Talk:***

Asterism
What does the unicode symbol add ? Abtract (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The unicode symbol, ⁂, provides an instantly identifiable example of what an asterism is. Far faster than reading and interpreting the prose description of it.
 * Where in the MOS:DAB does it suggest that symbols/unicode should be avoided? I couldn't see anything at a glance through.
 * The "see also" link to therefore sign doesn't seem necessary (or an additional link to ellipsis should be added!) as this dab page isn't dealing with dots or triangles in particular...
 * Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added therefore because mention was made of three asterisks in a triangle and dots and asterisks can be confused ... which of course is why you like the unicode symbol. All I can find offhand is MOS:DAB to back up my assertion about symbols. If you look at other dab pages that are fairly "clean" you will find none ... if you find one let me know. I hope you see that my "English words" edits achieves the same end and is much more readily understandable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Abtract (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That mos:dab image-use guideline is really just to stop people illustrating dab-pages with "interesting" images, like at Flip (bottom of that revision).
 * I'll replace and add to the symbols at this page, as I believe they assist with comprehension. See other examples of dabpages using symbols like this at C (disambiguation), ' (disambiguation), O (disambiguation), etc.
 * Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for input here, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Hopefully they can shed some light :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My $.02 is that the ⁂ is useful and doesn't distract too much - especially on such a short page. ...and the context is such that it will not apply to many other pages and cause a slippery slope of such changes. (John User:Jwy talk) 21:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd keep them as well, possibly excluding the "three asterisks in a line (***)", making that just "three asterisks in a line". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
[ What cleanup] is needed here? Apart from the cleanup template, it seems fine to me..... • Anakin (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just the above. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

History
This, which is the page's history link, made me laugh. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Michael Brodsky's novel ***
Michael Brodsky has a novel, entitled ***, that's right, three asterisks. I expect to get the article on that novel going, probably next week.

The question is who gets what namespace.

The simplest possibility seems to be that this article gets turned into the article for the novel, and the page as it exists now becomes the hatnote "This page is about the novel. For the punctuation ***, see Ellipsis. For ⁂, see Asterism (typography). For ∴, see Therefore sign."

The other possibility is that this page is kept as is, and a separate "*** (novel)" page is created with a hatnote leading to this page.

"***" the novel is highly obscure outside the world of hard-core postmodern fanatics. So it's not as famous as the punctuation *** itself, and it will never generate as much traffic as the punctuation, but then again, the punctuation gets its actual article under an actual English word. That is, those interesting in the punctuation are forced to relocate if they type in *** under either possibility.

If I get no feedback against, I'll go forward with the first possibility.

Choor monster (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * According to WP:DABNAME:
 * "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page"
 * In this case I believe the novel is the primary topic and should be named "***". This page should be moved to "*** (disambiguation)", and a hat note added to "***" pointing to the disambiguation page. —Bruce1eetalk 05:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My take on WP:DABLINK is mixed. It says do not bother with a disambiguation page if a hatnote can take you to the unique second instance.  That is just logic.  But it goes on to say there are other hatnote templates that can be used similarly, and in particular, up to four other dablinks are templated for:


 * So it seems the existing explanation meant to allow for the above, so long as you stick to the approved templates. In this particular case, there are two other operating forces.  The existence of the asterism and therefore sign seem a little forced, and are provided to give just one extra step of convenience, and they do no harm, as per the discussion above on this talk page.  More importantly, using a (disambiguation) page seems to force one unnecessary click.


 * That is, someone who types *** and expects to find out about the history of censored cursing in print currently has to click on the existing 3-way disambiguation. The same would be true if the above 3-way hatnote is included.  If a simpler hatnote to a dab-tagged page is included, the someone would have to click twice.  Most short-named topics are surprisingly overloaded with multiple meanings, and if you don't start with a disambiguation page, you're going to need one soon enough, but I suspect *** disambiguation will remain tiny, suitable for a primary topic and a 3-way hatnote.


 * For example, I created the page for the author's Xman (novel). "Xman" by itself takes you to the comic book character Nate Grey, who is actually known as "X-Man", with a hatnote for disambiguation.  Maybe officially "Xman" is the main topic, and the redirect should be modified, but in terms of practicality, I think Xman and X-Man are pretty much the same, X-Man is way better known than Xman, and that ultimately trumps the written rules.  My thinking is the same here with ***: what's the most practical solution?  What gives the least surprise and least extra effort to readers?


