Talk:Cavetto

Links to disambiguation pages
I have twice tried to repair links to disambiguation pages in participation with WP:DPL only to have you revert, with no apparent acknowledgement that you understand that links to dab pages are normally not okay. What's up with that?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even a dicdef is useful for the many people who have difficulty remembering which is which between convex and concave. There are actually many situations where a link to a disam page is desirable, though one is constantly having to defend them from well-meaning but unhelpful edits.  You also keep trying to re-add a completely unhelpful link. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay if I replace the dab page links with wiktionary links, then? They can't remain as links to the dab pages.
 * As for "keep adding", that's an exaggeration. Initially it was a disambiguation of an existing link placed by you. I applied it once again under the mistaken impression that you had reverted these edits inadvertently – your edit summary said only that you were fixing hyphen-to-dash errors. I'm satisfied to leave that one unlinked, since the note contains its own clarification.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  17:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope it was an accident that you reverted an addition to my comment. Actually, they can remain as links to the dab pages. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * An undetected edit conflict? I don't know how that happened, it certainly wasn't my intention.


 * I'm going to have to leave this to some other WP:DPL editor to deal with. What you're proposing strikes me as directly contrary to policy, but I haven't been around long enough to feel confident in arguing the point with you. A few stray dab links amongst the several thousand the project is attempting to fix – they'll just have to wait.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think 's initial decision to unlink was sensible as most people probably know what "concave" means. And for the few who don't, the best we can do is link to the dictionary definition on the disambiguation page (linking to wiktionary would have been an option if no article here contained the definition)., if you create intentional links to dab pages, you can mark them as such by piping through the (disambiguation) redirect, for example: . This way editors won't come trying to fix them. Also noting that Concave looks, at least at first sight, like a possible broad concept article. If it is converted into one, the issue with dab links won't arise. –  Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is agreement that what is needed is a reminder of the definition of concave, so a link to wiktionary seems to be the right move. I note that concave has a nice clear definition "curved like the inner surface of a sphere or bowl" with a picture illustrating the difference between concave and convex. Klbrain (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, linking to wiktionary is preferable to linking to the disambiguation page if the only purpose is to provide a definition. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Before seeing any of this discussion, I had linked to concave and convex in Wiktionary. All that anyone reading this article needs to know is the meaning of those two either already, or by looking up the dictionary definitions. Narky Blert (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)