Talk:Transitivity

I've just removed an entry, and too late realised that I'd given no reason. The entrywas:

Transitive Corporation is a computer software firm based in Manchester, England and Los Gatos, California.

As the link is red, the entry seems to be no more than an advertisement for the company. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)

Transitive Corporation link

Mel - I don't agree with your revert of my edit. I've given my reasons on your talk page, but in summary I think it is fair to have a link to Transitive Corporation on this page because a) Transitive Corporation is linked to from other pages in Wikipedia, and is therefore presumably deemed worthy of an article, and b) 'Transitive' is a common shortened name for the company, and therefore a likely search term for anybody wishing to find the article.

I've looked through the various Wikipedia policies and can't find anything that suggests that this link is a bad idea. If you (or anybody else) are strongly against this, please let's discuss it rather than starting an edit war (I really have no sinister motives here - I just think that it makes sense for this disambiguation page to contain this link). I've put the link back in in the meantime.

There's no article to link to, so little point having a link here. That other pages mention the company is no reason for it to be included here.
In any case, neither the official name nor what you say is the common name is the title of the article ("Transitivity").
As it stands, it merely advertises the company.
You've already told me that you're an empoyee of the company.
Therefore, if anyone else thinks that it belongs here, they'll put it here — but you (and other people connected with it) shouldn't do so. We don't allow advertising on Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Mel. Although I agree with your motives, and I don't want to see Wikipedia full of adverts either, I'm afraid I still disagree with you in this case, for the following reasons:

I don't think that the fact that the article does not yet exist is a reason for deleting the link. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says that redlinks are acceptable if you're confident that an article could be written about the subject. The disambiguation policy page also says that it is acceptable to link subjects which do not have their own article as long as the article is not one that shouldn't exist in the first place. If the issue here is that there should be no article, that is a different problem, and one that presumably requires the deletion of all other links to it.
The disparity between the article name and the company name is only a consequence of the fact that the transitive page is a redirect to transitivity. As for the official name against the common name, I would point out that the IBM page describes the IBM Corporation, and Microsoft the Microsoft Corporation, for example. Again, this point is covered on the disambiguation policy page - the question is, if a reader enters 'transitive' in the search bar, is it conceivable that the Transitive Corporation article is what they are looking for? I think it is perfectly possible.
As you point out, I am an employee of said company. I mention this in my user page, and I have made no secret of it. As I said, I am not attempting to do anything covert or sinister here. As an employee it would clearly be inappropriate for me to either create the article, or decide whether the company merits inclusion in Wikipedia; I have done neither. The fact that a third party has created a link to the article suggests that they believed an entry is warranted, even if it hasn't yet been written. Many links point to articles that do not yet exist, this is primarily because Wikipedia is incomplete, not because these articles will never be a part of Wikipedia.
I really don't feel that this is advertising. I thought very carefully before adding the entry about whether it was appropriate for me to do so, and I read over the various Wikipedia policies. Adding entries to disambiguation pages increases the usefulness and navigability of Wikipedia. Even if the article doesn't yet exist, it makes readers aware of this, and tells them where it would be if it did exist.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on these points. Thanks, Batneil 17:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, OK, fair enough — you've persuaded me. I'll not remove it again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I do appreciate it. --Batneil

FYI someone created an "article" for Transitive Corporation today. I say "article" because it consisted purely of the phrase "Transitive wrote Rosetta". A speedydel tag was added on the grounds that this was "nonsense". Since it isn't, I've removed the speedydel and put a very short entry there and added a tech-corp-stub tag. Any chance of someone (Batneil, perhaps?) expanding it a bit? Tonywalton 13:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transitivity vs Intransitivity: why is the disambiguation page here?

Currently there is a redirect from 'transitive' to 'transitivity', which is a disambig page. I really think there should instead be a disambig page at 'transitive', and 'transitivity' should contain the article currently at 'transitive relation', with an 'other uses' tag if neccesary. Why?

This matches the article naming scheme for 'intransitivity'.
There are a large number of articles (almost 200, and probably should be more) from a variety of fields linking to 'transitive relation', virtually every one of them is referring to transitivity as a property and needing to have appearance altered (eg 'Transitive relation|transitivity' or 'transitive relation|transitive'). 'Transitivity' is a more appropriate name for that article than transitive relation'
There are less than 50 articles linking to 'transitivity (grammar)', and the majority of these are either from a navbox, coming through another redirect, or should actually point to 'transitive verb'. Few actually use the article name in context.

Just my opinion. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Qetuth (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]