Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ShelfSkewed (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1191916061 by 46.100.239.4 (talk) |
|||
Line 198:
:No, because the existence of the link is not actually necessarily indicative of anything, since you can see the apparent inconsistency in how we add or don't add links. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:For this specific question, in the past I think I had advocated for not making a distinction between whether an article exists or not with regards to order. Others, I think for example, {{u|JHunterJ}}, had advocated for making such distinctions. Personally, I no longer have any strong opinion on that particular aspect of organization. Or to be clearer, I don't generally make changes in how lists are organize based on that criteria -- if the list has separated the non-articles to the bottom, I generally leave it that way, and the same if the list is fully organized by alphabetical order or chronological order. I think I still have a preference for using alpha or chrono order without regard to article/redirect existence as I think such a list is easier to parse. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 14:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
::I typically assume that the existence of an article corresponds to a higher likelihood of being the article sought, so falls under "should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article", in addition to being easier to scan leading blue links at the front then scan descriptions with link for entries that don't have a blue link at the front. But if the reader would be better assisted in some cases with another arrangement, that should be the priority. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
This discussion reminded me that I [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive_43#Order of entries|had proposed]] changing the wording in this section a few months ago. The only response at that time was supportive, so I have boldly done what the supporter suggested (which was not quite the same as my proposal.) If this change is acceptable, it may make the question in this section moot.
| |||