Talk:Forest (disambiguation)

Please list your justifications for your changes here, User:Pigsonthewing. I have justified my changes in the edit summaries, which can be seen at [1]. -- Timwi 16:34, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• No, you have not. You've stated a belief, then made an unsupported assertion. Furthermore, your idea of "preventing [a] revert war" appears to be to make an unwarranted reversion. Andy Mabbett 16:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I understand that the statement "This belongs in the article about him" can be seen as a "belief". However, it is also an argument which you have not refuted. In fact, you have not actually mentioned anything constructive in your edit summaries. Please tell me why you think that DeForest Kelley's role in Star Trek should be mentioned on this page which is not about him. Also tell me why you think the link to rain forest should be on the other side of the page as the link to tree (graph theory). Thank you. -- Timwi 16:43, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Try again. Andy Mabbett 16:47, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • Pardon? Try what again? You have still not supplied any argumentation. -- Timwi 16:49, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • And neither have you. You've stated a belief, then made an unsupported assertion, then pointed out that something similar to the latter is not an exmaple of the former. Oh, and kindly restore my changes before you protect the page. Thank you.Andy Mabbett 16:51, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • I am unsure why you are being this hostile against me. I have supplied the following arguments: (1) The fact that DeForest Kelley played in Star Trek is mentioned on his own article, and would thus be redundant here; (2) a "rain forest" is a special kind of forest and should therefore be mentioned and linked to in the forest article, not here; and (3) the two links rain forest (if you must have it) and tree (graph theory) are both a kind of "this is an example of something called a forest" and should therefore be together. -- You have refuted none of these three arguments; instead, you go on about vague accusations using ambiguous words like "belief" and "assertion", and you are being pretty rude to me both by copying the edit summary in which I kindly ask you to justify your changes, and by dismissing my good-faith argumentation with the words "Try again". -- Timwi 16:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I cannot explain your false perception of hostility; I cannot understand why you wrongly imagine that you have raised these arguemnts previously; I cannot see why you claim that my very specific statements were "vague accusations"; nor can I find any basis for your falacious accusations of rudeness and plagiarism. Andy Mabbett 17:09, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Discussion with you is obviously futile. I will attempt to stay away from you in future. -- Timwi 17:14, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I've decided to intervene/mediate. I don't want to have to protect the page so I'm sure this is sortable. Secretlondon 16:54, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Please. Feel free. What would you like to intervene with? :-) -- Timwi 16:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think everyone should remember that this is a disambiguation page- ie ideally it should be an orphan. If all the links to this page are sorted (which I presume one of you will do ;) then no-one will see this anyway. Secretlondon 17:10, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Rather, there are no links to it, except for Forest. Everyone seeing this page who didn't come here through some meta way like recent changes or whatever, must have seen Forest first. Morwen 17:26, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

Why is the mention of DeForrest Kelley's role in Star Trek important? Secretlondon 17:24, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it is. -- Timwi 17:25, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to have DeForest Kelley here at all. Presumably he/she is never actually known as "Forest" and someone searching for them would not search for Forest. Nottingham Forest FC is known informally as "Forest" however. Secretlondon 17:28, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

• And when someone searches, mistakenly, for "forest kelley"..? Andy Mabbett 17:29, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • For those people, you can create a redirect from Forest Kelley to DeForest Kelley. Actually, I'll do that now. -- Timwi 17:31, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Vote

See discussion above.

Should this page contain a link to the DeForest Kelley page?

• Yes:
• No: —Eloquence, Secretlondon

Should this page contain a link and/or reference to the Forrest Gump page?

• Yes:
• No: —Eloquence, Secretlondon

Forrest gump in the Forest (disambiguation) page? That's a "NO" for me. --Joanberenguer 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

(Feel free to add more options. Simple majority wins.)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Who gave you the authority to declare rules? Andy Mabbett 18:28, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, democratic decision making has a long and noble tradition on Wikipedia.—Eloquence

...and a heavily disputed one. Wikipedia is not a democracy. :) Martin

Parts of it are, others are not. Generally speaking, if the participants agree to respect the result of a vote, then that result becomes more or less formally accepted.—Eloquence

Request for comments

In order to avoid major conflict and to clarify this issue for similar future cases, please comment on my proposed changes on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. We'll try to reach a consensus there and if that fails, we'll vote.—Eloquence

"Discussion"

Those experiencing problems with a certain user's argumentative style (or lack thereof) may also be interested in previous discussion at Wikipedia:Conflicts between users (towards the top of the page). --Jiang 15:00, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Disputes, et al

The page history, along with the discussion on this talk page, clearly shows that there's a dispute over the extra links. It's a little more friendly to leave this kind of disputed text in HTML-comment, or move it to talk, rather than deleting it outright. Still, as you wish. Martin 15:21, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is no current dispute -- the disambiguation policy has been clarified in consensus, with prior announcement right above this section, making arguments about this page moot, and this is no longer the right place to have this discussion. If User:Pigsonthewing wants to change the disambiguation policy, the correct place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.—Eloquence 15:25, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

Your actions are not helpful. We have just agreed on a clear policy on disambiguation and reverting to free association pages is not the way to reach consistency.—Eloquence

Note that I wasn't reverting to a "free association" page, but rather I edited the page that pigsonthewing created. Further, I'm providing an alternative approach that does not appear to have explicitly considered, and the provision of alternative options is often an effective way to resolve disputes.

Note that my version is demonstrably better than the version of pigsonthewing, and pigsonthewing has accepted these improvements. Thus I have improved the worst case scenario, if pigsonthewing "wins" the edit war. Martin 15:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Both versions are not in compliance with our policy. That's the whole point of having policies: To set out clear rules which avoid disputes. The only dispute should be about the policy page itself, and the consensus here has been quite clearly in favor of diallowing partial page titles or other non-exact matches with the exception of misspellings (the Forrest case would be allowed if there was an article about Forrest, but there is not and we generally don't like articles about first names; Forrest Gump is completely bogus as there's no risk of confusion whatsoever).—Eloquence