Talk:Fox (disambiguation)/Archive1

 '''Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.''' Suggested plan: split various listed to a To add section at Category:Fox characters, then trim to a disambiguation that lists only topics that might share a name (plausibly be refered to by linking to Fox). See Talk:Twilight. -- Sine 20:37, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
 * Can we take this discussion up until all pertinent links/characters and related media on all four current disamb pages are added/finished? - Spirou 07:38, 14 October 2012 (EDT)
 * If we're doing something wrong now, it's better to figure that out now rather than have to redo work.
 * Here's some issues I see with the recent expansion of disambiguation pages:
 * Disambiguation pages (please read the linked article) have a specific goal: resolving ambiguities in word linkage. It should be possible for an editor to link to the bare term and expect it to be an article on the topic. If it is not credible that someone would link to a term and intend to link to the subject – for example, fox -> Yappy Slyfox – they should not be on the disambiguation page. They are not intended to replace search or categories, nor to list "things related to a term". If people want to find all articles with "fox" in the name, let them use the search box. (I get the feeling this is how this page is being constructed.)
 * We should not replace "primary" topics with disambiguation pages. When people link directly to fox, they almost certainly want the species. They probably don't want Fox McCloud, and it's doubtful as to whether they would want any of the other people listed here. In this case, and perhaps in all generic species cases, Fox should be reserved for what is currently Fox (species), and the disambiguation page should be Fox (disambiguation), linked at the top of Fox. This is how Wikipedia does Fox and its disambiguations (with vixens separate). Alternatively, if the species page is only going to be a stub, we could combine it with the disambiguation page. What we want to avoid is writing fox all over the place; it's non-obvious and a waste of editors' time.
 * If we don't yet have an article on a topic which meets all of the criteria above, we should be careful creating a redlink if the topic is not strictly of furry interest. Would a link to Wikipedia serve readers better? Should it be mentioned in our disambiguation page at all?
 * As a rule of thumb, disambiguation pages should be no more than a page long, and usually much shorter. If it somehow does get to be that long, it should be split up by topic headers. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:40, 14 October 2012 (EDT)


 * "Disambiguation pages (please read the linked article) have a specific goal: resolving ambiguities in word linkage." The basis I follow to create a Disambiguation page. "When people link directly to fox, they almost certainly want the species. They probably don't want Fox McCloud". That defeats the purpose of the word linkage on a disambiguation page (Fox could refer to:). That's why the adding of X (species) + X (disambiguation page), not a trend or format I started, something I have followed on other's examples.


 * In short (and I'm not being pedantic, dismissive or snarky, just to the point), after several years of using Disambiguation pages the way I (and others) have being creating them (followed by that massive restructuring of several dozen+ disambiguation pages we had a year ago, where we could have brought up this subject then), we are suggesting to conform to Wikipedia standards. Okay.


 * BUT, since I'm already way deep into the process, I would also recommend that I finish what I started, add all the links and information available, then process and distribute, pick and move, the available data presently being gathered and formatted. In other words, put all the blue balls neatly in the big box, then move pertinent ones (large blue, small blue, sky blue, aquamarine, etc,...) in sets or one by one to the appropriate smaller boxes, instead of stopping mid gathering and dumping the main box now, and try to reshuffle them around.


 * It would be the most logical and efficient way to work this out - Spirou 11:03, 14 October 2012 (EDT)


 * Also, could we leave the pages as is for now, and not gut them until we reach consensus? (I need to crash, insomnia) - Spirou 11:22, 14 October 2012 (EDT)


 * I've been ambivalent at best about the recent wave of changes of species articles from "Animal" to "Animal (species)". I thought we had agreed a long time ago that with any term that is the name of a species (or at least a commonly known one), the use of the term for the article about the species should have primacy, and any other uses of the term should have qualifiers and if necessary be disambiguated.  In other words, Fox should be the article about the species, Rabbit should be the article about the species, and so forth.  And these are the articles that should get linked to from elsewhere by default when someone uses a non-piped wikilink for these terms.


