Talk:Wolseley

Piping Wolseleys
Could we have someone else review your unpiping. It seems to me you have enthusiastically made Wolseley businesses undisentangleable. Eddaido (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem, I have asked at wp:disambiguation (you should have been pinged). Leschnei (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't see a problem with the edits myself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe with your book of rules in hand. It just seems to me that there is an enormous difference between linking to an article about a once very big combine (Vickers) which established one part of the business and linking it (piping it) to the relevant part of that Vickers article. That is just part one.  May I have your opinion on that? Eddaido (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there is a compromise that could be reached here. I was merely trying to make article titles clear and give readers one article to click on per line. I just found that there is a redirect, The Wolseley Tool and Motor Car Company - I would suggest changing the entries to something like this, to make the relationship between the similar names clear:


 * The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machine Company, a British manufacturer of sheep shearing and other machinery, of Australia origin, now Wolseley plc
 * Wolseley plc, a UK-based multinational building supplies company, originally The Wolseley Sheep Shearing Machinery Company
 * Wolseley UK, the UK subsidiary of Wolseley plc
 * The Wolseley Tool and Motor Car Company, automobile manufacturer spun off to Vickers, Sons and Maxim in 1901
 * Wolseley Motors, automobile manufacturer owned by Vickers, previously named The Wolseley Tool and Motor Car Company; Wolseley name used until 1976

Is that any better? Leschnei (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK but would you mind if it looked like this:

I still maintain your somewhat doctrinaire application of the rules just makes it harder for the reader but they are not likely to be quietly multiplying in numbers are they, why should they be encouraged! Eddaido (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * My only objection to your arrangement is that this page disambiguates titles similar to Wolseley, not Vickers. If a reader goes to The Wolseley Tool and Motor Car Company and then decides that they want to read more about Vickers, they can click to it from there.


 * You should understand that, with Wikipedia, readers often assume an article is muddled just because its Wikipedia and on this page when I did this disambig in aeons past I tried to get it clear. Recently some enthusiast wrote and complained at the muddle that is the history of the car manufacturer Talbot. He went away with his tail between his legs but I suspect unconvinced. In both cases it is a report on an apparent muddle.


 * I understand your objection to having your edits changed due to 'rules'. I will suggest two reasons for them (with respect to disambiguation). One is that these pages are simply for navigation, so they are intended to be simple and to the point - a list of entries, each with one link and just enough description to identify it. Second, disambiguation pages tend to accumulate vandalism, trivia, and other garbage, very quickly. Editors who can't get their article approved often list the subject on a disambiguation page as a sort-of back door. Having these rules makes it easier to remove the garbage. (Just one editor's opinion). Leschnei (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * "I understand your objection to having your edits changed due to 'rules'." No, writing that means you do not follow what I am trying to explain to you. Navigation presumes you know where you want to go . That's why it is called navigation instead of bumbling around being lost, or do I have that wrong? Consider this, that you over-simplified because you had only a casual understanding.


 * Now, separately, Are you complaining that by linking I have lit up Vickers, Sons & Maxim in blue? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not complaining, I'm answering your question. You asked "would you mind if it looked like this". To make make my answer more clear - no, I wouldn't mind, and I wouldn't revert it. My preference would be to not include the link to Vickers because, in my opinion, it isn't needed. Leschnei (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll make the change in a few minutes. I think Vickers is still a well-enough known name for middle-aged Brits. I'd never heard of Vickers Sons and Maxim and I'm seriously wrinkly. Eddaido (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO the Businesses section now looks much easier to navigate than it did in June 2019. I wouldn't have included the Vickers link, but that's a minor matter compared with getting readers quickly to the right places.
 * I've reordered the Places section, to arrange it by country and to move two non-places into Other. As a by-product, I was able to repair two redlinks in Wolseley Buttress. Narky Blert (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Leschnei (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)