Talk:DNA/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Request to make DNA a redirect to deoxyribonucleic acid

There is no need to protect this page since this page should be a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 18:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for your insistence that the article DNA should be a disambiguation page, in preference to the present setup. However, neither do I see a particular reason to prefer the present setup over your proposed setup, so I will make the changes you suggest, provided no one objects within the next three days. (I will leave the article protected, no matter which title it ends up under.) -- Cyan 20:29, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reasons:
  1. DNA has alternate meanings
  2. Deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
  3. DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
  4. The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule

-- Bensaccount

I admit the truth of the above facts, but fail to see what bearing they have on the question. I guess I wasn't clear on why it doesn't make a difference to me. From what I can see, there is little practical difference between the present setup and your proposed setup. Specifically, the very first (italicized) line in the article under the present setup informs readers of the existence of possible alternative meanings to "DNA" and gives them the link for more information. I don't understand what advantage accrues by changing the setup as you propose, but equivalently, no disadvantage will accrue, so I'm willing to make the change, provided no one expresses a substantive objection. -- Cyan 20:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. 98% of users who type in DNA (if not more) will be looking for this article. What we are doing is letting the 2% of users looking for another article click twice (once to DNA, once to the disambigged page) instead of three times, and the cost is making 98% of users click twice (same as above) instead of once. Deoxyribonucleic acid is not easy to remember or spell....hence, people will either link to DNA when writing new articles (necessitating a lot of fixing links, or just leaving it so people have to click twice) or they'll try to spell deoxyribonucleic acid in a piped link, which will be difficult and frustrating for even those of some scientific know-how. This shift shouldn't happen, especially as it appears only one user is requesting it, and the many authors who've been here wrangling over this page seem agreed on the article's location, if nothing else. Jwrosenzweig 21:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

<via edit conflict> On second thought, I have just come up with some really, really good reasons not to change anything. If you check the What links here list for DNA, you will see an extensive list of articles which link to DNA rather than deoxyribonucleic acid. From this list, I draw two conclusions:

  1. When people create the link DNA, they want the link to go to this text, so we might as well make it easy to do so.
  2. Changing over to the other setup involves replacing all of the links to [[DNA]] with either [[deoxyribonucleic acid]] or [[deoxyribonucleic acid|DNA]].

In short, changing over is a lot of work and results in a mildly less functional setup.

-- Cyan 21:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What im understanding is that lazyness ("I dont want to change those links") is taking priority over correctness. Bensaccount 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then Ben, you are misunderstanding. You are being told that, because of the logistics of maintaining an encyclopedia and the desire to make information easily accessible to those accustomed to the common vernacular, the page should remain where it is. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wasnt finished...

What im understanding is that lazyness ("I dont want to change those links") is taking priority over correctness. I also dont think you understand what im saying. If you move the present DNA page to deoxyribonucleic acid it would be more correct. Also if you think that most links to DNA refer to deoxyribonucleic acid then make the DNA page a redirect. Still I think that it wouldnt hurt to be correct and change the direct links (no matter how many) so that only the ambiguous links go to the DNA disambiguation page. Bensaccount 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't stop you from finishing, if that comment is meant to rebuke me somehow for my earlier reply. Ben, I don't know any scientist who doesn't abbreviate Deoxyribonucleic acid as DNA, and I know tons of people who only know it as DNA. Since we tell them in the first sentence what DNA stands for, there isn't an issue with correctness. It is far easier linkwise, and not incorrect factually, to leave the article here. Hence it should stay, in my opinion (and Cyan's, unless I misread Cyan badly). Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ben, you got the laziness part right. If I thought your change would be helpful, then I would certainly do all of the sysop-privilege-requiring bits, but the tedious stuff would still be up to you. However, while your proposed setup is more correct in a technical sense, I believe that people will continue to create the link to (the technically less correct) "DNA" as opposed to the (technically more correct) "deoxyribonucleic acid". It just doesn't make sense to me to sacrifice usefulness for correctness.

You suggested that the "DNA" page should be a redirect to "deoxyribonuceic acid". This isn't a very good solution because, as you have pointed out, "DNA" can stand for more than just deoxyribonucleic acid. -- Cyan 22:12, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is getting irritating so to stop you from going back and forth with all my points I have created a pros and cons list. Feel free to add to it. If there are any controversial points put them at the bottom. Bensaccount 22:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pros and cons

of:

  1. moving DNA to Deoxyribonucleic acid
  2. making DNA a redirect page.