 * Apologies if I waited longer than I should have to speak up on this subject. --mwalimu 10:20, 15 October 2012 (EDT)


 * I don't think it ends up being particuarly efficient to expand disambiguation pages beyond their scope and alter the format, then have to pull them back in. The data you're gathering and formatting (thanks for all that!) can be stored in a more appropriate place on WikiFur (or locally to you, perhaps). On the topic of species being at the name, or at (species), I'm undecided. A number of such moves to species at (species) were done many years ago: e.g. Ocelot. -- Sine 14:37, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

My opinion on this matter is the same as that of "Wolf"-Fox (species) should be here, and this should be Fox (disambiguation). Equivamptalk 14:53, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Cards on the table (A curator's take).
Just short.

The edits made on the last three weeks were started after I saw a dearth and lack of data upkeep on the disambiguation page Skunk. Skunk is one of the "proof of concept pages" I been using for formatting this kind of pages since 2006. It lists the animal name (Skunk) as the disambiguation page's title, and the wiki link of "Skunk (species)|Skunk" as the redirecting norm.

Then I started to add to add to other disambiguation pages (Fox, Rabbit, Bunny, Renard, Kitsune,...), and entering updates on people, characters, data and media, while backtracking any user with these species with the "X (species)|X" redirect. A lot of digging through my, hitting the net hard, and formatting dozens and dozens of articles.

After finishing these disambiguation pages, Wolf, formatting all the image galleries to the new guidelines set by the boss, and uploading a ton of media were to be next... But, 48 hours ago discussions start that the disambiguation pages should be cleaned up to Wikipedia's standards. Then, a few hours ago, suggestions that the "X (species)|X" format should be changed. No problem, democratic rules.

But, the point, again. I just would like to ask that I finish the disambiguation pages already in motion (at 80%), then we move the resources to the appropriate places. Since a motion of change has been made in regards to the "X (species)|X", I will stop the formatting species links on user's pages until a final decision is made.


 * It's not so much democracy as general consensus - and, for that matter, the presence of a clear justification. I appreciate the wish to "tidy up", but you took the Skunk disambiguation page from three entries, all for things titled just "Skunk" and with a header "Skunk could refer to:", to over thirty, half of which didn't even have "Skunk" in their name. I don't think that's what any of the editors who had touched that page intended.


 * While we're talking about "things that may have been happening for a while that probably shouldn't", I'd like to ask that the habit of protecting pages as a way of asserting a personal "edit hold" be discontinued. Page protection tools are, by their nature, exclusionary - in fact they exclude over 90% of active WikiFur users, and all anonymous users. They should generally only be deployed when there have been edits to a particular page by non-privileged users which are primarily damaging in nature (and even then, protection should be used temporarily and at the lowest effective level). Even "static" pages may at some time need to be updated by an unprivileged user (such as a bot).


 * The argument around courtesy is missing the entire point of a wiki, which is to permit any editor who can make an improvement to do so immediately. If you're concerned about edit conflicts - or not being able to "finish" before people judge your efforts - you could make your own copy in your user space (e.g. User:Spirou/Fox (disambiguation), then modify the target page all at once. Though in this case, I think it would have been better for other editors to act sooner rather than later, because you seem to have invested a lot of work into these, and I'm concerned that they're more useful as personal "todo" lists than anything else (though the incidental editing to the listed articles is surely of value). Do we need a List of skunks? Isn't that served by Category:Skunk characters and our search engine? --GreenReaper(talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Species (disambiguation) proposal
Thinking about species disambiguation, I propose that at least for common realworld species, the article at the bare species name be about the species, with a note at the top stating something like ''This is an article about the species. For topics that share the name, see Speciesname (disambiguation)''. Even when, as with Ocelot, there might only be one other topic; I think this would be a consistent option with the least needing to follow around and update as other items by that name come to light. I'm not sure if that would best extend to rare not-so-realworld species/names (such as Crux). -- Sine 23:26, 15 October 2012 (EDT)
 * Concur. Equivamptalk 15:02, 16 October 2012 (EDT)
 * I've created Template:Species with my suggested wording. -- Sine 15:16, 13 January 2013 (EST)
 * The plan is to move those articles with (species) in the article title to the undisambiguated name and include the above template, put disambiguations at (disambiguation). While I'm not seeing many articles with (species) in the title, I suspect there will be one or two where some discussion may be needed as to best placement. In addition, this structure when adopted should be documented as policy. -- Sine 18:26, 14 January 2013 (EST)


