Talk:Pointer

Mouse cursor

I propose splitting Cursor (computers)#Mouse cursor to Pointer (input device)Pointer (computing). Rationale: the pointer is a term in its own right, per WIMP (computing). To avoid ambiguity, I also propose

• moving Pointer (computing) to Pointer (programming)Pointer (computer programming).

-- Trevj (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving Pointer (computing) to Pointer (computer programming) (standard disambiguation tag), Cursor (computers) to Cursor (computing) (standard disambiguation tag) and splitting Cursor (computers)#Mouse cursor to Pointer (computing) (the mouse would be the "input device" not the pointer, I believe) an adding appropriate hatnotes. —Ruud 11:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Concur & Support --Cybercobra (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, Ruud, that's an improvement. Thanks for the input. -- Trevj (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• According to Princeton's WordNet 3.1:

Noun

• S: (n) computer science, computing (the branch of engineering science that studies (with the aid of computers) computable processes and structures)
• S: (n) calculation, computation, computing (the procedure of calculating; determining something by mathematical or logical methods)

Verb

• S: (v) calculate, cipher, cypher, compute, work out, reckon, figure (make a mathematical calculation or computation)

Drawing in Microsoft's Paint is not "computing"; the laymen may not have this word. I strongly oppose the move. [EDIT: To be explicit, I'm against moving the existing Pointer (computing) article.] Mfwitten (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• That's interesting. Could you please elaborate? The "(computing)" disambiguation phrase would be to differentiate from other uses listed at Pointer. Drawing in Paint (software) uses a pointer, although termed the "cursor" in that article. -- Trevj (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• And according to the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for "computing": "2. The action or practice of using computers, esp. as a professional or expert; the activity or operation of an electronic computer; (also) = computer science n." (emphasis mine). This is a commonly used diambiguation tag for articles in the field of computing and matches WikiProject Computing—Ruud 22:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• So, is checking the time on your digital watch an example of "computing"?

  That definition is a ridiculously vague usage, especially in the context of a disambiguation phrase; essentially, you want to use:

"(computing)"

to mean:

"(something having to do with most personal computers of the 20th and 21st Centuries)".

However, an element of a graphical user interface (such as a mouse cursor) is hardly necessary for computing even by your definition. In comparison, an algorithmic tool (such as a pointer as currently described by "Pointer (computing)") is virtually essential to all forms of computing (including, probably, using your digital watch).

I have some arguably petty but undeniable arguments against the proposed move:

1. Let's suppose that both articles have equally legitimate claims to the disambiguation phrase "(computing)". Well, the article on the algorithmic concept got to it first, so I'd say: Tough Luck for the GUI concept. After all, what if the mouse cursor article already existed at "Pointer (computing)"; would it be acceptable for authors to want to shove it out of the way for an article on the algorithmic concept instead... just because? Of course, I believe that the algorithmic concept has a better claim, anyway.
2. Along similar lines, note that the existing article "Cursor (computers)" has been viewed 200-to-388 times each day for the last month or so. In contrast, the existing article "Pointer (computing)" has been viewed 600-to-1000 times each day for the last month. There are numerous links around the Internet that already point to "Pointer (computing)" with the expectation of finding an article on the algorithmic concept; if enacted, your proposal will no doubt cause much breakage across the Internet—but perhaps that is not something about which GUI-types think?
3. Given that the algorithmic concept "Pointer" is more essential than the GUI element "Pointer" to the topic of "computing" in general, it would make the most sense to apply the more general "(computing)" to the algorithmic concept, and then find a more specific disambiguation phrase for the GUI element—for example, "(GUI)" or "(HID)" or some friendlier expansion thereof.

This proposal is a bad idea. Mfwitten (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The disambiguation tag "computing" is widely used for articles related to the field of computing and computing technology. The disambiguation tags "computer programming" and "computer science" are widely used for programming and algorithmic topics (see e.g. Category:Programming language concepts. You're opposing a specific instance, while what you're really seem opposed to is a general principle that's long been common practice. I think it would be more productive if you raised your concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing instead. —Ruud 14:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Move, to either Pointer (programming) or Pointer (computer programming), whichever is the most commonly used parenthetical suffix used on WP. (I personally think that computer programming is a bit redundant, but I bow to current WP convention.) — Loadmaster (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note If we move the current article at Pointer (computing) to Pointer (computer programming) and start a new article at that place, all existing incoming links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Pointer (computing)) should be fixed as well. This may take some effort, but there may be a few links that should in fact have linked to Mouse pointer (another potential name for the article) than can be fixed at the same time. —Ruud 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Mouse pointer doesn't seem to be the common name, which is "pointer" by a factor of 10.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: 3 330 000

