Talk:Inception (disambiguation)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Inception (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confused the original of the above (first posted at 05:45, 13 July 2010) with the discussion whose outcome included improperly converting this talk page to a Rdr, and reverted the message (but missed the Rdr that hid it!) in starting the repair. It is, however, appropriate for the above message to appear on this talk page.
--Jerzy•t 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous move

A previous move discussion re Inception, which title then covered the topic of the album by Download (band), was conducted 14-22 September 2009, and formally closed after the move to Inception (album). That older discussion is now at Talk:Inception (album)#Move?; the accompanying main-namespace page (replacing HatNote Dab material that was on the moved page until the move) is now a Dab.
--Jerzy•t 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab cleanup

I reverted or undid each of the three edits preceding mine, as noted in the edit history. It may need reiteration that Dabs exist as navigational devices, not for information provision: the best Dab page is one where most users who visit it recognize which article they want by a glance at the first entry, click on it, and don't recall anything they saw on the page. (Readers of the edit history should note that hoping the addition of non-navigation-assisting info might "forestall" enhancing access to the probably most sought entry is the opposite of a legitimate motivation for putting dictdefs onto Dab pages, so assume the confusing wording has an intended meaning that i at least haven't yet sorted out, rather than learning a bad lesson from it.)
--Jerzy•t 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Hey guys, I'm kinda proposing a similar change to what happened to the Avatar (film) page. Since it is quite obvious that the Inception film is the most popular of all the other items presented, I propose that we move the Inception film page to just Inception and move this page to Inception (disambiguation). Is that cool?--Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to WP:RM and follow the directions for posting a move request discussion if you want to do this. Propaniac (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to make a move based on popularity rather than for an encyclopedia to try and keep a consistent naming policy. I'd strongly encourage you to check you aren't going against any naming rules policies before trying to make such a move. A move seems like a lot of effort for little gain though. Going through the channes like Propaniac suggests and gaining some consensus at least helps ensure someone can't just undo your work. -- Horkana (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concurr, it's disgusting that some people seem to want to organise Wikipedia according to what information people are most likely to want to find. What do they think this is, some kind of information providing service? Far better in my mind to make sure obscure backroom policies are rigorously adhered to than make any changes that could lead down the slippery slope of improving usability. Because if we go down that route people will start thinking Wikipedia is here for its readers (aka the unwashed masses) not the actually important people, the editors. --Daduzi ^talk 09:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, for a second there I thought you were serious. Agree with Daduzi (assuming he is being sarcastic). 76.180.164.245 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inception" definition gone?

Hey guys, about a few weeks ago I saw the film "Inception", and I decided to look it up on wikipedia. When I searched it, I got to this page and it read "Inception is the beginning or creation of something" or something along those lines and then it said "Inception may refer to" and so on and so forth. Currently, the page no longer features the definition of Inception. Now it just says "Inception may refer to...". Why was it removed? There is nothing on this discussion page related to the deletion of the definition. I think the definition of "Inception" should be reinstated on this page. LaughinSkull (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a definition, look in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. (The Inception page even offers a helpful link to Wiktionary, in the template on the right.) There's no Wikipedia article about the general definition of "inception," so it's not listed here, because the purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct users to the Wikipedia article with the information they're seeking. Propaniac (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is not a dictionary, and I'm not asking for a full page based on the word. However think about it, if all it takes is one 8 word sentence that may help people better understand something, don't you think its worth it? Not only that you didn't answer my question, which was why it was removed. You seem to have an idea why it was moved, but do you know for a fact that it was removed because wikipedia is "Not a dictionary"?

One more thing, if your going to use "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" as an argument, then you might want to tell someone that these pages need editing as well: Pirate (disambiguation) and Crime (disambiguation) and many others. LaughinSkull (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it was removed essentially because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, because I was the one who removed it and that is why I did so. :)

The broader reason is that we have standardizing guidelines for how to format disambiguation pages and what information to include on such pages. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help users reach the article they're looking for, not to inform them of every definition/usage of a term. In this case, maybe there's only one basic definition of the term, but what if there were several definitions? Would we have to list them all? And what if the articles about the Inception film and albums didn't exist, so we didn't need the disambiguation page? Should we create a page just to explain the definition of the word? I get your thinking that in this case, it would not be a big deal to include the general definition, but the goal is to standardize disambiguation pages to a common format. Deviating from that format just encourages users to form incorrect impressions about what a disambiguation page is supposed to look like ("That Inception page included a general definition, so I should add a general definition to these other pages...").

As for the two other pages you linked, both of those appear to conform to guidelines. The difference is that they include a "general definition" at the top because they link to an article about that general definition. As I said, the purpose of a dab page is to link to articles, not simply offer definitions. Propaniac (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]