| Revision as of 19:07, 26 May 2008 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →order, primary meaning← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:12, 26 May 2008 edit undoDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →order, primary meaningNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :::Dbachmann, confine yourself to discussing the edits and refrain from personal "observations", such as what my involvement may mean or your inability to read my thoughts. Your apparent lack of understanding of ] is why the project needs editors who are involved with it. If you'd like to make a ] article, then make a list article, but stop trying to conflate the intentionally content-light disambiguation page with a content-full article. Disambiguation pages aren't articles. Putting a bunch of "content" in between the reader and the article they intended to read is a Bad Thing. -- ] (]) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | :::Dbachmann, confine yourself to discussing the edits and refrain from personal "observations", such as what my involvement may mean or your inability to read my thoughts. Your apparent lack of understanding of ] is why the project needs editors who are involved with it. If you'd like to make a ] article, then make a list article, but stop trying to conflate the intentionally content-light disambiguation page with a content-full article. Disambiguation pages aren't articles. Putting a bunch of "content" in between the reader and the article they intended to read is a Bad Thing. -- ] (]) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Taemy, dab pages are for navigating between pages that ''may be intended'' when looking up the term, even if the term doesn't appear in the title. Thus, if someone had written a novel called "Energy", this page would need to point to the author's bio article even if no article dedicated to the novel itself had yet been created. Why do I have to point out such trivialities? JHunterJ, I ask you to give be the benefit of doubt that I know perfectly well what I am talking about, and the good grace that a disagreeing with you does not necessarily amount to being in error. Now if you are interested in addressing ''this'' case, pray show some appreciation of the semantig and terminological issues involved. No, I do not wish to "make a list article", thank you very much. I believe in providing disambiguation pages as an ''ordered'' list which make clear which meanings are dependent on one another and which aren't. Stop lecturing me about the point of disambiguation pages: I am fully familiar with their purpose. ] <small>]</small> 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::Taemy, dab pages are for navigating between pages that ''may be intended'' when looking up the term, even if the term doesn't appear in the title. Thus, if someone had written a novel called "Energy", this page would need to point to the author's bio article even if no article dedicated to the novel itself had yet been created. Why do I have to point out such trivialities? JHunterJ, I ask you to give be the benefit of doubt that I know perfectly well what I am talking about, and the good grace that a disagreeing with you does not necessarily amount to being in error. Now if you are interested in addressing ''this'' case, pray show some appreciation of the semantig and terminological issues involved. No, I do not wish to "make a list article", thank you very much. I believe in providing disambiguation pages as an ''ordered'' list which make clear which meanings are dependent on one another and which aren't. Stop lecturing me about the point of disambiguation pages: I am fully familiar with their purpose. ] <small>]</small> 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==On topic== | |||
| "Energy" in the context of aristotelism refers to '']''. From this meaning, all others here listed are derived. "Energy" in a context of scholasticism means ''actus'', discussed in ]. "Energy" in a context of Palamist theology refers to the question treated at ]. Now, before reverting my edit, and before lecturing me any further on the content of ], can I ask the dab-vigilantes present to specify '''which''' part of the guideline says we should '''not''' link to these articles, or else refrain from reverting my edit again. As always on Misplaced Pages, if you have no inkling of an issue, you should refrain from edit-warring about it. I would welcome any ''informed'' argument how "energies" can '''not''' refer to ''actus'' within the context I mentioned. If you cannot provide such an argument, you have no business here. ] <small>]</small> 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:12, 26 May 2008
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Merge
As per my post at Talk:Energy, I have restored the history from the old pseudo-disambiguation page and placed it at Energy (Disambiguation). Please merge any and all necessary entries from that page and redirect it to this one. Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Redirection
As per the decision on the AfD, energy (chemistry), energy (biology), energy (earth science) and energy (cosmology) have been redirected to Energy, the earlier content of these pages has been moved to other articles. The new links have been incorporated because a redirect to the energy article serves no useful purposeHallenrm 05:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
order, primary meaning
it is questionable whether physical energy (the quantity measured in Joule) is the primary meaning of the term.
