harm here is your disruptive edits to the guidelines, your edit warring, and now your assumption of bad faith. There is no further explanation of the guidelines that can be made. Please feel free to ask additional questions, but stop editing the guidelines to agree with your misinterpretation of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a way to ask for additional input. {{third opinion}} doesn't seem to apply, since we've already got three opinions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My twopennyworth on a subject, not exactly dear to my heart, is that the use of the redirects accords with mos:dab and is potentially helpful to readers. Abtract (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Try this: {{RFChist | section=Request for Comment !! reason=Should disambiguation pages link to the article for the subject, or should they link to an obscure form Wikipedia has invented? !! time=03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}

Francis, Dauphin of France (1518-1536), or Francis III, Duke of Brittany, son and heir of Francis I of France
Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560), or Francis II of France, son and heir of Henry II of France

Now in both cases, the disambiguated form like Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560), is something Wikipedia has made up. Actual sources normally call Francis Francis II. Even when dealing solely with the period before he inherited the Dauphin Francis, or Francis, the Dauuphin (Dauphin of France is redundant) or even Francis II, and use some other device to make clear that he is not yet king.

Should we link to the actual common name of the article, or to this artificial redirect? Doing the latter has three disadvantages.

The reader will be faced with a redirect to an unfamiliar name, and have to read the line to figure out who he wants; we should link to the name that is actually used.
Diambiguators will tend to produce [[Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560)|Francis, Dauphin of France]], which is a completely unnecessary redirection.
More seriously, future editors will be inconvenienced by this; if they are puzzled by the sentence, they will have to dive through the link to see that this is talking about Francis II at all.

This ill-advised link is being defended by stretching out of all recognition a clause in WP:MOSDAB which says that in disambiguating cell, the disambiguation page can link to cell phone, instead of mobile phone. That clause is, in itself, perfectly sensible: cell phone and mobile phone are almost exactly synonymous, and pretty much equally recognizable; we could have named the article either.

But no-one would have proposed naming Francis II of France as Francis, Dauphin of France (1544-1560); nobody uses the latter; we made it up. In addition to its clumsiness, it is unclear whether this is Francis's lifespan, as it happens to be, or the time he was Dauphin, which would be (1547-1559). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have trouble with a neutral statement of the problem. Simple summation of the dispute:

One option is to use the WP:MOSDAB guidelines for using redirects when they match the disambiguation page title
The other option is to ignore those guidelines for some benefit, under WP:IAR. The benefit is the education of Wikipedia editors, who would take the linked entries as listed here as indicative of the way the individual must be linked elsewhere on Wikipedia.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two more; what MOSDAB actually says is that Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and the target article uses an alternative title. Note can be helpful - this is not a requirement. (And MOSDAB does actually require that the two names be more or less synonymous. This case stretches less synonymous to its breaking point.) Therefore

We can also decide that the wording of MOSDAB does not apply here.
Or that MOSDAB should, being a guideline, be adapted to reflect what we decide to do here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOSDAB applies here as it does on every other dab I'm aware of. See Karin, Zero (disambiguation), Son Goku, Rinku, DBZ, Kurt Wagner, HP (disambiguation), N (disambiguation), Bongo, and Satan (disambiguation). If you like, I can provide a few more examples. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, might as well say the others since I've just watchlisted this page: War Machine (disambiguation), Peter Parker, Crash, MGS, Chi-Chi, CEL, Avatar (disambiguation), Seru (disambiguation), Ichigo, Sephiroth, Túpac Amaru (disambiguation), Freezer (disambiguation), and Spider-Man (disambiguation). Hopefully I've proved my point. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that particular clause and interpretation. Without further explanation, I don't see how those pages are parallel. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are all getting worked up over very little. This is a disambiguation page "Francis, Dauphin of France" is a possible search term, so that the page can usefully exist. The two infants (with redlinks) both died as infants and do not need articles. They should have redirects to the articles on their fathers. The rest can stay. Pages that link to a disambiguation page are unsatisfacotry and need to be edited to link to the correct target, but nevertheless serve the useful purpose of helping identify what that target should be. The problem with this page is that the two latter articles link to redirects to other pages: that is bad, and I will amend this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "two latter articles" (although I have moved them to the top now) employ redirects to match the title of this page, and they do not redirect to "other pages", but to the pertinent target articles, as they should. That is not bad, although it has been contested here. It is the common interpretation of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) guidelines. SlackerMom (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. See WP:R#NOTBROKEN and WP:PIPING. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there would be no problem matching the title of the page, if (as with WP:PIPING's example) the two titles were substantively equivalent. These are not. Please stop inventing a mandatory rule which WP:DAB does not ordain, and which interferes with readers and editors alike. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is "Francis, Dauphin of France". Readers would get here by looking for something called "Francis, Dauphin of France". There are redirects substantively equivalent to "Francis, Dauphin of France", which in fact differ only by the addition of a parenthetical disambiguator. Therefore, those redirects will most closely match the reader's needs. It is entirely possible that you are aware of another scenario in which the reader might reach this page, and I've asked you to outline it, but with no response, so I think that this page should continue to serve the reader by providing the easiest navigational aid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - I wholeheartedly agree with J. Yes it may only be a guideline, but there's nothing politically incorrect in using redirects that match the dab term. Burdock (disambiguation), Zero gravity (disambiguation), Chi, Dracula (disambiguation), Pike, Aladdin (disambiguation), Term, Sai, Paradise Lost (disambiguation), Kaito (disambiguation), Sasuke, Alucard, Baba, and all the other dabs I've mentioned above do these very things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-edited this page to attempt to make it look more like a standard disambiguation page. The dauphins of 1466 and 1497 will never need an article, since they did nothing except live for a few days or months and are thus not notable. I have reordered the material on the other two so that the article title appears at the beginning (as is usual). The links to their fathers are in my view worth having (or at least harmless. It is undesirable that this page should list articles that are themselves redirects, as this is liable to lead to double redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links to the fathers do not assist navigation for readers looking for "Francis, Dauphin of France". And, again, there is nothing wrong with redirects, and they are not "liable to lead to double redirects" -- against see WP:R#NOTBROKEN and WP:PIPING -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Their fathers' pages contain the only information on those princes we have or are ever likely to have: that they were born and died, and the political consequences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it is not absolutely inconceivable that we may someday have a stub, so the redlinks should be preserved; on the other hand, we need not link to Henry II of France: the purpose of this page is to get the reader to the principal article on each Francis as quickly as possible, and they can find other links there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion over? Can we remove the tag? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we pipe to section redirects for the two who died in infancy, and are only mentioned (AFAICS) in lists of offspring.]? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that we reached consensus on the redirect issue, but no new opinion has been presented recently. In my opinion, this page would be improved by the use of redirects, but I am not willing to edit war over that point, and the page is acceptable and useful as it now stands. I think it would be acceptable to pipe the bluelinks for the two infants so they go directly to the sections. Alternatively, you could turn the redlinks into redirects to the relevant sections, and dispense with the blue links to the fathers. Dealer's choice. SlackerMom (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redlinks serve a function as they are: to detect the existence of those two permastubs if anyone makes them. Now that I think about it, I'm less sure that piping to a section is desirable; if the reader clicks on Charles VIII of France, it may be better to link to that article, rather than its last section. If no-one else opines in a week, say, the RfC can go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowikied the RFC Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]