Talk:Mercury
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note: Previous discussions on the page have been superseded by changes in software and are no longer relevant. In order to not confuse new readers, those discussions have been removed from the current page, but can be found in the page's history.
Contents |
[edit] Astronomy magazine
- Mercury (magazine), a popular astronomy magazine published by the Astronomical Society of the Pacific http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/mercury.html
[edit] Why we have disambig pages
The primary (some would say sole) purpose of a disambig page is to direct persons to the correct page. Additional links do not help (in most cases--there may be some exceptions). Excess verbiage simply takes longer for a reader to parse and unless it is necessary to help distinguish between the entries should be avoided. older≠wiser 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Additional links always help. Context is not excess verbage and is the first thing the reader is looking for, so should be placed first. Bensaccount 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Certainly not; additional links distract from the purpose of a disambiguation page. It is not for exploration. It is a workaround for the failure of a link to take the reader directly to an article. As such, it should help the reader find that one article as quickly as possible, and not offer links to things which cannot possibly be that article. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 17:44 Z
-
-
- Apparently you are another user who has seen this new format of disambiguation but never used or created one yourself. Disambiguation is not "a workaround for the failure of a link". You aren't supposed to link to disambiguation pages. They are a starting point for users who are looking for a term that has multiple meanings. Often the user does not know which meaning they want, so the context helps. Providing hyperlinks within the context enables the user to quickly find the context they are looking for without trial and error. Bensaccount 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Apparently you are another user who has seen this new format of disambiguation but never used or created one yourself. That's rather absurdly presumptuous of you. I've both created and used countless disambig pages. I suspect the same is true of most of the regulars at WikiProject:Disambiguation. Disambiguation is not "a workaround for the failure of a link". You aren't supposed to link to disambiguation pages. But that is exactly the point. Because a link to a disambig page is almost by definition a bad link, the disambig page should enable users to identify the correct link as expeditiously as possible. Providing hyperlinks within the context enables the user to quickly find the context they are looking for without trial and error. Can you explain exactly how this works? I mean if there links to the properly disambiguated pages, optionally with a brief description, how is clicking around in tangentially related topics going to help the user to quickly find the context they are looking for? That seems almost contradictory on the face of it. older≠wiser 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Apparently you are another user who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, Bensaccount. MOS:DP didn't just spring up while you were sleeping last night. By suggesting that we simply delete the policy at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Parallel policy, and then actively working against it here, you are ignoring consensus and wasting all of our time. —Michael Z. 2006-01-2 18:23 Z
-
-
Bensaccount says above that "Additional links always help", whereas WP:D specifies the exact opposite. Take a look at the entry for Freddie Mercury. I followed the link to "pianist" and found that it's a person who plays the piano. This knowledge will be valuable to me at my next cocktail party, but it did not help me find Freddie, because Bensaccount had piped Freddie away, also in direct conflict with MoS:DP, for which I now have even more respect. Thanks, Bensaccount, for showing how valuable MoS:DP really is. Now please try to use it instead of destroying it. It may not immediately make you feel better, but it will help the readers. Chris the speller 03:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Watery silver
Was or was it not mercury in which was called watery silver by the Greeks --151.196.41.61 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[www.nick.com]
- The first sentence of Mercury (element) explains it. If a question remains, please use the Reference desk WP:RD. This page is for discussion about how to maintain the disambiguation page for Mercury. Chris the speller 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
All other planets are not disambiguated in the title (eg. Venus not Venus (planet)) Mercury should be made consistant --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Oppose. Neither Mercury (planet) nor Mercury (element) are primary topic. See also earlier Talk:Mercury (planet)#Page move and Talk:Mercury (planet)#Proposed move. Femto 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Femto and previous discussions. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose All the other planets don't have (planet) in their titles because the names of them don't have any other meanings that are just as common. This is not the case with Mercury, which is also the name of an element. Perhaps if Wikipedia allows article titles to appear lowercase in the future, we could have the element at mercury and the planet at Mercury, but as of yet, Wikipedia doesn't allow titles that are lowercase. Voortle 21:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per previous discussions. Why another voting?--JyriL talk 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: one extra click for a reader to find the planet is not a big deal and disabig link repair is usually pretty easy because enough context is usually provided to dtermine the desired page.--Hraefen Talk 22:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Georgia guy 01:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as above, the element is at least as important. -- Beardo 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, Mercury (planet) isn't an obvious case of being more important than the element. - SpLoT 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Add any additional comments
- The dis-ambiguation page appears to be set up so that the god is the primary meaning. Any comments on the best arrangement?? Georgia guy 14:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's the original meaning and where the term comes from. Voortle 15:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Revamp of the lead section
Following up on one of the comments in the most recent move discussion, I have revamped the lead section to reflect the fact that there are three common references for the name "Mercury". While the planet and the element were named after the Roman deity, that does not mean that the deity is the primary definition. Arguably, in this day and age, the planet and the element are far more common references. As it was before, the links to the planet and the element were buried in amongst the other science terms, which are far less common. (Another argument in favour of the rewrite is evident in earlier move discussions; the most common argument for not moving the planet article was the significance of the element, with the deity as a secondary mention.) ---Ckatzchatspy 07:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good. --Apoc2400 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganisation
I've reorganised some of the links. Still to be done to conform to the Manual of Style:
- Biographical links should get their birth/death years attached.
- All of those links about the Ford cars should get their own list page.
- Possibly a link to Wiktionary?
-- De Guerre (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Scratch that, there was a list of Ford models. I also redid the Project Mercury links while I was there. --De Guerre (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)