Actual primacy is with Aristotle's energeia, from which both physical, mental, and spiritual meanings derive. Likewise, in contemporary usage, the word is used in all of these contexts. A disambiguation page should have some sort of logical structure, grouping terms with cognate meanings, and separating merely coincidential homonyms. Also, common words used as titles or brand names should usually be listed further below than generic meanings. dab (𒁳) 15:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the new organizational paradigm will help readers find their intended target with a minimum fuss. MoS indicates that the unqualified article does not need a proper entry in the disambiguator since most people probably came from there. I like and support the current system where said article points to the conserved fundamental physical quantity, but might be persuaded that a different organization is more helpful. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your question as the the primary topic for Energy should be discussed at Talk:Energy. As far as this dab is concerned, whatever topic is at Energy is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- "primary" in current usage perhaps, not primary historically, or in the interrelation of the various meanings this dab page seeks to convey. Whatever you do in terms of "primary meaning", how is it justified to remove perfectly valid links like that to actus et potentia, energeia or Essence-Energies distinction? If this is merely about placing Energy (physics) at the top, fine, there's a debate in that. But the removal of patently relevant links is just disruption. I reject your claim that this should be discussed at Talk:Energy. I am not trying to move Energy to a bracketed title, I am simply trying to give a sensible organisation to this page here. Discussion of this clearly belongs on this talkpage and nowhere else. JHunterJ, if you are at all involved with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation, your apparent lack of tought about the topic does not bode well for that project. It seems that WP:D is in need of attention on the part of users who contribute content and who would like to arrange disambiguation of related topics (as opposed to mere accidental homophones) with some rhyme and reason. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about what articles are relevant. Dab pages exists to resolve title conflicts. There is no such conflict between actus et potentia and Energy, since you would not expect the former to have the title of the latter. Taemyr (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dbachmann, confine yourself to discussing the edits and refrain from personal "observations", such as what my involvement may mean or your inability to read my thoughts. Your apparent lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation is why the project needs editors who are involved with it. If you'd like to make a WP:LIST article, then make a list article, but stop trying to conflate the intentionally content-light disambiguation page with a content-full article. Disambiguation pages aren't articles. Putting a bunch of "content" in between the reader and the article they intended to read is a Bad Thing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Taemy, dab pages are for navigating between pages that may be intended when looking up the term, even if the term doesn't appear in the title. Thus, if someone had written a novel called "Energy", this page would need to point to the author's bio article even if no article dedicated to the novel itself had yet been created. Why do I have to point out such trivialities? JHunterJ, I ask you to give be the benefit of doubt that I know perfectly well what I am talking about, and the good grace that a disagreeing with you does not necessarily amount to being in error. Now if you are interested in addressing this case, pray show some appreciation of the semantig and terminological issues involved. No, I do not wish to "make a list article", thank you very much. I believe in providing disambiguation pages as an ordered list which make clear which meanings are dependent on one another and which aren't. Stop lecturing me about the point of disambiguation pages: I am fully familiar with their purpose. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
On topic
"Energy" in the context of aristotelism refers to energeia. From this meaning, all others here listed are derived. "Energy" in a context of scholasticism means actus, discussed in actus et potentia. "Energy" in a context of Palamist theology refers to the question treated at Essence-Energies distinction. Now, before reverting my edit, and before lecturing me any further on the content of WP:MOS, can I ask the dab-vigilantes present to specify which part of the guideline says we should not link to these articles, or else refrain from reverting my edit again. As always on Misplaced Pages, if you have no inkling of an issue, you should refrain from edit-warring about it. I would welcome any informed argument how "energies" can not refer to actus within the context I mentioned. If you cannot provide such an argument, you have no business here. dab (𒁳) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Category: