This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JHunterJ (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 26 May 2008 (→order, primary meaning: dabs aren't articles, they're navigational aids). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:50, 26 May 2008 by JHunterJ (talk | contribs) (→order, primary meaning: dabs aren't articles, they're navigational aids)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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)