This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
FIX protocol
Had an edit collision with Bkonrad (talk | contribs) . . (1,470 bytes) (-526) . . (trim excess detail not needed for disambiguation). Rolled back the hasty elimination. Disambiguation should provide reasonable information to allow a person to choose to click through or not. The point of disambiguation is resolving potential confusion. People who are already certain where they want to go most likely go direct and don't even need disambiguation. I edited down the description to a single paragraph. Hopefully this is more palatable. Rick (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. What is the need for so much detail. Disambiguation pages are not articles, there are only meant to provide enough information to know which to choose. More than that is superfluous content redundant with the article (and likely to become out of sync with the linked article). older ≠ wiser 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bkonrad, I see you are a sysop and also have been personally involved with 890 disambiguation pages and 6,130 redirect pages. No doubt you have substantial experience. I agree you need to provide adequate information for the user to choose. I also understand the potential for information to become out of sync, however that was highly unlikely to occur here and is therefore irrelevant. See also the
Manual of .Style
.
Usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them.
The "landing page" here follows official WikiPedia style and spells out the acronym Financial Information eXchange which is likely the most uniform way to go for the title in an encyclopedia format. However the infinitely more common usage is just FIX or perhaps FIX Protocol. A large number of professionals who are involved every day with the FIX Protocol would be exceptionally confused by the title Financial Information eXchange. Further confounding this situation is the legal entity that produces these important, open source, totally free standards, which is Fix Protocol Limited. I have created a redirect page from FIX protocol to the landing article Financial Information eXchange and this solves a portion of the disambiguation problem. However as a user types in "fix" that doesn't come up easily. In reviewing your page contributions I didn't note any work in the financial services area, so this confusion would likely not be familiar to you. In my opinion hasty edits that reduce valuable content by people unfamiliar with the subject they are editing tend to place "form over substance" and is absolutely antithetical to Wikipedia's ultimate purpose. Not only does it destroy valuable content, it drives away the content experts.Rick (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've little interest in financial topics. However, I have extensive experience with the disambiguation project. I see no reason for this entry to deviate from the normal practices described at
Reason is as stated above. 90% of users associate it with the single term "FIX" or the double term "FIX Protocol". Most do not associate it with the phrase "Financial Information Exchange" which can be confusing (note odd/contrived use of X in acronym); full phrase "Financial Information eXchange" has been largely ignored since its inception in 1991 in favor of the FIX acronym; "exchange" can imply some type of switch, hub or marketplace, absolutely not the case here; "protocol" is not part of the article title, yet it is what the article topic is all about; "protocol" is not part of the title, yet it is part of the entity that produces it (FIX Protocol Ltd.), and the article is not about that entity. All this warrants at least a modicum of helpful guidance to readers hitting the disambiguation page. Rick (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "reason" is why the article is included on the page. It does not however justify an extended description for the entry. It would be fine for the entry to use the redirect
FIX protocol
, something like
FIX protocol
, or Financial Information eXchange protocol, a communications and messaging protocol widely deployed in conducting securities transactions
I don't see how mentioning that the protocol is produced by FIX Protocol Ltd. helps readers distinguish this entry from others on the page. First, "producing" a protocol is odd usage. A protocol might be owned or maintained by an entity, but it is not something produced like a manufacturing item. older ≠ wiser 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if the protocol is in fact mostly unrecognized by name
