Talk:Zero (disambiguation)

Disambiguation

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

A recent edit changed science to maths in the section header. I will be reverting this because:

1. mathematics is a science
2. science is preferable being a more generalised term and bearing in mind that zero is used in physics and other sciences as well as in maths
3. 'Science and technology' is a commonly used header so may be familiar to readers
4. in addition the order of the items within the section is no longer
   mos:dab
   compliant

Sorry to revert a goodfaith edit but it is necessary. :)

As to point 1: this is definitely not a generally agreed viewpoint: see Mathematics#Mathematics as science. The scientific method, the hallmark of science, is normally not applied to maths. Looking for a mathematical meaning on a disambiguation page, my inclination would be to skip a section "Science and technology" as being irrelevant. This way of saving time is facilitated by the fact that I am indeed familiar with the commonly used terminology "Science and technology", so I know that it usually does not include mathematical topics.

I find the grouping together of the mathematical meanings with an antique fighter plane and a fancy prototype sportscar totally artificial and ludicrous.  --Lambiam 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree that mathematics is often not seen as a science. In my university, it was taught in the philosophy department. Science is about nature, mathematics is about abstract structures. That mathematics is needed to do much of science successfully does not mean it becomes part of it. −Woodstone (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. However, individual thoughts are pretty immaterial ... as the article Lambian pointed me to above makes quite clear, maths is considered a science by many people ... and as Woodstone admits, maths is used in many branches of science ... IMHO this combination means that it can hardly be wrong to include maths articles in "science and tech". But, hey, do as you will. If you really think it would actively assist readers, then change it ... of course, if you are simply trying to make a point born out of many years of rehearsing this "maths is not a science" argument, then maybe you will leave as it was. You both must surely have better things to do?

Abtract (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Personally I don't care whether "science" is defined in such a way that it includes or excludes mathematics, and I also don't care whether "technology" includes or excludes mathematics, sports cars, films, and making French fries. I just observe that for many people, and as it is often used, the term science does not include mathematics, and that it therefore is definitely less felicitous to group the mathematical meanings together as "science and technology".  --Lambiam 02:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; too many small sections get in the way of finding the right article imho.

Abtract (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I objected to giving the heading "Science and technology" to a group that does not contain any scientific topics, but instead three mathematical meanings that are neither science nor technology. What does that have to do with "too many small sections"? I did not split any sections, nor did I propose to; I only renamed a section, which was promptly reverted because "Science and technology" sounds more familiar than "Mathematics and technology". I hope there is no section of MOSDAB stating: Choose familiar section headings, even if they are less appropriate.

Though we might have our differences, I'll have to go along with Abtract here.

WP:MOSDP has certain style guidelines for us to follow. Any disagreements should be taken up there, not on this page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

First, guidelines are only recommendations. There is no obligation to follow them. If the considered judgement of an editor is that the literal application of a guideline leads to suboptimal results, they are free, no, commanded to ignore them. Ignore all rules is the first imperative of Wikipedia.

Further, even for sticklers to the guidelines, there can be different opinions and interpretations when trying to apply them to a given situation. You seem to believe that your interpretation of the rules is without any doubt superior to the interpretations of other, less enlightened editors, and that it is your task to fight the chaos resulting from their straying from the one true path. I think this is not the right spirit to approach your mission with.  --Lambiam 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does listing

MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic — that should answer your questions. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I explained above why

MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic

answer my question why that meaning is given primacy over other meanings?

If your proof of "primary topic" is that the page

0 (number)

. But why is that an improvement? The old situation was not broken; it is actually unlikely that users who enter "zero" in the search box are looking for the number 0, so the redirect is worse than the situation before, and that "fix" is now used as an argument against improving the dab page.

Perhaps the members of the self-appointed DAB squad should also try to understand that the purpose of these guidelines is to make it easier for readers to find things. If the literally-minded application of the rules leads to suboptimal results, you should have the flexibility to ignore them. You should also pay some attention to the opinion of editors who understand the issues.  --Lambiam 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, JHunterJ (the person who initially moved "Zero") is an active member of the self-proclaimed DAB squad. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so...?  --Lambiam 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section of "People with the name Zero" was moved all the way to the end, behind the section "Other", with edit summary: "name holders after others, per

They were not "mixed in with the other links"; they had their own section "People with the name Zero". What should one do if some people named X are commonly referred to as just "X", while some others are usually referred to as "Malcolm X". Mix the first bunch in with the other links and use a separate page "X (surname)" for the rest? How awkward. You are all taking this guideline stuff much too literally and heavy-handedly, as if it is gospel that must be spread to the heathens to ensure their salvation. Not every issue that can arise in the application or interpretation of the rules has to be raised on the

mos:dab talk page; in most cases it is better if the editors who have worked on and are familiar with the issues reach consensus – which is not facilitated if a bunch of trigger-happy sticklers to the rules rush in and revert any imagined infraction of the rules, regardless of the collateral damage such as thereby also reverting genuine corrections and improvements. One question I have was not answered. WHERE DOES IT SAY that "name holders" should go AFTER others? Why not BEFORE all others? I say that a section "Other" must go at the end, not somewhere in the middle. That is a matter of applying common sense, something that is still allowed under the Wikipedia rules.  --Lambiam 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See the quote I extracted in my last comment, I have highlighted the word ... "below" means "after" in this context. Oh and I have retracted my offer to help you raise this on the mos:dab talk page in view of your comments.

Abtract (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

So you think that the section "Other" is part of the main disambiguation list? And that on each of the pages

Aalto (disambiguation), Aaron (disambiguation), Abbot (disambiguation), Absalom (disambiguation), Ace (disambiguation), Aga Khan (disambiguation), Agar (disambiguation), Agate (disambiguation), Ai (disambiguation), Ake (disambiguation), and some 800 more pages, the section "People" should be moved after the final section "Other (uses)". Boy, have you cut out a job there for you. Only I don't think that is what the guideline says. The rule you are quoting is meant for the case where there is one main list, not for lists that are broken up, a possibility that is only mentioned much later in this guideline. I also think the guideline is meant to be applied with a fair dose of common sense, which admittedly is hard if one is short on that.  --Lambiam 05:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no axe to grind on this and, as I have already said, I disagree with mos:dab on this point ... talk to

Abtract (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering this question. There are two topics with the name "Ziro". If neither were the primary topic, we'd have a disambiguation page at "Ziro", which would link to from here (without, of course, giving any descriptions of the entities on that page: anyone looking for either of the two Ziros will have to click though to the dab page). It so happens that Ziro is not a dab page ('cause the town in India is the primary topic), and the navigation to the other article (Ziro Province in Burkina Faso) is done via a hatnote. We could do one of two things: either duplicate that navigation scheme here (which means listing both Ziro and Ziro Province, ideally with descriptions), or we do something similar to what we would have done if Ziro were a dab page: simply link to it (without a descriptions) so that readers will click through and see (in the article and in its hatnote) what topics are known by the name. However, what we absolutely cannot do is just pick one of the those two topics and exclude the other: if you have "Ziro, a town in India", you're effectively blocking the way for readers looking for the province. If you have an entry for "Ziro" (without descriptions) you're leaving it open, so that readers looking for wither the town in India or the province in Burkina Faso can follow the link. – Uanfala (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that it has generally been my preference in such situations to just link once (without descriptions), as this is more future proof. If a third article ambiguous with "Ziro" is created, it will get added to the hatnote at Ziro, but it's quite unlikely that someone will think of adding an entry here as well. – Uanfala (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]