 * I mildy oppose. I think a fairly large number of edits are made by those apparently new to wiki who link to disambiguation pages possibly because they don't realize the article they are intending to link to should have round brackets in link. I think if "(species)" are removed from species article names that there are enough furries who use a species name as an alias that newbies will link to a species page when assuming they were linking to page about a specific person. --EarthFurst 21:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)


 * See proposed policy at Species and associated discussion page. -- Sine 13:55, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Wikifur/Wikipedia, and what's the new rule?
Okay. The new guidelines about a week ago called for to make our disambiguation pages more in line with the Wikipedia standard, that's why disassembled this (and others) already in progress pages last week, and started to work offline to match them to our sister site's format standard.

But now I see that the "See also" has been deleted from this disambiguation page,... which Wikipedia does include in theirs...

So, are we, as stated, are to follow Wikipedia, Wikifur, an hybrid, or new rules?. Could somebody confirm if we are still formatting to Wikipedia's standards (including their "see also"), or this is this Wikifur disambig format V.3?. Thanks - Spirou 01:09, 26 October 2012 (EDT)


 * As far as I am aware, WikiFur has never used See also sections on disambiguation pages. -- Sine 12:24, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
 * Which Wikipedia does:
 * -Green reaper: "In this case, and perhaps in all generic species cases, Fox should be reserved for what is currently Fox (species), and the disambiguation page should be Fox (disambiguation), linked at the top of Fox. This is how Wikipedia does Fox and its disambiguations (with vixens separate)."
 * -Spirou: "''48 hours ago discussions (stated) that the disambiguation pages should be cleaned up to Wikipedia's standards (...) No problem, democratic rules.
 * -Spirou: "(W)e are suggesting to conform to Wikipedia standards. Okay."


 * So I took the Disambiguation pages offline to format them.
 * Changed title from Fox to Fox (disambiguation).
 * Initial header" (as Wikipedia's).
 * "The fox is a carnivorous animal.
 * Fox may also refer to:".
 * Added sections the same as Wikipedia's Disambiguation pages.
 * People
 * Characters
 * Entertaiment
 * Media
 * Other uses (I was going to suggest further breakdown. I.e. Sites, etc)
 * See also
 * Lose double bolding, Fox to Fox (not used on Wikipedia).
 * After formatting the pages to the Wikipedia standard, add: "For other uses, see Fox (disambiguation)." to the Fox page.
 * Then finally, after adding the new, formatted version to Wikifur, revert all the Fox (species) in all the pertinent articles to Fox (Rinse/repeat with each species' disamb pages).


 * Now we just removed the See also section on Fox... So, again, Wikipedia, Wikifur, hybrid, or new rule format?. Already spent a week on the reformats. Final, official input needed - Spirou 20:52, 26 October 2012 (EDT)


 * I don't have a problem with including a "See also" section in the disambiguation page and would be in favor of adding it back.
 * I would also agree that in any disambiguation page that has more than about ten entries (especially if it has more than fifteen or twenty), there should be subsections to categorize them - in this case it might include "Species", "People", "Creative works", and "Other". --mwalimu 17:02, 27 October 2012 (EDT)