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL: 35 000 000

-- Trevj (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If the contentious issue is the move of Pointer (computing), this needn't prevent the spinoff from Cursor (computers)#Mouse cursor to another title. I've also notified WP:WPDAB. -- Trevj (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the long argumentations it's still not entirely clear to me exactly which of the multiple parts of this proposal Mfwitten considers to be a bad idea. To address each individual renaming proposals:

1. Pointer (computing) should probably be moved to Pointer (computer programming), regardless of what happens to Cursor (computers), for consistency with other similar articles.
2. Cursor (computers) should probably be moved to Cursor (computing) for similar reasons.
3. Due to reasons expressed in my note above and some of Mfwitten's concerns, it might not be a good idea to place the spinoff at Pointer (computing). However, Mouse pointer would also be a suitable alternative title.

—Ruud 14:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be explicit, I'm against moving the existing Pointer (computing) article. Mfwitten (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• That wasn't completely what I would have expected from your arguments. Would that opposition be unconditional, or would it be acceptable if a redirect from Pointer (computing) stayed in place, i.e. it would not be replaced by an article on mouse pointers? And what about an disambiguation page (in the filed of computing "pointer" can refer to at least three different things, the computer programming one, the user interface one, the databases one, perhaps more I didn't think of)? —Ruud 18:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see how my arguments could be interpreted in any other way, frankly; of course, my arguments do also involve a more general discussion of the usage of "(computing)", but my main concern is the proposal to move the existing Pointer (computing) article.

  A small blurb at the top of the existing Pointer (computing) article (to redirect wayward readers) would certainly be acceptable to me.

  As far as a disambiguation page goes, it would seem to me that a disambiguation phrase in the article's name itself is not really all that important; regardless of the name of the actual article, the disambiguation page can include enough additional information on its own. Mfwitten (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean by:

would it be acceptable if a redirect from Pointer (computing) stayed in place, i.e. it would not be replaced by an article on mouse pointers?

If you are proposing that Pointer (computing) simply redirect to Pointer (computer programming), then I suppose that is acceptable. Mfwitten (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• In fact, I wouldn't mind if Pointer (computing) were to become a disambiguation page itself for the purpose of listing all of the usages within the purview of "(computing)" in general. Now, that sounds like a compromise! Mfwitten (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• The relevant guideline is WP:INCDAB. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Move: I agree the current content of Pointer (computing) should be moved to Pointer (computer science) or Pointer (computer programming). Then Pointer (computing) becomes a disambiguation for this concept and the cursor concept, preferably with all the existing links moved to the new name first. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pointer (computing) should redirect to Pointer, per WP:INCDAB. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Or Pointer#Computing. —Ruud 09:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Right, if we were to create such a section. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... the spinoff. -- Trevj (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed procedure (shout if you think there's a better way):

1. Create GUI spinoff at Pointer (computing graphical user interface element) or other suitable title - can always be moved later
2. Include spinoff in (computing section of) dab page at Pointer
3. Create Pointer (computer programming), initially as redirect to Pointer (computing)
4. Change (selected) existing links to Pointer (computing) to use temporary redirect at Pointer (computer programming), or other appropriate page (maybe the spinoff or dab page).

   Question What about double redirects?

5. Move Pointer (computing) to Pointer (computer programming)
6. Make Pointer (computing) redirect to computing section of dab page at Pointer
7. Update pages referring to "mouse cursor", "mouse pointer" to link to the GUI spinoff
8. Point existing redirects (such as Mouse pointer) to the GUI spinoff, as appropriate
9. Edit Graphical user interface elements, Cursor (computers) (+ other relevant articles) to summarise/link to the GUI spinoff

-- Trevj (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds just slightly overcomplicated. Also, why would we need mouse pointer when we already have Cursor (computers)? (The article's name needs improvement, but it already includes that topic). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought we need something like Pointer (computing graphical user interface) (spinoff WIP). The pointer is the 'P' in WIMP (computing). Mouse pointer should redirect to the GUI pointer article. I've noticed a number of (though not all) news pieces etc. referring to the "mouse cursor", although text books use the correct "pointer" term. I'm speculating here, but suspect some tech writers and editors may have "educated" themselves into using this term from Wikipedia! -- Trevj (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's just about done now... a few more Dab Solver bits to still rectify. New (moved) spinoff at Pointer (graphical user interfaces). -- Trevj (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kind

🐶 69.113.164.19 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)