Talk:Real

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please move to Brazillian currency. Real has many other meanings. 66.245.95.157 21:44, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the previous Real page to Real (currency) and created a new disambig page. All links now reflect this change. --VampWillow 01:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

---

"Real, a type of number, esp. in economics;"

Especially in economics???? Phys 19:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it was meant to be "especifically". Not my idea, someone else came up with a far too extensive entry for a disambig. page. Just tried to shorten it a little. Redux 19:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please read before editing

Hi. I've officially lost count of how many times I've cleared up this article because people just keep inserting the exact same links that already exist but using different words. Real number ranks first, if I had left all the entries linking to this article, it would now account for half of an overly extended list. So I have a reasonable request: people, please read the article (and check the links) before addind to the list, this is a typical case of editing without even knowing what's already in the article. And let's remember that the disambiguation page is not supposed to explain the items listed in detail, it's supposed to just direct the reader to the actual "Real" article he may be trying to find, there he will find the detailed information in question. Thanks. Redux 00:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll probably keep changing it until this meaning is more obvious. The "especifically in economics" is especially misleading (is especifically really a word?). Other disambiguation pages don't have the notion that every line has to start with the word, which makes them clearer and more useful. Also there is no point in putting dead links in disambiguation pages. Finally the "important" remark contradicts the manual Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Make comments invisible. Gadykozma 02:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you have found the page unclear, but I guess most users disagree, especially since quite a few people have been involved in writing this page. What I have done is eliminate redundant entries and consolidate any new data (as I've done with your Imaginary numbers addition). The fact that all the entries start with the word being disambiguated would appear to be either a coincidence or a result of people trying to make the article more clear (except maybe in your book), or maybe they were just following the lead of VampWillow, who started the page and wrote the first entries. I fail to see how writing the same things over and over with different words helps the article to be more clear. Since you thought that was a problem, I'm afraid you only added to the problem instead of fixing it. As for the "important" remark, it was inserted as a temporary resort because there were tens of articles in which people used the word "real" as an adjective and mislinked it to the page that used to be here (until VampWillow moved it and created the disambiguation page), instead of linking it to the Reality article (if you had read the page's history, you'd know that). Dead links are part of disambiguation pages, I've been to some where 80% of the links were red, and I don't see it as being pointless, since the entry points to another meaning of the word that we would otherwise ignore and creates the opportunity for someone to take an interest and actually write an article approaching that specific meaning of the word. And finally, concerning the word "especifically", which was the result of yet another anti-redundancy edit, Google it and you'll find quite a few entries for it. Regards. Redux 12:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say that adding duplicate entries makes the article clearer. I said that if the real numbers entry would have read "In mathematics, a real number is...", it would be more useful to readers and less work for you. As for especifically, you will find any mispel in google. Why don't you try http://m-w.com ? Finally, don't assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you it's because he didn't read something. It's just not true. Gadykozma 13:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, any effort to reword for clarity is certainly welcome, the problem is exactly that people are not doing that. However did you conclude that I think that who's not with me is wrong? Maybe it was I who wasn't clear enough, so here it goes: People keep writing duplicate entries, and that's not my opinion, that's a mere observation of facts; What I did assume is that the reason why people do that is because they didn't take the time to read the article and check the links, which makes that an honest — although easily avoidable — mistake, and that really has nothing to do with whether or not people agree with any particular opinion of mine. Otherwise it's just crazy, I mean, they saw that the entry already existed and still wrote another one? Take your case for instance, you wrote a duplicate entry for Real number, so I suppose that you did it because you didn't notice that it was already there. That's not the same as rewording, which according to your own line of thought, would have been the way to go if you really felt that the entry was that unclear. So as I said before, you accidentally added to the problem instead of fixing it (if there's actually a problem). Finally, the word "especifically" is broadly used and understood, which makes it rather useable according to modern linguistics (just like many terms related to computing and the internet), not a "mispel", which technically would be to write something like "corret" instead of "correct" (the noun "mispel", by the way, is not in the Webster's English Language Dictionary, which certainly doesn't mean that it's not really a word). Regards, Redux 19:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Order of items

Dear Redux. Please state here the reasons for you preferring the Brasilian currency first. I believe the recent edits of Stevertigo are very appropriate and improve this article, and as such, can't just be reverted saying that the issue was "settled before". Thanks. I believe it is better to talk before reverting. Oleg Alexandrov

