 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Jericho
editThe disambig MOS says that piping should not be used to remove a qualifier from a wikilink. For reasons that I cannot fathom, JHunterJ insists on the following:
- "Nuts!", an episode of (and anti-cancellation campaign related to) the television show Jericho
whereas I think the MOS-correct line should be:
- "Nuts!", an episode of (and anti-cancellation campaign related to) Jericho (TV series).
I sense an edit-war brewing here, so I'll hold off reverting for now until others have the chance to chime in. Groupthink 11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- WP:MOSDAB#Piping: "If a word in the description is linked (an unusual occurrence), you may use piping in that link." If the link is the entry instead of the description of the entry, you are correct, but that isn't the case here. The description should read naturally (which normally means without parenthetical qualifiers). No matter which way it is done, Jericho is a TV series and needs to be italicized. Perhaps
- "Nuts!", an episode of (and anti-cancellation campaign related to) the Jericho television series
would suit. -- JHunterJ 12:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- If no one else has problems, I'm fine with the page as-is -- I don't want to spend too much time quibbling over procedural points. Groupthink 12:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- However, it is a moot point as the protest campaign wasn't actually called "Nuts!" - it just used the term. As well, none of the Jericho episodes were titled "Nuts!". (The phrase was used in the season finale.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're wrong about that, the protest campaign was called "Nuts! for Jericho", and was known by the catch-phrase "Nuts!" I'm reverting your hatchet-job. Groupthink 18:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- I take issue with Ckatz's quibble that the season 1 finale wasn't actually called "Nuts!". The use of said quote in the finale was notable, ergo it's a valid reference. However, I will not belabor the point as long as the fan-campaign bullet-point remains, since the fan campaign derived it's name and slogan from the same episode of the show. Groupthink 18:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- However, it is a moot point as the protest campaign wasn't actually called "Nuts!" - it just used the term. As well, none of the Jericho episodes were titled "Nuts!". (The phrase was used in the season finale.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't really a "quibble" - the text was wrong, and the term is not especially notable in the context of the episode. However, the campaign can stay, since you've pointed out that the name was actually used. (By the way, I'm sorry if you've been sparring with another editor over this page - but labelling my edit a "hatchet-job" was inappropriate. It was done in good faith.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, and I apologize, but it's frustrating to have created a "Nuts!" disambig page, only to have that page whacked and redirected, and then have to try to appropriately add content to this page only to meet resistance. As for notability, I completely disagree with you about the episode context, but like I said, I'll drop it. Groupthink 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you - and believe me, I can understand your frustration, having felt the same way on many occasions. It can certainly be a tough slog trying to do basic stuff on WP. --Ckatzchatspy 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, and I apologize, but it's frustrating to have created a "Nuts!" disambig page, only to have that page whacked and redirected, and then have to try to appropriately add content to this page only to meet resistance. As for notability, I completely disagree with you about the episode context, but like I said, I'll drop it. Groupthink 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't really a "quibble" - the text was wrong, and the term is not especially notable in the context of the episode. However, the campaign can stay, since you've pointed out that the name was actually used. (By the way, I'm sorry if you've been sparring with another editor over this page - but labelling my edit a "hatchet-job" was inappropriate. It was done in good faith.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Red-links and MOS
editMOS says one blue link per disambig item, but unlimited red-links. I personally disagree with that policy, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so I've added a red-link of my own. Groupthink 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where, exactly, does it say "unlimited"? The idea is that a red link would be on the disambiguated term, only if it is likely to warrant an article of its own. ("Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. Adding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. There is no need to brainstorm all occurrences of the page title and create redlinks to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics.") The "Nuts" campaign is not likely to ever warrant an article, given the feeling at the Jericho page. --Ckatzchatspy 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I respectfully disagree. While there are certainly precedents for this type of campaign (Star Trek, Family Guy, etc.) the NUTS for Jericho campaign manifested in a manner and magnitude that I think could easily merit a separate article. I'm asking for consistency: If the "Nuts" comic strip gets a redlink, then the NUTS for Jericho campaign should get one too. Groupthink 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The guideline allows for a redlink entry with a single blue link in the description, or a blue link entry with no links in the description. There shouldn't be any need for redlinks in the descriptions, but the line in question could be recast to make the redlink the entry. -- JHunterJ 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)