 * If we do create a disambiguation page, I assume the proper procedure is as you say: have an admin move this page, then create a new *** for the novel, in order to maintain history. If we don't, we just use the above hatnote.  In that case, I predict the novel will generate essentially zero talk, and in the postmodern spirit of the novel, the talk about the punctuation will seem entirely appropriate.


 * Anyway, thanks for your feedback. I'm not doing anything with *** the novel until Monday or Tuesday.Choor monster (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To move or not
RHaworth wrote in his history reason: "I see no evidence that the novel is more notable than the other uses".

Well, I asked on the Talk page last week (the section above this one), proposing the move, got one response quoting WP:DABNAME which refers to "primary topic", not "most notable topic", and conceded that the novel would be primary. So on Monday I posted a Help request on my talk page, referring to this Talk page and I said I'd wait for objections until this Tuesday. No one responded to that request.

To me, the question is whether we even need a disambiguation page: I thought it simpler to use *** alone for the novel, and then use a hatnote to refer to the three punctuation possibilities.

At the moment, the Ellipsis *** punctuation article barely even mentions '***' as punctuation, instead concentrating on '...'. In contrast, **** redirects to a full-fledged article on what everyone knows **** means, and includes a hatnote to Andy Warhol's Four Stars (film). Similar, but not similar: I was surprised when I first started nosing around ***-namespace at what was actually present.

Speaking for myself, I honestly believe the message here is that there is no ***-as-punctuation article, and at the rate the Ellipsis article has been edited, there isn't going to be one. That is, ***-as-novel is primary by default.

I concede completely that the novel is extremely obscure&mdash;it does meet official WP notability guidelines for novels (see *** (novel)), but not much more.

Anyway, I'm not too concerned either way, I'm not interested in wikilawyering. This just seems to be an odd case between the lines. Choor monster (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The edge cases are usually where the subjectivity arises! In this case, I'd lean towards keeping the disambig page as it is, with the novel listed at the top, mainly because there are so many options (now 5 including the novel) that using just hatnotes is becoming unwieldy, and the options are likely to grow (eg we might want to split the Ellipsis entry in two, for expurgation vs concision (?)), and there are songs named/misnamed "***" is various databases that we might have articles (or redirects) for eventually.


 * Tangential note: Search google for to find nothing! >.< Same at Amazon. Silly author, using Wildcard characters is not recommended! —Quiddity (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there room somewhere for ★★★ ? As in a "3-star" review?  Is there someway we can distinguish between an asterisk and a star, for that matter? Should we bother listing the possible meanings of ****, which takes you to a main article and its hatnote?  (You know, to catch the people who can't count too well?)  The four-star meanings include an Andy Warhol film with that title, by the way, already a WP article.


 * Of course, the author might have named his novel ###. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Choor monster (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a SeeAlso link to Three star (disambiguation) (we have to link directly to the redirect, if i remember correctly, for technical somethingorothers).
 * We could add a SeeAlso link to **** but I can't word it well at the moment. Have at go, or suggest something. —Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect the correct thing to do is replace **** the link to Four-letter word with a disambiguation page. But I don't want to step on any toes where I really don't what's relevant--I certainly missed the boat on ***.


 * Another question is whether *** gets merged with Three-star? I think not, but they should mutually refer to each other.  I note there's a Category for star rating systems!


 * There are the redirects *******, Austria and ********* Lane. NSFW, of course. Choor monster (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't WP:CENSOR anything! The article gropecunt lane has appeared on the main page as "today's featured article" before (which yes, caused complaints).
 * I've added links to **** in this page, and links to here in Three star.
 * Asterisks and stars are similar but different, and I don't think merging *** with Three star, would be beneficial.
 * Any major changes to **** should be proposed at its talkpage.
 * :) —Quiddity (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Beats me about the template
I posted here Template_talk:Disambiguation. I will not edit war, especially when I have no idea what's really going on anyway about the template. I suspect its doc-page is out of date. Choor monster (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)