User talk:Widefox

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A page, about me, and edits on the English Wikipedia. Talk to me...

If I reverted, or undid your edit, please see User:Widefox/Why I revert vandalism.
If your edit was to a disambiguation page, first see Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts.
If you have a WP:COI I choose to talk only on your page, do not post here but ping me on yours.

Genetic haemochromatosis[edit]

Hallo, I've just retargeted this redirect, which you made in 2018, from Iron overload to Hereditary haemochromatosis which appears almost certainly to be a synonym ... but checking in with you here in case there's something I missed and I've got it wrong!

I'm currently falling down a rabbit hole from adding a link to the longlist of Lakeland Book of the Year to writing about a poet who says she has "Genetic Haemachromatosis" ... when the article is ready I'll drop her an email to point out that there are at least two dead links on her "about" page! PamD 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PamD, yes I concur. We still have this problem: Looking at Iron overload#Non-classical hereditary hemochromatosis and the hatnote at Hereditary haemochromatosis, looks like we may not be disambiguating Hereditary haemochromatosis / Genetic haemochromatosis i.e. there's a primary topic Haemochromatosis type 1 (aka "classical" hemochromatosis, aka HFE-related Hemochromatosis) and the other genetic causes of hemochromatosis (2-5) are potentially non-primary topics? I can't remember if that was my reasoning to target the broader topic rather than main genetic subtopic, but mirroring as a synonym seems better. In the absence of knowing more about it, I'm not sure what should be done, but we seem to be doing better than, say https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/haemochromatosis/causes/ . Congrats on Polly Atkin, very interesting read. Widefox; talk 22:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr[edit]

Your summaries say you cleaned this dab up "according to WP:MOSDAB". Just a reminder, WP:MOSDAB incorporates MOS:LONGDAB, which includes MOS:NOORPHANS and MOS:DABOVERLAP, which says "For one or two items that fit in multiple sections: duplicate these entries in each appropriate section." Readers may reasonably expect to find a publishing imprint like Zephyr Books in the "Businesses" section, even if it isn't strictly speaking a business itself. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swpb. I think there's two topics raised. 1. Zephyr and 2. MOS:LONGDAB:

1. The Books entry was listed twice, consecutively [1] which doesn't seem useful to readers to me, does it to you? At the top of all guidelines it says "common sense". So I'd say either way isn't a big thing for readers.

2. As you're the main author of MOS:LONGDAB, I'm not sure if you're really inviting other dab editors such as myself to participate in shaping it? Widefox; talk 18:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. It doesn't matter that the entries were consecutive, because there is a header between them – if a reader expected the entry to be in "Businesses" and so clicked "Businesses" in the ToC, the heading "Businesses" would be at the top of their screen, with the "Arts and media" entry off screen and the reader having no clue to scroll up to find it.

That's one navigation path, yes, but not the only one. In fact, last time I checked the majority of our users were on mobile, and there's no ToC on mobile (both app and browser), so simple analysis would say that's a minority case (caveat: mobile browser has closed sections, so there's at least merit there). I return to my point. I also stick by my edit summaries, MOSDAB was and is correctly used. I just don't know what you mean by "incorporates". Widefox; talk 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a navigation route have to be the only one, or even the majority one, for it to make sense to help readers who do use it? Navigating from the ToC is hardly an obscure approach. "Incorporates" in the sense of incorporation by reference: MOS:DABGROUPING starts by directing to LONGDAB, which would be part of MOSDAB but for its length. It has the same weight as the rest of MOSDAB, so if you are claiming to be making changes to meet MOSDAB, that entails following LONGDAB too. "Following" doesn't mean "no exceptions", but it does mean that changes directly counter to the guide should be explicitly justified. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. It's completely irrelevant how much of LONGDAB I wrote; what's relevant is that it is an official guideline, and became one through explicit consensus like every other guideline. And so, like any other guideline, any part of it can change if there is consensus. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we're both aware that until recently it was your essay. Do you think it's at all appropriate that you are reminding me about it like this, as if it's policy, which even MOSDAB isn't? Widefox; talk 00:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminding you that it's a guideline, since your summaries cite a guideline that includes it by reference. I know you don't go around ignoring all guidelines just because they aren't policies, and I know you know that's not how Wikipedia works. If you want to challenge part of any guideline, you know the way – and you know that "this used to be an essay" isn't going to work as an argument against something that was promoted to guideline status by the community. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I looked at Zephyr out of curiosity, noticed that it started with "Zephyr may also refer to...", wondered what had previously preceded that line to justify the "also", and reinstated the opening line which has been present since 2016 and puts the rest into context, but was removed on 10 May. WP:IAR perhaps; I think it improves the dab page. It's also the meaning which comes to my mind first, though I know this doesn't mean it's the primary topic (but I'm female, UK-based, and a child of the 1950s, so not what's perceived as our typical reader or editor). PamD 07:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I must have overlooked removing that "also" with that diff above ...[2] yup, I missed it.

There's a few such dabs with dictionary type definitions at the top, which I generally consider legacy / in need of routine dab cleanup per MOSDAB. AFAIR I typically try to convert such "ledes"/ dictdef entries to an entry at or close to the top. OK, as to the merits of this one on Zephyr, I agree that it doesn't feel right to put those two entries in the bulk and at the bottom in the Other uses section. Would you be happy with the two entries like this:

1. Zephyr commonly refers to:

Zephyrus or Zephyr, one of the Anemoi and the Greek god of the west wind
- West wind or light wind, in European tradition

Zephyr may also refer to:
Widefox; talk 10:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure about "commonly" as it may be a bit of an exaggeration. Could you put "traditionally" or "originally", in a slightly WP:IAR way, but which would be helpful and accurate? PamD 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the conundrum when the dictdefs aren't obviously the most likely / highly likely items but are more obscure words so seemingly useful to define at the top. Per MOSDAB we just rely on Wiktionary links and there's no special accomodation for the etymology...There's two other styles I've seen:

2. Zephyr often refers to:

3. least common, possibly only this dab, our "highly divergent" example Congo:

Zephyr may refer to:

I'd personally want to avoid "traditionally" or "originally" as it's veering into etymology, covered by our Wiktionary links. Widefox; talk 16:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]