The reasons are stated in the discussion right over this one, right here on the talk page. That is why I said it had already been discussed. Repeating: There is no particular reason, I was not the one to have listed the Brazilian currency first. VampWillow started this disambiguation page and she listed articles at random. Every other enty after that was made at the bottom of the list. This provides neutrality and [should] prevent constant editing because someone comes along and finds that "something is more important and thus should come first in the list", or "let's list alphabetically, or by bigger article, etc.". Just now Stevertigo altered the order because he probably felt that something else should me moved up the list. Similarly, other people might come along who think some other entry is "more important" and should come first, or maybe come up with some other reasoning for altering the list. It's a potentially neverending switch. VampWillow had no predilection, and the Brazilian currency was listed first (I believe) simply because it's article was occupying this namespace before and was moved to make room for the disambiguation article. This probably made it the first one to come to Willow's mind. Once again, neutrality: the order was defined by chance, so no one can complain about predilections or claim that whatever criteria that could have been used was biased in any way.
We cannot start this discussion over and over everytime someone decides that the order should be altered. I also see no reason to create subsections in a simple disambiguation list, not to mention that opening the disambiguation with one of the possible meanings as if it was a definition (or a standard opening paragraph from a normal article) is completely innapropriate for a disambiguation page. That will never stand, it's only a question of time until someone changes it back. I say: stick with the random listing, leave what's already there where they are and add new entries at the bottom, as it's been done all along. This issue has already generated an unseemly amount of polemics. Perhaps a second note will have to be added to the article, letting people know that the order of listing is random and should stay as such exactly to avoid polemics and continuous edits/reverts. Regards, Redux 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. This page did not have any attempt at reordering since January 9, when I tried it. My result was quite close to what Stevertigo put now. It is not as if this page is the focal point of all kinds of edits wars (well, except for you reverting any attempts at editing this). Let us leave it this way and see if more people will want to reorder things.

Splitting this article into sections is good, now things are better structured. Oleg Alexandrov 02:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

What I said is that random listing is meant to prevent constant edits aiming at reordering the list. That is exactly what you did. Think no one is likely to come over and reorganize it as they see fit? That will happen (you did it yourself, as did Stevertigo). It could be that any new version manages to stay on for a while, but the point still stands (it will only remain because the page is not all that "visible"). I reverted Stevertigo's edit informing that the issue had been brought up before and had been (I thought) put behind us. You re-reverted without checking the talk page (since I said it had been discussed). You didn't read the page, and started a new discussion without realizing that you were doing it right underneath the discussion that had happened on the issue. If there's a revert problem, I'm sorry but you caused it.
As I mentioned, you did not make any point except to say that you think that the order you came up with is better (in your opinion). That is exactly the problem (that has the potential to generate future issues, sin there's no edit war going on right now) I was talking about: just as you did it, someone else is likely to come along (no matter if one, two or three months from now) and decide to do the same. Random listing, which provides for neutrality, is the only way to prevent that sort of thing.
Finally, this new format you created is not suitable for a disambiguation page: it has an opening paragraph that [appears to] defines "Real" (as something that exists in reality, etc.), as if that was the principal meaning of the word (which is besides the point in a disambiguation page). Than you opened new sections saying that it "may also refer to". That is not the point of a disambiguation page. This is supposed to be a simple list that points for the specific articles with very succinct summaries to the meaning that will be approached in the specific article. Subdividing the list would only be necessary if the topic was somehow complex or if the list bacame exceedingly long. Neither one is the case here, at least so far. Regards, Redux 02:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

It was not me who reverted.

I understand some things about this version are not perfect. We can improve on it.

I would suggest we freeze the order the way it is now. Stevertigo is fine with that, I am fine with that. It seems any order is fine with you as long as it is fixed. How about that? Oleg Alexandrov 03:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As for the order itself, we may give it a try, but I maintain that neutral (meaning, listing at random) is the less complicated way to go. But even if we maintain this order, there are some details about the format that will need to be adjusted: There can be no opening paragraph defining "Real" and then subtopics given other meanings, as if they were secondary. All entries need to be indicated as alternative meanings for the word (with succinct data on what the word refers to — which will not be expanded here, since that's the job of the specific article, to which this one is supposed to point). Furthermore, as per the organization of the subsections, as it stands right now, "Regional" and "Other" seem to be categories apart from the header that says "it may also refer to", when they are in fact other meanings of "Real". That would have to be improved. Regards, Redux 04:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we are slowly converging towards a solution. Random ordering might be the less complicated way to go, but so far it made others unhappy.

So let us see how it goes with the new order. In the future, if other people would like to make changes, we can always talk. That seems to be the only way to go, and not reverting back and forth.

I would really appreciate it if you improve of the organization of the page, as you mentioned above. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 04:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

So much argument over a disambiguation page! -SV|t 05:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but as they say, S**t happens. Redux 17:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] note for Wikipedia editors?

Why is the following at the bottom of the real article? It is a note for Wikipedia editors, and one of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is Avoid self-references. It is not an explicit self-reference, but it is a comment that only makes sense for Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse ∅ 5 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Note: When the word "real" is used as a synonym for either truth or reality, it should be linked to one of these two specific articles (e.g.: "The real world." or "The real article")

I agree the note should not be there. Besides, it is ugly. The editors should be smart enough to figure out what to link to. Oleg Alexandrov 6 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

All right, I was the one who had created the note, so I've taken care of it. I've turned it into one of those visible-only-when-editing notes to editors. This had only been in the article because, back when this disambiguation page was created, a quick search of the website revealed an overwhealming quantity of mislinks. Enough time has passed though, and with a disambig page, the problem is likely resolved. I thought the notice was worth keeping though, although now visible only when editing. Regards, Redux 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)