Talk:Wadsworth constant deviation system

--Srleffler (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Other uses section
For reference, the section that keeps getting blanked is: Wadsworth's Constant is an unrelated claim that "the first 30% of a YouTube video or other Internet content can be skipped without loss of information". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.147.101 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove that previously, but did do so today because it is not appropriate content for this article. Wikipedia articles should not contain a section on unrelated uses of a term. The reason for this is that, by policy, Wikipedia organizes content by concept, not by name. The topic of an article is a thing, not the name by which that thing is known. Other things that share the same name should be described in their own articles, or not described at all. Conversely, if one thing is known by multiple names, all of those names for the same thing are covered in a single article.


 * Where necessary, we do provide navigational links that point from an article to other articles on similarly-named but unrelated things. We don't do this by having an "other uses" section within the article, however. Rather, these navigational links are given at the top of the article, so that a reader who ends up there by mistake can quickly find the article they wanted. That is not necessary in this case, however, since no-one should end up at "Wadsworth constant deviation system" by accident.--Srleffler (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AFK
It seems that there's at least one editor out there who still thinks that curation means telling Internet users that they have mis-defined a term that the Internet users themselves originated.

Since the rules of Wikipedia are designed against introspection, I politely ask that someone contact me when such Wikipedia editors no longer think of themselves as the exclusive understanders of the broader culture in which Wikipedia is but one guest.

Magic5ball (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you missed my point. The issue is not whether anybody has "mis-defined" the term. The issue is just whether that definition of the term belongs in this article, as opposed to somewhere else on Wikipedia. An article covers a single topic (or perhaps several closely-related topics). Things that happen to share the same name but are otherwise unrelated are covered in separate articles.--Srleffler (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)