User talk:Tom David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi you!

Here you can leave messages for Tom David (= me) (by pressing "edit this page" and adding some text).

Feel free to improve my knowledge!

Cheers! --Tom David 10:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plurals

Dear Josh Grosse,

why is there no reason to make a difference between singular and plural? Just because you don't? There are people out there who don't see the difference between "alga" and "algae" and they would be happy to know about. You could say it's like the difference not between 0 and 1, but between 1 and 2,3,4,5,6,... and so on. I see, computers may don't see this difference, they only have 0 and 1, but we are humans and we are able to distinguish! Anyway if you write about "tree" you don't start the page at "forest", do you? So if one writes about "algae", he should write it on the page of "algae" and not on the page "alga". Because for me there is a big difference...  ;)

--Tom David 10:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom, alga and algae indicate different numbers in a sentence, but they're just declensions of the same word. There's a reason most texts and dictionaries don't have different entries for tree and trees, or waiting and waited. Any information about one applies to the other, so there's nothing to gain by considering them separately. As for which title is preferrable, wikipedia traditionally uses the singular. Josh

Dear Josh, I just pasted your answer here, since I don't know how to reach you else and for better understanding it's usefull to have both parts of the conversation in front of us. (If there is a better way, just tell me.) Ok, with alga and algae, we just have two declensions, nominative singular and nominative plural. So what? The thing is, that Wikipedia has more space (as far as I know) than any other encyclopedia and therefore is able to put in even distinctions between singular and plural. Well, I agree, often this is not neccessary since the plural and singular would be easy to distinguish and everybody knows adding an "s" forms the plural. But sometimes it's not so easy and then a lot of people are happy to find some information at least in Wikipedia. Concerning your example about "tree" and "trees" just take a look at Wikipedia! I think you will be surprised! Is there a need to save memory space at Wikipedia? Isn't this exactly one of the big advantages of Wikipedia that everybody can add information unlimited? Or are you afraid of too many pages since then you couldn't survey everything anymore? Well to come back to the alga and algae (alga, algae, algae, algam, alge, pl: algae, algarum, algis, algas, algis), I believe it would be usefull to have both pages because even some researchers (or precisely those ones) sometimes really don't know the difference between "-a" and "-ae"!

Cheers! --Tom David 08:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, ability to survey pages is a real concern. The harder it is for editors to find what information has been added, the less fact-checking there will be, and the more pages there are with little content, the harder it will be for readers to find information. We can take advantage of our space, but the guideline has always been that only concepts likely to have articles belong here; simple definitions belong on wiktionary. Anyways, saying algae (singular alga) should be enough explanation. Josh

Pardon my intrusion, but Alga, even though it is grammatically true, is so infrequently used that it should be avoided as an article header. At best it could be used as a redirect to Algae. Most plant and animal group names are given in plural and are always used in plural. Never heard of Bilaterius or Bilaterium, always of Bilateria. As for the last comment, I doubt that those having no idea of basic latin and basic principles of nomenclature could pass for researchers. Alexei Kouprianov 02:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I watch this page so you can reply here.

OK, I give in. We all want to keep a good quality of Wikipedia, so it should be surveyed. Whether it's really less easy to find information when you have more pages (with links to related ones) I doubt. Perhaps it depends on how pages are written. So far I didn't know that there's also a Wiktionary! Perhaps one day Wikipedia and Wiktionary will be merged? I don't care anymore. As you may found out already, I would even ask to remove the "automatic redirection button" from the editor tools in terms of better understanding for the users, but do as you like. For somebody who doesn't realise that he has been redirected, it's just a lie, actually. Well, at least we can keep: algae (singular alga). That's already a lot!

To Alexei: I have made more than one experience that some guys don't care about latin anymore, and you will do also, sooner or later, just wait and see....  ;)

To Alexei: Privet!

To Josh: Have nice day!

Yours sincerely

--Tom David 14:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about removing permanently the "redirect button" from the editing tools?

copying here because i'm archiving the CP:talk page now :)

I'm asking for this action since I have the feeling Wiki users fail to see hidden information because of automatic redirection. A simple link to the page where the first page is redirected to would do better in my point of view, since you would always first stop at that word which you really entered. Different opinions? Suggestions? Have a nice day! --Tom David 09:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The more appropriate place to ask that question would be Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). However, you probably want to read Help:Redirect first, as i think some of your assumptions might be mistaken. There shouldnt be any hidden information at a redirect page; they are most commonly used for alternate spellings and misspellings. -Quiddity 04:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

... and copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive (section) on 8th of June 2006, 17h00 MEST:

I'm asking for this action since I have the feeling Wiki users fail to see hidden information because of automatic redirection. A simple link to the page where the first page is redirected to would do better in my point of view, since you would always first stop at that word which you really entered. Different opinions? Suggestions? Have a nice day! --Tom David 16:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean users should be forced to click an extra link on every alternate spelling or shortcut, rather than being automatically redirected? I don't follow. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not working for me either. I think the fact that it says at the top of the page where you were redirected from is enough. —Mets501^talk 11:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Why this should be such a big problem to make one single click more? Yes I mean that the user should be forced to click an extra link. The information that one has been "redirected" is so small and almost invisible that every second user doesn't remark it. Well, think what you want. I don't like the automatic redirection. If you correct somebody always automaticaly, I'm not sure whether he will be able to correct himself one day on his own. --Tom David 07:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, you can always return to the redirect page by clicking the "redirected from" link just below the title. I think it makes more sense to keep articles easy to find by putting automatic redirections on pages with alternate spellings/names, and giving those users who wish to access the redirect pages a way to do so by using the "redirected from" link. The reason why its small is because people wouldn't normally need to access the redirect pages. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here :-) Andrew 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have the feeling that some articles you can't find because of the automatic redirection, especially if you are a fast user (then you don't see everything), but it looks like everybody has to make his own experience concerning "being automated" :) --Tom David 09:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have two points to make:

1. Disabling automatic redirection would break several templates, whose transclusion links point to the redirect page.
2. I find it incredibly annoying when I click on a page and get a double-redirect. I know that I could easily click the link, but it is unexpected and confusing for some.

--Max Talk (add) 03:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

People get redirected by web servers all the time, perhaps without noticing it. For instance, if you type en.wikipedia.org to your browser, the server redirects you to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. I suspect we'd all get real tired real fast if we had to click through something in that case, and I don't see how wiki redirect pages are any different. —johndburger 02:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if web servers are regarded as encyclopedias, ok. Nevertheless, clicking on a link is not the same as entering a word in a search mask. It's clear that links should always point to the correct address. Anyway, perhaps it's better if one doesn't need to click too many times. Just let's make sure not to bury something useful behind a redirection... --Tom David 17:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied: --Tom David 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)