Talk:Icon (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Can't an icon also be a person? The second link is to symbol, which is not what I meant, but it does mention 'readily recognised face'. Shouldn't this be a separate category? But also compare Cult of personality. DirkvdM 07:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link
The link to Icon is clearly misleading and unhelpful to readers, as this article deals exclusively with Eastern Orthodox religious images (plus Oriental Orthodox and so on). The "often" now inserted amounts to weasel words. Johnbod (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- MoS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic says to do this. For more examples of this practice, see Goku (disambiguation), Zero gravity (disambiguation) and MGS. I shall again shorten the primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Shorten for what reason? Adding a mention of the religious connotations may be useful for some readers and can be harmful to none. Abtract (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- What? Because the guideline has it in that manner. No need to write as much as possible. Keep things simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The guideline says nothing about keeping it short ... I know you oppose me as a matter of "principle" but surely a little extra help for readers should overcome that? Abtract (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well duh, I did not say the MoS claims such a statement. If you actually paid attention, you'll see that the sample the guideline provides isn't unnecessarily long. And what with this "principle" talk? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- So if you don't claim that mosdab indicates it why do you resist what another editor thinks is (quite a small) a worhwhile addition ... except as a matter of principle? Abtract (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you want to make it so long. For instance, see the short primary topic on Zero (disambiguation), a swell example of a good dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to make it "so long", I want to include a few extra words that may help disambiguate and there is no mosdab reason why I shouldn't. Why do you want to make it so short? Abtract (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- If such a sacrilegious issue were to be arise from someone else, then I'll re-consider. Until then, there's no need to unshorten the description. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to make it "so long", I want to include a few extra words that may help disambiguate and there is no mosdab reason why I shouldn't. Why do you want to make it so short? Abtract (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you want to make it so long. For instance, see the short primary topic on Zero (disambiguation), a swell example of a good dab page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- So if you don't claim that mosdab indicates it why do you resist what another editor thinks is (quite a small) a worhwhile addition ... except as a matter of principle? Abtract (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well duh, I did not say the MoS claims such a statement. If you actually paid attention, you'll see that the sample the guideline provides isn't unnecessarily long. And what with this "principle" talk? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The guideline says nothing about keeping it short ... I know you oppose me as a matter of "principle" but surely a little extra help for readers should overcome that? Abtract (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- What? Because the guideline has it in that manner. No need to write as much as possible. Keep things simple. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Shorten for what reason? Adding a mention of the religious connotations may be useful for some readers and can be harmful to none. Abtract (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The definition given to the primary topic is clearly wrong, and misleading to readers as it stands. I note your point about the Mos & will edit accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- So presumably, Sess, you now admit you were wrong? Abtract (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I was right. Someone brought up a sacrilegious issue, and I've re-considered, as said here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be funny here ... but do you even understand the English language? What does sacrilegious mean? Abtract (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you get a dictionary. You're the one who seems to lack proper English awareness, not I. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- We're all done here guys, no? Thanks to both. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the page. If anything violates WP:MOS-DAB, I'll fix it ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- We're all done here guys, no? Thanks to both. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you get a dictionary. You're the one who seems to lack proper English awareness, not I. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be funny here ... but do you even understand the English language? What does sacrilegious mean? Abtract (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I was right. Someone brought up a sacrilegious issue, and I've re-considered, as said here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
