Talk:D600

Why the Nikon entry should be simpler

Tagremover and I have been reverting each other's edits, so I am adding this discussion topic to more fully explain my position, and to allow discussion outside the edit summaries.

My position is that the Nikon entry should read like this:

• Nikon D600, a digital camera

in contrast to Tagremover's suggestion of:

• Nikon D600, a full-frame digital single-lens reflex camera

First, let me cite WP:DABENTRY:

"Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line."

The reason for this is pretty clear in my mind. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help the reader find the article they are looking for within Wikipedia. It should therefore contain enough information for the reader to be able to distinguish between the various uses of the term—in this case D600—but no other information or links that distracts the reader from navigating to the article they are looking for.

In this case, when a reader enters D600 into Wikipedia, we can be fairly sure they are not looking for Full-frame digital SLR, or Digital single lens reflex camera. These links do not assist them in locating the right D600 article.

Further, if we added many links for each entry, we would end up with something like this:

D600 may be:

• Nikon D600, a full-frame digital single-lens reflex camera
• Samsung SGH-D600, a GSM mobile phone
• Dell Latitude D600, a laptop computer with Intel Pentium M processor

In the above example, we have 12 links, but only 3 to articles which match the D600 that that the reader was looking for. Almost every word is linked, causing more work for the reader to locate the article they desire, by suggesting 12 possible articles.

Clean and clear disambiguation pages are ideal in helping the reader reach the article they are looking for. Once at that article, the full wealth of information and links can be shown to the reader. On the disambiguation page, it should be as simple as possible, with enough information for the reader to find the desired article, and nothing more.

Tagremover, do you agree with my reasoning presented here? —fudoreaper (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Preparing an answer to all disambiguation pages. Could take days. We don't need to hurry. Tagremover (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. No need to rush. This page isn't very significant, but I did feel I had good reason to edit it down. Let me know what you write on the topic. —fudoreaper (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought some time about that. I prefer your version with all the links in it (including GSM etc.), giving the best information suitable for a disambiguation page. (Bold) Reasons:

1. The added full-frame or GSM text gives the reader the required information to click or NOT click the link. E.g. adding full-frame makes it clear it isn't the D60, GSM prevents readers who search for the newest LTE. CLEARLY this is NOT possible with the version without this ONE or very FEW words added.
2. Links make it clear. English Wikipedia is special: Often read worldwide, different cultures and mother-languages
3. I am NOT disrupted or distracted by the links, in contrary, are you? For me and all readers i personally know (living, e.g. my grandma is dead and never used Internet, but if, quite sure she would prefer and use the links), it helps. And i visited all continents of this world, except South-America.

But: WP:DABENTRY is against it, and i have not the time to change Wikipedia guides in endless discussions. Or is there an easier way?

Result: I will not revert changes which remove the links, although i KNOW they give Wikipedia one of the MAIN advantages: Links !

Again, thanks, and i hope this makes it clear.

Tagremover (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Understood?