Pros:

  1. DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
  2. The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule
  3. The people who dont know what DNA stands for will be redirected to deoxyribonucleic acid.
  4. If you decide to go with the redirect and keep the DNA (disambiguation) page, there is no difference in ease of use.

Cons:

  1. DNA is far more common than "deoxyribonucleic acid" in the vernacular, which is one of our guidelines for naming conventions.
  2. Precedent: among other examples, NASA is actually the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but we specifically chose to put the article at NASA as the acronym is well known, and in far more common use than the full name.

Ben, it would help if you could explain how the present setup fails to adequately inform the reader that

  1. DNA has alternate meanings and deoxyribonucleic acid has just one meaning
  2. DNA is short for d(eoxyribo)n(ucleic) a(cid)
  3. The word deoxyribonucleic acid explains the structure of the molecule

As far as I can see, these points are dealt with reasonably well (although not to the height of technical correctness) under the present setup.

-- Cyan 22:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are twisting my words! I never said it didnt "adequately inform the reader", those were reasons for moving the page. Furthermore I think that the above sentences should be erased because they are an entirely different point!Bensaccount 22:30, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ben, we are not trying to twist your words. Please stop getting upset. We are pointing out that, in our opinion, you have not shown that there is any compelling need to move this page, as it is accurate and clear to the point that an altered title would be of no use in clarifying the meaning of "DNA". Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I apologize for upsetting you. It seems I communicated badly, inadvertently making it seem that you had said something you didn't. That was certainly not my intention. -- Cyan 22:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok fair about the format for DNA (disambiguation) I didnt know that.

I think it's good to point out the following, also. The only other articles that supposedly are associated with DNA are these. Douglas Adams merely because his middle initial is "N"....I have NEVER heard him called "DNA" except in the opening sentence of Wikipedia's article. If he is on rare occasions referred to as "DNA", certainly almost no one would search for him under those initials. The band "DNA", according to its own article, "DNA performed and recorded rarely" -- a band that rarely performs or records can't have made much of an impact on the music scene, and therefore will rarely be searched for. The final option is the Norwegian Labour Party -- I admit, they seem to use the acronym DNA....but only because that's their name in Norwegian. In English, it is very counterintuitive to call DNA an acronym for "Norweigan Labour Party". On the Norwegian Wikipedia, I imagine this would be an issue. Here, though, it looks to me that we're trying to help people find an author they would never search for as "DNA", a band that almost never recorded or performed, or a political party who would only be "DNA" for speakers of Norwegian. I don't understand why we think more than one or two people a month, tops, arrive at DNA looking for something else. Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But Ben's argument has nothing to do with usefulness and everything to do with technical correctness. I feel I understand his arguments; we just have different priorities. -- Cyan 22:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll grant that. I did feel it was important to note that the need for disambiguation was much slighter here than at other pages. But if that's not Ben's argument, I'll leave this part of mine be, then. :) Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually I agree...I was basing the disambiguation on past pages I have seen not on the guidelines (which I didnt know about). The redirect request remains however. Bensaccount

I took out all the pros and cons that involve making DNA a disambiguation page. Bensaccount 22:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you want text presently under the title "DNA" to be moved to "deoxyribonucleic acid", and "DNA" will be a redirect to "deoxyribonucleic acid". The only point to clarify is how do we deal with the alternate meanings presently listed in DNA (disambiguation)? Right now, the article has a pointer to the disambiguation page, but it doesn't make sense to leave the pointer in if the article isn't actually entitled "DNA". I'm open to suggestions... -- Cyan 22:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Leave the pointer there. The definition at the start should say something like: The word deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is...briefly defined

followed by the disambiguation link. Bensaccount 23:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, all of the cons no longer apply with a redirect. Bensaccount 23:05, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ben, I would submit that they continue to apply. We're not supposed to aim at redirects. We will still need to do all the work of shuffling links every time someone aims a link at DNA. Besides, our naming conventions are supposed to use the common name in the vernacular, which is indisputably DNA. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And please don't cut cons so drastically. I've had to go back and add two that still apply. It is especially important to be fair when you are cutting arguments raised by people who disagree with you -- cutting all the cons makes look as though you are not willing to discuss this, but want to delete and ignore the valid points that Cyan and I are raising. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. Apparently,

Solution

Naming conventions can take precidence over accuracy or at least balance it. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as people know what is going on.

I withdraw my request. Bensaccount