Disputatio:Anas

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ah. Non intellexeram, usque nunc, cur anas (discretiva) delevisti. Sed non melius anas ad anas (avis) derigimus? Et tunc hac in pagina discretiva alias significationes associatas ponere?--Rafaelgarcia 23:59, 26 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

There are more pages that link to the river than to the bird species. Therefore I think "Anas" should be a disambiguation page. I also think the page "Anas (discretiva)" isn't needed if the disambiguation page is located at "Anas" (there are no wikilinks pointing at "Anas (discretiva)"), but I don't know if that's against the policies of the Wikipedia in Latin. Sorry for the fuss. --Komischn 00:08, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
When I had objected, I didn't realize that there were two disambiguation pages called anas and anas (discretiva) and that that was why you were asking for the deletion of anas (discretiva). Is it usual to use number of links to decide which should be a disambiguation page? Even so our wiki is so incomplete that I wouldn't think it is that wise to do so here. In the dictionary, duck is the primary latin meaning, after which the river is named.Then there is also female senility, and old age. Don't apologize for any fuss. You've made many improvements recently, and I'm grateful for your contributions. --Rafaelgarcia 00:41, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely anas is the first definition. Good call, Rafael. --Ioscius (disp) 00:45, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

"use number of links to decide"[fontem recensere]

I just noticed this issue and wanted to add a general comment (not specially relevant to Anas). I would say that the number of links is at least a relevant piece of evidence

  1. Because each of those links will eventually have to be converted to the intended destination: links to discretiva pages are in general undesirable
  2. Because the number of existing links may indicate, in the context of our wiki, the importance of each potential meaning of the word

On the other hand, our judgment about how our wiki will develop in the future is also relevant. We may decide that it is worth converting all the links so that the logical arrangement of pages and discretivas will be better from now on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

I should think that the page that we can expect a typical reader to want to land on would be the one not to be a discretiva page; in this case, obviously, it would be the one referring to a well-known bird, not the one referring to a little-known river. IacobusAmor 12:38, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 27 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)