User talk:Acps110/Archives/2012/June

&larr; May 2012 | June 2012 | July 2012 &rarr;

5 WTC Construction
I noticed that you changed the status of the 5 WTC building to "under construction." To the best of my knowledge, this is not true, and 5 WTC is a stale proposal. Construction updates from LMCCC refer to the location as the former 130 Liberty Site, and current construction updates make no reference to an actual office building. Instead, the below ground portion, currently referred to as the "South Bathtub" will be the site of the Vehicle Security Center, targeted for completion in 2014. The VSC will be capped by a "Liberty Street Park" (currently in the design phase) and the rebuilt St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. If you can post an up-to-date or current source showing that the construction at the South Bathtub is for an actual office building, I will be happy to incorporate it into the article. WasAPasserBy (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken; that wasn't me. I don't know what you are talking about. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Pelham
Can you please explain what part of WP:DAB you think justifies those hatnotes? The articles are clearly disambiguated by the year in the titles. There is no chance of people landing on one film's page looking for another, as all ambiguous names point to a disambiguation page. WP:DAB is very clear that hatnotes on fully disambiguated pages are not needed. "There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there from within Wikipedia would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section." Rhindle The Red (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are assuming way too much about a reader who may know nothing about the topic. We have four similarly named articles about four different but related things. Per WP:SIMILAR, these articles, which differ only in spelling and the parenthetical at the end, have hatnotes linking to a dab page, to make sure that the reader is on the right article. Just because there are no ambiguous links on Wikipedia doesn't mean that they may not be ambiguous elsewhere on the Internet. A reader coming from an external link could easily land on the wrong article and not know about the other articles on the same topic. WP:RELATED also applies to this case... This guideline does not discourage the use of disambiguation hatnotes in a situation where separate topics are related, but could nonetheless be referred to by the same title and would thus qualify for disambiguation, such as a book and its film adaptation.


 * In other words, the hatnotes are not there for editors, they are there for readers who may or may not know anything about the topic and its four articles. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First let me apologize for not getting back to this sooner.
 * You cite WP:SIMILAR, except that talks about "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not." All four of these articles are disambiguated.
 * You mention readers coming from external links. If the articles are all properly disambiguated (as they are) any external link will be pointing to the correct article.  If it doesn't, that is a problem for the person sending the link, not Wikipedia.
 * The guideline quote speaks (again) to articles that "qualify for disambiguation", not articles that actually are disambiguated.
 * Hatnotes are not there "for readers who may or may not know anything about the topic". It is for navigational purposes already handled by the disambiguation.  "Additional topics of interest", which is what you are talking about, have other places, such as in the article body or a "See also" section, as I mentioned above.Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

&larr; May 2012 | June 2012 | July 2012 &rarr;