Talk:Reed (disambiguation)

The following argument is from Eloquence's user page. I'm posting it here for future reference. KF

Please explain your policy on disambiguation pages, especially as far as Reed is concerned. It is very frustrating to work on something for hours and then see someone come along and change it again. KF 16:06 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Um, hours? Reed (disambiguation) is still there. The policy is as follows:
 * Either create a page for the most common meaning with a link to a "foo (disambiguation)" which in turn links to less common names, or a page "foo" that is a disambiguation page and "bar (category)", "baz (category)", "bam (category)" etc.


 * Compare:
 * Michael Jackson
 * Darwin


 * It makes no sense to have Reed as a redirect to Reed (disambiguation). If you want Reed to be a disambiguation page, then just move the content of Reed (disambiguation) there.
 * --Eloquence 16:10 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Now everyone who reads about the plant (in all those national park articles etc.) and clicks on reed gets a definition of a part of a musical instrument. Does that make sense? The whole point was to show that the several meanings of the word are interrelated, starting with the basic meaning of course. But it has become my policy not to argue with other Wikipedians who state that something makes no sense rather than asking whether it does or doesn't. I may be a slow worker, but I thoroughly read the articles I'm editing and also those I'm creating links to. But as I said, I won't interfere with any of the reeds again. There are lots of other things to do here. --KF 16:24 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * If you see any links to reed that should point to the plant, you should fix them. This was also the case before my edit. Also note that the Reed page prominently links to the disambiguation page. Sohat's your point? In any case, I'm happy with having reed as a disambig. page, but redirecting to a separate disambig. page is just pointless. --Eloquence 16:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * What do you mean I should fix them? Not only do I question my obligation (whether moral or otherwise) to do so -- I actually did fix them by directing them to Reed (disambiguation). Has it escaped your notice that there is no article about reed plants yet? Anyway, let's stop this now: We agree to differ, but you're the one who decides, probably because you're still the one who knows what is pointless and what isn't while I'm still asking questions. All the best, KF 16:47 29 May 2003 (UTC)

-

I can't continue my attempts at disambiguating Reed because I just don't know what this (see below; uploaded by Haabet on 4 May 2003) is supposed to be. Can anyone make head or tail of it? --KF 13:49 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Reed colour:

My guess is that it is a joke... The colour "reed" is like the colour "red", but bigger. ;) Or maybe the contributor just thought that the word "red" was spelt "reed"... -- Oliver P. 13:56 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah. So let's forget about it. Thanks a lot. KF 14:23 29 May 2003 (UTC)