Talk:Requiem (disambiguation)

Phoenix Requiem
What about Phoenix Requiem, the webcomic? 41.225.243.252 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Objections to cleanup
I don't understand the objection/revert of my recent cleanup. The edit summary was: "Removed too much information. Cleanup without removing links."

I was attempting to follow the Manual of Style for disambiguation, as well as the general disambiguation guidelines. Looking at the diff, it appears the objection might be that I removed extraneous bluelinks, such as the links to the composers of each piece called "Requiem"; the MOS says explicitly (under "Individual entries") that each entry should have only one bluelink: Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line.

I also shortened or removed descriptions where they appeared unnecessary in order to distinguish which entry the user might be looking for, again in accordance with the MOS: The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.

For example, since there's only one typeface listed, it seems unnecessary to describe Requiem (typeface) as "a serif typeface."

I also removed some entries; I believe (but may have made a mistake) that all of these entries were removed for failing one of two criteria:
 * The title contained the word "requiem" but appeared unlikely to be referred to as "Requiem," e.g. Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem.
 * The entry did not link to any article with information on that usage of "Requiem".

If I removed any entries or information for reasons that are not explained here, please point out those specific cases. Propaniac (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Objections
I reversed your edits not because of extraneous links but because (presumably in following the manual of style to the letter) you removed bluelinks (or moved them) that linked directly to referenced articles or provided necessary information.

A few examples of such moves would be in the film section in which you shortened the entries to remove "extra" bluelinks. However the information that was removed was relevant to locating the correct article. "Battle Royale II: Requiem, a 2003 Japanese sequel" does not give the series (or previous movie) to which it refers. If someone were looking for a specific sequel to a movie they had the name of, it would be harder to specifically identify which film they was being reference.

The other minor reformatting changes simply relocated a link that would best be served remaining in the current portion of the sentence. The entry for "Requiem, a program that circumvents FairPlay DRM technology" originally had the bluelink in "Requiem". While the article to which it links is about FairPlay, the section is about the program Requiem, not the overall technology. Again, this could be confusing for someone looking for information on the program, possibly leading them to believe they would only get a link to information on the technology itself.

While I'm sure you had good intentions in bring this article in line with the manual of style, you may have missed the underlying intention of the formatting guidelines. Yes, they do recommend that there be only one bluelink per line, but in this article, each bluelink generally referred to different or necessary information. There may be some cleanup necessary in this article, but without removing too much necessary information.

Zerocool3001 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In regard to the film section: the two sequels name the original films in their titles. A user looking for the sequel to Battle Royale, which they know is called Requiem, is not going to have trouble identifying that they want to click on Battle Royale: Requiem and not Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, simply because both are identified as sequels.
 * Links at the beginning of disambiguation entries should not be piped, as in Requiem . This is an explicit tenet of the MOS. I understand your objection, but there are other ways to mitigate that problem; I suggest revising the linking in that entry to appear as: "Requiem, a program that circumvents FairPlay DRM technology" (and I can go ahead and implement that now). Another possibility would be to create a redirect at Requiem (FairPlay) (or a similar title) to that section of the FairPlay article, and link to that. If you think these are unacceptable solutions, in the absence of any reason why this page is a special case in which the MOS should be ignored, I suggest you propose a change to the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).
 * These examples you gave only seem relevant to three entries on the page, so it's still unclear to me what your objections are that made it necessary to revert the entire cleanup, rather than simply those three entries. If those entries are the only ones on which we conflicted, I hope those conflicts are now resolved. If you object to other changes I made, please share your concerns so they can be discussed.
 * (An aside: I've been going over your response, trying to figure out what else you object to about my edits, and I think maybe we are suffering from a miscommunication about my actual methods and intentions. I don't shorten the link descriptions simply because they include an additional bluelink. I shorten the descriptions to what seems necessary, which is often nothing beyond the title of the linked article; I also make sure there is only one bluelink in each entry, but that's a separate task. For example, when I look at "Battle Royale: Requiem, A Japanese film, the sequel to Battle Royale", I don't think "I should cut 'Battle Royale' out of the description because it's an extra bluelink," I think "I should cut 'Battle Royale' out of the description because it's totally unnecessary." If it were necessary to the description, I would keep it and just make it regular text instead of a link. So if you could be clear whether you're objecting to my removal of description text, or my removal of a link to another article, or both, I would appreciate it and our conversation would probably be more productive.) Propaniac (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)