Talk:Red Mountain Park (disambiguation): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Verbosity: verbosity?? I'll give you verbosity.) |
(I think that was more than your two cents worth.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Kinda wordy for a disambiguation page, isn't it? --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] ([[User talk:Lkseitz|talk]]) 04:37, 19 November 2014 (PST) | Kinda wordy for a disambiguation page, isn't it? --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] ([[User talk:Lkseitz|talk]]) 04:37, 19 November 2014 (PST) | ||
* Well, you know, sometimes it seems, to me, that if you can describe the basic facts about the entries in one place, then maybe it will save someone a click that would otherwise be needed to really know which of them is relevant to their search. I don't know if it causes us any problems, as long as it all fits into a neat paragraph-sized bunch on one page. I can see if we were asking people to scroll through long descriptions that would be a problem. And, I suppose, I can see that repeating information in two (or more) places could lead to coordination errors in case there are corrections or updates. I'm not averse to tightening up the prose, but I hope to preserve enough here to obviate the likely causes of ambiguity, rather than to rely on people clicking through before they can be sure. Naturally I'm not consistent on this guideline. I'm not a firm believer in consistency for its own sake. It certainly can be helpful, but until we've seen the range of situations, trying to dictate consistent responses might prejudice us from finding better approaches to solving them individually. My feeling, though, is that, ultimately, everything is fixable. Our biggest problem isn't where we've done it wrong, it's where we haven't done anything at all. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] ([[User talk:Dystopos|talk]]) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (PST) | * Well, you know, sometimes it seems, to me, that if you can describe the basic facts about the entries in one place, then maybe it will save someone a click that would otherwise be needed to really know which of them is relevant to their search. I don't know if it causes us any problems, as long as it all fits into a neat paragraph-sized bunch on one page. I can see if we were asking people to scroll through long descriptions that would be a problem. And, I suppose, I can see that repeating information in two (or more) places could lead to coordination errors in case there are corrections or updates. I'm not averse to tightening up the prose, but I hope to preserve enough here to obviate the likely causes of ambiguity, rather than to rely on people clicking through before they can be sure. Naturally I'm not consistent on this guideline. I'm not a firm believer in consistency for its own sake. It certainly can be helpful, but until we've seen the range of situations, trying to dictate consistent responses might prejudice us from finding better approaches to solving them individually. My feeling, though, is that, ultimately, everything is fixable. Our biggest problem isn't where we've done it wrong, it's where we haven't done anything at all. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] ([[User talk:Dystopos|talk]]) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (PST) | ||
** LOL, but point taken. However, remembering to update a disambiguation page if basic facts are corrected is a problem. --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] ([[User talk:Lkseitz|talk]]) 04:33, 20 November 2014 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 07:33, 20 November 2014
Verbosity
Kinda wordy for a disambiguation page, isn't it? --Lkseitz (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2014 (PST)
- Well, you know, sometimes it seems, to me, that if you can describe the basic facts about the entries in one place, then maybe it will save someone a click that would otherwise be needed to really know which of them is relevant to their search. I don't know if it causes us any problems, as long as it all fits into a neat paragraph-sized bunch on one page. I can see if we were asking people to scroll through long descriptions that would be a problem. And, I suppose, I can see that repeating information in two (or more) places could lead to coordination errors in case there are corrections or updates. I'm not averse to tightening up the prose, but I hope to preserve enough here to obviate the likely causes of ambiguity, rather than to rely on people clicking through before they can be sure. Naturally I'm not consistent on this guideline. I'm not a firm believer in consistency for its own sake. It certainly can be helpful, but until we've seen the range of situations, trying to dictate consistent responses might prejudice us from finding better approaches to solving them individually. My feeling, though, is that, ultimately, everything is fixable. Our biggest problem isn't where we've done it wrong, it's where we haven't done anything at all. --Dystopos (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2014 (PST)