User talk:Jerzy/Semiconductor manufacturing


 *  (This approach to Wiki-talk is an experiment; i've so far imposed upon a number of colleagues with it, who have responded thru it (even without this 'graph) well enough that i can describe it as "working" (though an otherwise angry one nevertheless described it as "ridiculous"). My hope is that it will slow the growth of my talk page, make my archiving simpler and more timely, and thus make leaving talk for me less burdensome (especially for slow-pipe colleagues) than it has been for too many months. I cordially invite discussion of it (or one-shot comments, from those who prefer) at User talk:Jerzy/J's Talk-subpage Experiment.)

''If you add to this discussion, most other participant(s) won't be nearly as quickly aware of that as they would if you had also edited their respective talk page(s). (A link to the corresponding section of each is at their corresponding "*" below, and your updating the edit count and editing-time-stamp range there also gives that participant further information. But no one other than i has done so yet.) For my own notification, i've started a list that i can check via "Related changes" more often than i am willing to check my Watchlist or "My contributions", tho of course that is still less often than "You have a new message".''


 * 2 msgs, 16:55 thru 20:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 16:55, 19 May 2005 D
 * 20:45, 19 May 2005 J
 * 2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:Duk~t~*.
 * general topic(s):

Hi Jerzy, you moved Fabrication (semiconductor) to the above title but left about fifty re-directs. You need to use the what links here after moving a page like this.

I recently moved this page to Fabrication (semiconductor) (and fixed all the links). I think this is a better title because Fabrication is in the vernacular, and people in the industry use this term and view it as the correct and accurate term. This is just my personal perspective from working in the industry.

Disambiguation seems to favor this title (see Fabrication), but I think you could make a case that Semiconductor manufacturing is more recognizable. I get the impression from reading through Naming_conventions that it could go either way (let me know if I'm wrong, that policy is so huge I might have missed something).

Anyway, I moved it back. I won't object if you revert me, just be sure to fix the re-directs.

thanks --Duk 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * More than welcome Duk, and glad to make your acquaintance. You've got a couple of things wrong, i'm pretty sure, but this is good; a sign of Editing boldly.
 * I still intend that 'graph, but my tone is going to deteriorate out of frustration in trying to reconstruct what i actually did and why. I don't blame you, and i'd rather not just tell you "go ahead and do what you think is called for: you broke it and you own it if you're willing to".
 * Let me say this now, bcz it could be said less politely than i am going to, and i might say it less politely if i wait. I am sympathetic with your statement
 * ...left about fifty re-directs. You need to use the what links here after moving a page like this.
 * bcz i read the instructions the Move-this-page tool provides when i disambiguated Battery early in my WP editing, and set myself the task of bypassing all the lks from various pages to the dab page. But the instruction to use "What links here" is aimed at eliminating not redirects (which work just fine), but double redirects (which must be followed manually, for reasons we needn't discuss); if you look at the history of one of the affected pages (and others, at least some of which are suggested by the What-lks-here of Fab (semi), you'll see an edit by which i prevented an existing redir from turning into part of a dbl redir.  Double redirect references are significantly harmful and seldom number more than a handful. In contrast, redirect references are virtually harmless, and produced in such profusion by most renames that requiring their elimination would effectively restrict renaming to bot-masters and editors on some kind of crusade. So expecting what you were asking for would be contrary to the spirit of bold editing.
 * Stating it now for the same reason, i can imagine editors who have taken to the jargony
 *  ()
 * and
 *  ()
 * syntaxes with blind delight, based just on seeing situations where it's called for. And i can imagine that they've used it where it's not called for, to an extent that dabs like Fabrication that make it look preferred might actually predominate. Yes, it was somewhere in the Naming conventions policies (and i feel safe in asserting it hasn't changed) but i don't recall where:  ,  , and other plain English syntaxes are always preferred when they communicate the same meaning.  This is a fundamentally wiki-like choice, because in running text,
 * semiconductor fabrication
 * is slower and much more disruptive to fluent writing (and to editing in its nbrhood) than is
 * semiconductor fabrication.
 * OK, i just looked at the entire history of "Semiconductor manufacturing", and my edit in particular. I'm at a complete loss as to why you headed this "Semiconductor manufacturing" instead of "Fabrication (semiconductor)" or "Semiconductor device fabrication". IIRC, and as that history suggests (but doesn't guarantee), this Sm is merely an innocent bystander in the choice between F(s) and Sf, and you've had me scratching my head about when i would significantly affected Sm. Did you just want to share about what you first noticed about this matter?  Or when you said "the above title" did you think you had put "semiconductor fabrication" up there? Or have you just confusedly misinferred about what i did?
 * I need to ask you to proofread very carefully the next thing you send me. And if you think the edit shown in my last link above is not the only change i made to Semiconductor manufacturing, please say so very clearly and with links to any evidence.
 * --Jerzy~t 20:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain dbl redrcts to me. --Duk 15:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 *  Note: I've redirected a link to the disambiguation page for "battery" in the above discussion, to reduce crowding in the first level responses on the "What links here" page for that article. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 14:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC) 
 * Merely brilliant! My only slight criticism is that a wording like "lk thru the dummy dab page" is more descriptive, and might in the future  save me anxiety. Good cause, great job done, and especially the to me new idea of "xxx (dab)" rdr'g to "xxx" is absolutely great. Thanks. --Jerzy·t 17:38, 2005 August 1 (UTC)