Template talk:Tailor-surname

Template life

I noticed that some surname dab pages contain clumsy mismatched "See also" lists, so I started these surname-templates for uniformity. After creating the template:Tinker-surname, I could not help but go with the Tailor. In the pipeline are: Template:Soldier-surname and template:Spy-surname (or should it be template:Sailor-surname? :-). - Altenmann >t 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From user talk pages

Could you please stop adding links to disambiguation pages in Template:Tailor-surname. They are considered disruptive. Please use correct links to real existing articles. The Banner talk 16:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop disrupting the navigation template by unlinking the lists of surnames from it. - Altenmann >t 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I am not linking to disambig pages. I thought I complied with your previous reverts and now I link to pages called "something (surname)" rather than "something (disambiguation)". If there is a wikipedia rule which forbids doing so, I am happy to comply with it as well. You being annoyed, just take a break, relax and have some beer or milk. Wikipedia is mightily annoying, that I can agree. - Altenmann >t 16:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever follow the links you have added?

"Sarti (surname)" redirects to "Sarti", a disambiguation page

"Sartre (surname)" redirects to "Sartre (disambiguation)", a disambiguation page

So please, create real articles about the surnames... The Banner talk 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So please hear other people as well. DId you happen to look in the tepmalte talk page? It explains why it is done so. You also did not answer my question where linking to disambig pages is forbidden. It fact, it is expressly allowed. - Altenmann >t 16:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole WikiProject to fight against/solve links to disambiguation pages. So you could say people consider those links into thin air as a problem. It are in fact fake links, not directing you to a real article. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages for the Guideline. The Banner talk 16:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw the Guideline, and I am following it. It does allow exceptions. The intention of my links is clearly described. Dis you read the explanation? - Altenmann >t 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It allows exception in certain circumstances. The cases under discussion here are not valid exceptions as you can simply write the target articles. The Banner talk 23:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. And I am doing this you you may notice, But I don't have all time despite me being "user with the name Altenmann". And meanwhile they dab pages are valid targets for the purpose of this template. - Altenmann >t 02:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation

Even user with the name Altenmann have to respect the Guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation. brushing that aside as "not a valid reason" is nonsense and vandalism. So please, keep in mind this part of the guideline: With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article.. The Banner talk 22:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the whole point: the links in question point to the "relevant articles". The relevant articles being pages which list similarly spelled surnames (did you read the explanation of the purpose of this template? I guess not.), which in some case happen to be disambiguation pages. - Altenmann >t 02:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the clause "with few exceptions" is applicable here. - Altenmann >t 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both, I'll be responding here to the request for a third opinion. If you think I've misunderstood your arguments or anything regarding this dispute, please do tell me; I'm basing my response largely on the section above. The dispute comes down to a central question as far as I understand - Should pages which are not explicitly about the surname, but rather just list people with that surname be wikilinked in this template?

First I'd like to say that wikilinks are used to allow the reader to find articles which contain more detail on a subject than would/could be contained within the current page in order to provide more information on the subject. If the page being linked to in this case is one like Taylor (surname), then that makes perfect sense; the article explains a little on the origin and use of the surname. The question then comes down to whether this template should contain links to articles which only contain lists of people with the surname with no detail on the surname itself. Do either of you think that an article which only contains a list of surnames and does not give any information on the surname's history or use would increase the understanding of the reader? Samwalton9 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't guess the purpose of the template and read the purpose of the template, explained in two places. Please mark this checkbox [.] to state that you have read the explanation, thought a bit and understood it, but disagree with it, So far nobody bothered to do this, and I am not going to repeat the same for the third time. After that I will answer your very meaningful question, which is right to the point of the whole structure of wikipedia navigation, with all its lists, dab pages, etc. - Altenmann >t 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I agree that I have misunderstood the purpose of the template. I'll rephrase my question. Do you think that linking to disambiguation pages which either contain non-surname entries or could feasibly contain non-surname entries in the future, should be included in the template? Being a template of surnames it could be confusing to a reader that the pages being linked to contain for example, an asteroid alongside the names. My thoughts are that if this template is designed to replace lengthy see also entries, I wouldn't otherwise be in favour of listing disambiguation pages in the section which don't actually link to just surnames, but rather a variety of things related to what also happens to be a surname. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what is confusing to see an asteroid in addition to list of surnames? What is harm from extra information compared to harm because of information loss? The "See also" sections in question are not because someone decided it is funny the names are so similar. In this case it is important to link similarly spelled names, because it may be difficult to remember correct spelling: was it Al Khayat or El Khayat; Schnieder or Shneider. Compare it to redirects which are tagged with {{R with possibilities}} when a term is redirected to a page (of different title) where it is described, together with other things.

Of course it is good to have separate pages to reasonably separate things (and me edit count growing :-), but I am pretty sure that if I create a separate surname page with only two items, then someone equally eager cleaner-upper will merge it back, so hammer meet ~~sickle~~ anvil or what? - Altenmann >t 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you write articles like Sartre (surname), could you make sure that they have useful content and some sources? Now it looks like a failed attempt to create a disambiguation page... The Banner talk 23:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your belittling attitude is inappropriate. - Altenmann >t 03:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some massive problems with some of the links here - some of them are linking to certain individuals. Navboxes should also be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they should not include redirects, and they should not include duplicate links. Oh, and no redlinks per WP:NOTRED. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinked text should also not be used per WP:EXISTING. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]