User talk:Gloryshookthiswater

Welcome!

Hello, Gloryshookthiswater, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Control (2007 film)

It is unnecessary to place a hatnote on this article pointing to Control (disambiguation). The title "Control (2007 film)" is so specifically disambiguated that there is little chance of a reader having arrived at the article looking for some other meaning of the word "control". Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines:

There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there from within Wikipedia would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page. However, it would be perfectly appropriate to add a link to Solaris (novel) (but not, say, Solaris (operating system)) to its "See also" section.

--IllaZilla (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment:

I agree you are right about the disambiguation policy. However there is a problem which you may not be aware of, please view the link below:

http://postimage.org/image/doz0wb1pz/

This is my desktop. In many areas such as where I am, googling control only brings up your movie article with no way to access other wikipedia articles apart from using the fairly inadequate Wikipedia search or otherwise guessing what wikipedians have named a particular thing. The interaction of google's policies and zealous wikipedians deleting such necessary links results in many pages becoming practically unreachable by a large number of people. I am a returned wikipedian so I know what wikipedia should have and how to get it but the vast majority of passing viewers might either assume the article doesn't exist, try other search terms and finally give up or find the article after some effort and be annoyed, Please do not remove the link again. Thank you

P:S. you can view the traffic to Control(disambiguation) here:

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Control

I'm betting there will be a jump. Which would be a measure of the harmfulness of the deletion policy.

Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you describe is a Google issue, not a Wikipedia issue. Google search results are affected by many criteria that are not under Wikipedia's control or influence. If readers wish to read other articles on Wikipedia titled "control" all they have to do is type "control" into the WP search box and they will be taken to control, which is a disambiguation page. There is no control (disambiguation)...it's a redirect to control. Hatnotes do not even appear in Google search results: For example, the Wikipedia article on fish begins with a hatnote to fish (disambiguation), but in a a Google search for fish one does not see the hatnote, one only sees the first sentence of the article's lead: "A fish is any member of a paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits." Hatnoting the film article, therefore, does not even solve the problem you describe. The WP:DAB guideline exists for a reason. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding it to change google's results I am adding it so that people who google erroneously sends to the movie article don't hit a dead end this is a really minor edit which improves the workings of wikipedia. (if you just let me show you)Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also let us get some more opinions about this meanwhile please do not remove the link for a few days so I can show you the effect of deletion.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you prefer some other format for the link to the disambiguation, please go ahead and change it as you wish. I just chose the hatnote because it was the most minimal. Just don't remove it again.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Control (2007 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I'm just asking you to wait a few days to see the effect of deleting the link. Is this such a big deal that you need to delete the link RIGHT NOW? please just allow it to remain there for a few days.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked third parties to have a look at this situation and I will abide by their opinion.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting that you break the law before warning me about it.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Also interesting that you break the law before warning me about it." — Incorrect: I have not reverted 3 times within 24 hours (I have reverted 3 times, but over the course of 3 days). You, however, reverted 3 times on the same day. I realize I'm arguing semantics, but there it is nonetheless.

I don't buy your argument that this affects Wikipedia's usability. All the things you've said point to factors on Google's end, not Wikipedia's. Google results are affected by many criteria, and they are not Wikipedia's concern. If someone simply runs the word "control" through a Google search one may get all manner of results; that a link to the Wikipedia page on the film appears among the top results is likely because it's one of the more popular results. The argument that a Google search "only brings up your movie article with no way to access other wikipedia articles" doesn't hold water either: If someone wanted to look up other uses of "control" on Wikipedia, all they have to do is go to Wikipedia and type in "control". Alternatively, they can google "wikipedia control" and the very first hit is the control disambiguation page.

The ultimate extrapolation of your arguments is that we'd have to place hatnotes on every article with a disambiguated title, since people might google only the root word. I don't think that's something the Wikipedia community at large desires (as evidenced by Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines), nor do I think the community is very concerned with how Google interacts with our articles..

In any case, your arguments speak to a much larger scope than just 1 article. If you think the guideline needs to be changed, you need to take it up at WT:DAB. Edit-warring at a single article in an attempt to hold it up as your case study is unacceptable. Arguing to change the guideline is fine, but unless you can build a consensus for such a change then the guideline should be followed. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What harm does it do to you to allow the most minor of edits to stand for a week? Please Please do not remove it for just one week. I feel you are breaking the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation by being so uncompromising. Just step back for a moment and think, Is this really worth wasting so much of both our time and creating such a negative environment for a fairly new user? It's this kind of legalistic aggressiveness that dissuades me from editing Wikipedia and keeps other girls from getting involved. If you refuse this compromise we might have to ask for arbitration which is absolutely ridiculous for such a minor thing. Basically your point is that your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy is so important that, even if it is doing significant harm to other user's experience you don't care. To the extent that you don't even want to find out whether or how harmful your practice is.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're acting in good faith, and I don't wish to create any ill will. However, I'm not interested in whatever pageview experiment your'e trying to run. My adherence to the guideline isn't blind; I'm following/enforcing it because I agree with its reasoning: The title of the article is so specifically disambiguated that no one would arrive there from within Wikipedia unless it's the article they were looking for. The hatnote is therefore unnecessary and simply adds clutter to the top of the article. This type of thing is fine on an article that actually needs to be distinguished from some other one, but that's not the case here. I can turn your question right back on you: Why are you wasting so much of both our time edit-warring over this, when we already have a well-reasoned consensus guideline in place for just this type of scenario? It's not "my intepretation" of the guideline; the reasoning is explained quite well in the guideline itself. I do not believe that removing the hatnote causes any harm whatsoever to any user's experience, and I find the suggestion of such to be quite an exaggeration. I believe this is a solution in search of a problem. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 3O two cents...

On the one hand, I don't see a huge need to include the dablink... if I were really trying to look up a different thing about "control" on Wikipedia, I'd Google "wikipedia control". On the other hand, since it is very feasible that someone could wind up at this article in the manner you described... I'd have to say I agree with your point. But then, I'd also be tempted to add a "Solaris" dablink where the Wiki-docs suggest you shouldn't add one.

Plus, there's the idea of who will it do the most harm to / most good to? I think that people reading articles on movies or other subjects with ambiguous titles (such as Control (film)) can easily put up with seeing the hatnote. I'd think it would much more greatly inconvenience those who were looking for something else.

My opinion: Change the policy. Suggest dablinks on pages like this. I think this should be a larger issue than just to be discussed on the talk page of "Control (2007 film)". But, that being said, I don't see what harm including the link does. Wikipedia policies describe consensus, not hard-and-fast rules. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that balanced argument. :) I agree with you and IllaZilla. It is a fair point that the policy suggests deletion, which is why I am only asking for a few days reprieve just to determine and measure the harm from deletion(if any) I think this is reasonable, we can look at the effect on one week's traffic cycle to see if it is significantly higher, I hope IllaZilla agrees to this. Again thanks for the input.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzy Jordan

I took a bunch of stuff out, including the idea that the author dropped about 57 names in the lead. The lead has been shortened and is much more informative and appropriate. Thanks for the opinion. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :)Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Control (2007 film)

I think this might be a personalised search problem. Have you tried opting out of Google's personalised search feature? Personalisation messes with the search results. With the feature turned off, the search engine does show the disambiguation page for control.--SGCM (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll try it.Gloryshookthiswater (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]