Talk:The Entombment (disambiguation)

disambiguation or redirect

Copied from Pengyanan's talk page:

I'm afraid you are absolutely wrong about this. There are literally tens of thousands of "Entombments" in art, with the titles having many variants which are used by art historians according to taste. A page that just lists the handful that we happen to have articles on is no help to the reader, as the odds that the one he is looking for is one of these are really vanishingly small. It is far better to take the reader straight to an article, or section of the article, on the subject as a subject, with a list of links to the works on which we have an article. Pages supposedly disambiguating standard subjects of religious art like this are among the most useless on Wikipedia. Johnbod (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you have reverted me without any further discussion. Please enter into discussion on this matter. Johnbod (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Some user tried to redirect this disambiguation page to Entombment of Christ and remove the disambiguation hatnote from there. "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). This article includes a list of entries sharing the same name. It is exactly what a disambiguation page needs to do. It helps users find relevant targets more conveniently and should be kept. --Pengyanan (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

- The redirect takes the reader to a section where all the same information, and then much more relevant information is immediately available than on the disambiguation page, which was highly misleading in saying "may refer to", when this was actually hugely unlikely, given how many works with this title there are. Johnbod (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Few people will type "The Entombment (disambiguation)" to search for something. They usually just type "The Entombment" and then will be brought to Entombment of Christ, not its specific section. Then user have to read all the article to find whether there is any link they are actually looking for. This will cause much unnecessary inconvenience. This disambiguation page perfectly meets the purpose of disambiguation described by Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If there are really many works with this title, then a disambiguation page is much more convenient than a specific section in an article for users to find what they want. Redirecting this disambiguation page to a section of Entombment of Christ is equal to redirecting Sherlock Holmes (disambiguation) to Sherlock Holmes#Adaptations and derived works, which will cause just chaos. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Johnbod is right. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please leave your substantial reasons, not just declare your position. Wikipedia discussion is not just counting votes, but looking at comments. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that with this and other very common subjects in art, a) the tiny proportion of images that we actually have articles are often not even the most famous, and b) the names used are highly variable and changeable, so that articles are often misnamed, and the probability in such cases that a conventional disam page will help a reader is really very small, and they are better taken to a section that explains this, as well as giving a fuller list of articles. Nothing is more misleading to a reader in such cases than the usual "may refer to". Obviously where there are other types of usage this does not apply. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have multiple articles on multiple works of art with the same title, then you absolutely have to have a disambiguation page. There's no getting around that. And you have to link to the disambiguation page from the main redirect page with a hatnote. This is standard Wikipedia practice. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that with this and other very common subjects in art, a) no matter how not famous a subject is, as long as it has an article on Wikipedia and is not deleted, it is seen as notable enough and there should be some ways helping users find them, including by a disambiguation page, and b) no matter how variable and changeable a subject's names are, as long as a name is used as its Wikipedia article title, that name of course may refer to that subject, and no matter how small a conventional disam page will hep a reader, it helps. Reading all the content of Entombment of Christ to find a link at a specific section is obviously inconvenient for users. A disambiguation page is a much better solution and meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Too many people now, long discussion, waste of life.... Johnbod expressed it well, I do not need to retype it counselor. That is my take too. Minor issue anyway. Much ado about less than nothing. Enough of this. History2007 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment at this edit summary implies that you count yourself as one of the 2 opposing editors. That's why I pointed out that Wikipedia discussion is not just counting votes, but looking at comments. If you do not have any new comments other than Johnbod's, then your presence here does not actually contribute to the consensus process. I believe that you can do much more useful things than participate in this minor issue and waste of life. Best regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This minatory tone is totally uncalled for, and of course he is part of the consensus process. Like people in all WP discussions, where arguments have been expressed at some length, he has a perfect right to just say he agrees. You really don't like people disagreeing with you, do you? May I suggest you read Free speech, and WP:NPA? I can tell you that his edits are a good deal more useful than any of yours I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course anyone has a perfect right to just say he/she agrees. My point is that just saying agree does not contribute to the consensus because Wikipedia discussion is not just counting votes, but looking at comments. I absolutely agree that History2007 has made a great deal of contributions to Wikipedia articles. But it does not mean that his/her just saying agree in this discussion is more useful than our (including your) comments. It seems that it is you that really don't like people disagreeing with you, especially when you made personal attacks on me in this comment and this edit summary. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)