Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 11 September 2008

Musical Instruments Disambig‑class

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments Disambig This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Greetings to readers and contributors! After discussing the idea with my musette tutor, I've drafted a new article about the musette de cour – available for consultation in my

Content

Please do not continue to remove large areas of content from this page. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing me the consideration of actually paying heed to the guidelines I have linked to multiple times instead of treating me as if I'm a vandal. Oh, wait--you haven't done me that consideration at all.

This page is a disambiguation page. It is not an article because it is about many different uses of the word "musette." It falls under the guidelines for disambiguation pages.

Here, I will quote for you the relevant portions of the Manual of Style so that you can ignore them here instead of ignoring the links in my edit summaries:

• Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article.
• Preface each entry with a bullet (an asterisk in wiki markup). Only entries that link, not leading lines, should have bullet points.
• Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line.
• The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry.

My cleanup primarily consisted of removing those entries that did not link to any article with more information about those meanings of "musette," and condensing the remaining entries to a single wikilink, so that if that is the meaning that the user is looking for, they can click on the appropriate article for more information. That is the purpose of a disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please restore the content, as the massive removals are damaging to our project. Badagnani (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Does the information I included above mean anything to you? Did you read it? I have no idea what your project is or how it is helped by the existence of a page with several paragraphs about different meanings of "musette," but perhaps someone else from your project could come here and actually discuss the problem instead of ignoring my objections. I'm certainly not going to say, "Oh, well, if you have some sort of undefined project that depends on the page being a mess, I'm happy to ignore all Misplaced Pages guidelines in that case." If you can explain to me what your problem actually is, I might be able to suggest a solution. Propaniac (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as presented now the information about the term "musette" is wrong, incomplete, and misleading. Previously, it was complete and correct. Our first priority is to serve our users. That means presenting accurate and complete information, not depleting it to prove a WP:POINT. If you could actually address the content, and how you believe removing several instances of this term improves the article, rather than falling back on a hyperaggressive "those are the rules, live with them," it would be great. Badagnani (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Quoting myself from above:

My cleanup primarily consisted of removing those entries that did not link to any article with more information about those meanings of "musette," and condensing the remaining entries to a single wikilink, so that if that is the meaning that the user is looking for, they can click on the appropriate article for more information. That is the purpose of a disambiguation page.

A disambiguation page is not supposed to list several different meanings of the term (that's what a dictionary does); it is supposed to direct users to the existing Misplaced Pages content that discusses the usage in which they're interested. If there is no Misplaced Pages article that discusses a particular meaning of the term (such as the definition of "musette" as a kind of rucksack), then there's no reason for it to be included on the disambiguation page. If there IS an article discussing that meaning, then the disambiguation page only needs to include enough information so that a user looking for that meaning would know which article to click on. Including extraneous information, such as whole paragraphs about each meaning, serves no purpose and makes the page harder to use.

WP:POINT has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (who would I have been trying to make this "point" TO, considering that I revised the page two months ago?).

The guidelines exist to maximize the usefulness and efficiency of disambiguation pages as a navigational tool; you haven't suggested how Misplaced Pages is improved by ignoring them in this case, or how they interfere with this project of yours. If there are factual inaccuracies in the ~20 words that currently exist on the page, feel free to correct them while maintaining the spirit of what a disambiguation page is supposed to be and do. Propaniac (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly actually address the content, and how misstating the meanings of this term, and removing several, improves this page for our users, rather than falling back on an unnecessarily hyperaggressive mode of discourse that places your reading of WP's guidelines above presenting an accurate and complete disambiguation of this term for our users. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered your question. I've explained what the guidelines are, and why following them results in a better, more useful page. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. If you require a clarification that takes into account what I've written, feel free to ask a specific question that doesn't ignore what I've already said. If you would like all guidelines and policies to be suspended so that you can make whatever edits you think are best without needing to provide justification or explanation, make a proposal at the Village Pump. But if you continue to edit this page, or any other pages that I'm aware of, without respecting the opinions of other editors (including those editors that have participated in creating the guidelines through sincere, consensus-building discussion), I'll report your behavior at WP:ANI. Propaniac (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kindly actually address the content, which were formerly accurate and complete, and now, after your large deletions, seriously misrepresents the term. I've read and know the guidelines well (are you implying that I am a new editor?), and your edits indicate that you are misreading them. Your hyperaggressive editing manner is not helpful to our readers, who must be paramount in our minds with all edits we make. Badagnani (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I know full well that you're not a new editor--from what I've observed, you're a very good editor until you run into any kind of disagreement with anyone. Your claim that my behavior is "hyperaggressive" is rather stunning.

The burden of proof is not on me to show that the guidelines should be followed; it is on you to show that this is a case where the guidelines should not be followed. You have not provided a single specific example of how the page has been made worse. For example, you could describe a hypothetical situation in which a user would encounter my version of this page and not be served as well as if he had encounted the older version. Saying over and over that the new version is inaccurate and incomplete is not a good argument to revert to the old version. If the content in the new version is inaccurate, I have explicitly invited you to correct it if you can do so without compromising the page's purpose as a disambiguation tool. As for it being complete, it only needs to be complete enough to direct the user to the articles where he or she can find the information they're looking for. If there are articles about other meanings of the word "musette," adding those would make the page more complete.

After all the words that have been written on this page, I'm still trying to guess what exactly your grievance is. Propaniac (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting and presenting a few incorrect statements about the term "Musette," by substituting accurate information with inaccurate and partial, wrong information does not present the best disambiguation page for our users. Seeing that you don't actually address the content in a substantive manner despite having been asked several times, preferring to rely on "my interpretation of WP guidelines trump your wish to provide the best information for our readers," I will be restoring it promptly. Take a look at the diff and you'll see what the grievance is: information about the musical instruments is now stated incorrectly, and several definitions are completely gone. That is far from encyclopedic, and represent a form of intellectual malpractice, seeing as the former version of the article did present a proper disambiguation, and the current version is highly problematic, incorrect, and full of lacunae. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've invited you to correct inaccuracies. The information will by necessity be "partial" because the user is intended to visit the linked articles for full information. Since you have not attempted to interpret the guidelines at all in this discussion (you've simply advocated ignoring them completely), my "interpretation" is the only one of concern; I doubt you could find anyone familiar with them who thinks the previous version was a "proper disambiguation" and did not clearly and directly violate virtually every part of the guidelines with no clear benefit for doing so. Propaniac (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over. If you don't like the current version, design a new one that meets your standards of accuracy and completeness while also accomodating the guidelines, or propose to change the guidelines so that they are all completely different, which is what would be required to make the old version acceptable. Propaniac (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Disambig-Class musical instruments pages
• NA-importance musical instruments pages
• Misplaced Pages requested images of musical instruments