Talk:Language (disambiguation)

Redundant?
Isn’t this page a bit redundant, as Language describes the same? I don’t think this page should be deleted because topics like Language (journal)—topics with the same name unrelated to a language. For now, I’m rewording the introduction paragraph here. dmyersturnbull (talk) 07:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Too many additions
I don't think this large addition has improved the page. A dab page is supposed to be a simple and approachable navigational aid, not an exhaustive list of every article that happens to have the word "language" in its name; having a giant wall of links doesn't really help the reader get to what he's looking for (it's just like a search engine that returns too many results; the whole idea is to help the reader find what they want, not to find everything). Thus, I am reverting the additions for now (per WP:BRD); let's have a on da discussion before restoring them. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw this now, rjanag. I will be glad to discuss anything with you. The problem is, I do not feel you are being objective about this but are targeting your reversions at me personally because at one point I was critical of sysadmins and as I suspect may have reverted some of your changes. You sent me a message insisting I be more civil. Of course I will be as civil as you like as that is WP policy. I also feel, however, that your across the board reversions are an abuse of power. I cannot halp feeling you are looking for an excuse to block me. If this is so I feel you must be confronted and my suggestion is that you may want to resign forthwith. You mean, you saw no merit at all in any of my changes? I believe WP policy is that sysadmins during editing are to behave like any other editor.


 * You reverted the Wikionary tag. Those tags have become standard on dab pages. Also, the TOC placed to the right is pretty much standard. What is most disturbing, however, is that you have turned all the advantages of the scheme I propose into disadvantages. The reader can better find what he wants if there are links to more articles. Not only that but WP is getting larger and larger. There are actually more articles available, so a larger dab gives him an insight into the articles available. Of course we do not want a wall of links. This was not a wall, it was divided into sections so that he could easily find his way among the increased number of articles.


 * The previous scheme limits the readers's scope to only a few articles that were there when WP was smaller. Moreover the indentations are actually hard to follow, where the section heads identify the different topics.


 * In summary I think dab pages have to grow as WP grows or the lose their ability give the reader access to much of the material available under that name. I don't see the relevance of the policy you cite to this case. There are a good many dab pages done just the way I did it. I'm in favor of Wiktionary templates and in favor of heading organization with TOCright. And finally I think we should have had this discussion before your reversion and without your threats. I hope that you will see fit to come to your senses. This is not a power struggle.


 * I am not going to revert your reversions. I feel that is your job as you made the reversion. As we are aiming at producing a better WP I do not see how you can fail to restore it. What I had is clearly better and I think the better version should prevail. WP has 3.5 mill articles now. It has grown and we have to grow with it. We can't think in terms of only very short articles and dab pages. I would appreciate it if you would take that into consideration. Whatever I originally said that you considered uncivil I am sorry. I think your response however is uncivil and as I say it is a bit surprising for someone of your WP experience. Ciao. I don;t know when I will be looking at this again but I hope that when I do I will at least see some compromises - a Wiktionary tag, headings, more topics, a better organization. That is the purpose of "discussion" - or what did you imagine it would be? A monologue with you in the bully pulpit? As I say, if that was your intent, resign immediately.Dave (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Order
I've divided the page into three sections. I also put the "Other uses", all partial matches, into alphabetical order. I didn't change the hierarchical structure, so I hope this order doesn't make the hierarchy (e.g. Artificial → Constructed → Artistic → Fictional) harder to read. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * العربي 110.238.45.10 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)