Talk:Sea worm

Image

Generally we don't put images on disambiguation pages, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Images. I deleted the attempt by IP editor 71.225.49.71 to place an image on this page. Disambiguation pages are not articles. --Bejnar 00:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Onychophora

I agree with Eluchil404, edit 02:06, 23 February 2008, that the Onychophora (Velvet worm) don't belong on this list. The Velvet worm article notes that all extant species are terrestrial. --Bejnar (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. Set index

I made this a disambiguation page because the various animals sometimes or always called sea worms were quite disparate. LittleWink suggests that it is better as a Set index article because they are all animals. The major difference between those types of pages, absent formatting, is that the disambiguation page is unabashedly for ease of reader navigation, while a set index article provides both navigation, and discussion of the shared characteristic(s) of the listed topics. Even though all of these sea worms are animals, thus have a shared characteristic, they are so diverse as to defy discussion of that common characteristic, other than to note it. It is important to remember that just because a set on a disambiguation page has a shared characteristic, other than name, does not require that it be a set index page. It would impede the navigational function to elaborate on non-shared characteristics of particular sea worms. --Bejnar (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is also important to remember that just because different topics exist which share the same name, does not require a page which lists them all to be a disambiguation page, see Wikipedia:Broad concept articles. For the decision to tag a page with either {{disambiguation}} or {{set index article}} you should not look at the page lay out, nor at the distinctness of the entries. Your logic, as with the statement on images above, is a bit too much "it looks like a disambiguation page, so it should be a disambiguation page"-logic. That does not asses the reason why it should be disambiguation page.

There is only one question which has to be answered: "is the title ambiguous?". BD2412 suggests you should do the "I am an expert test" for answering that. The answer is: "sea worm" is not ambiguous. All entries on this page do not "happen to have the same name" because they are all of a specific type. They are all worms that live in the sea, so it's not a surprise they're called sea worms. You can also refer to sea worms as a group as a whole, and thus can this page have valid intentional incoming links. This page being a disambiguation page forces someone to choose. (Fixing those links will create too narrow links, for example the link in CSS Raleigh (1864).)

The navigational value of the page is also something to take into account, quoting WP:D: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". You find the items listed here disparate, but you cannot assume that the average reader is also able make that assessment (quickly). Readers come here via a search-query, if they know upfront what specific (type of) sea worm they are looking for, they will not land on this page. The current version of this page only list the items. I'm not an expert on (sea) worms and I have to start a guessing game because this page lists so many entries (and stop guessing after the third link). If this is a set index article we can ditch the strict style rules for disambiguation pages. An overview of all relevant information that may be of value for the reader to distinguish the entries can then be added. Even images if they are helpful.

So, this cannot be a disambiguation page because the term is not ambiguous. It can be a set index article because these are also navigational articles that can have incoming links. And I suggest adding more info to help the reader distinguishing the entries. Cheers LittleWink (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The greater benefit to having a set index page for topics like this is that they can be set out as tables presenting groups of information about the species falling under the subject heading. This doesn't work on typical disambiguation pages - there's really nothing to compare when putting the planet Mercury alongside the element and the god (I can see the table now, "Found in Greece?" "No/Yes/Yes"); but with animal types you can compare where they fall within their class, and what there range of distribution is, and which ones share specific anatomical features. bd2412 T 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If something useful can be said on a set index page about sea worms, or a classification matrix utilized to the reader's benefit, I wouldn't oppose the change. But absent that, there this no reason to interfere with the straight navigational function. Switching to a set index format should not be an excuse for indiscriminate information. --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

(1)Not how much information is contained on a page should be factor in the decision to make a page a disambiguation page or set index, but the deeper issue whether there is some relationship between all of the entries. (Although, a lot of entries also do not mention 'sea worm' in its article, so this page as a disambiguation page seems to run afoul of WP:DABMENTION for them.)

Actually, that is exactly what should be used to make the decision. If there is no additional information to be conveyed, or only trivial information, then the navigation function should not be obscured by conversion to a set index page. There is nothing that requires such a conversion, just because of an additional shared characteristic. See, e.g., many of the geographic disambiguation pages that list only towns. --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

(2)WP:DABMENTION If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. Unless the the application of the name "sea worm" to any of the listed animals is contested, the proper fix would be to add the term in the appropriate article, so that if the reader were searching for that particular sea worm he or she would find it, rather than deleting it out of this page. Remember the purpose and not the letter of the law. Also some references may be to "marine worm" rather than "sea worm". --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Both disambiguation pages and set indices are meant to assist the reader in navigation. Consequently it is possible to keep the current layout. But a format other one long minimalistic list will be a good start for overall readability IMHO. LittleWink (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if there is some classification matrix that will aid navigation it should be applied. Is there one? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We can start with something like this, and fill in the missing cells:

Taxonomic name	Description	Size
Acanthocephala	parasitic worm	varies greatly, from a few millimeters up to 65 centimeters
Annelida	segmented worms
Chaetognatha	arrow worms
Cycliophora	lobster worms
Entoprocta	a phylum of mostly sessile aquatic animals; name means "anus inside"	ranges from 0.1 to 7 millimetres (0.0039 to 0.28 in)
Echiura	spoon worms
Gastrotricha		microscopic
Gnathostomulida		microscopic
Hemichordata	a phylum of marine deuterostome animals generally considered the sister group of the echinoderms
Kinorhyncha	a phylum of marine pseudocoelomate invertebrates, widespread in mud or sand at all depths, also called "mud dragons"	small (1 mm or less)
Loricifera	a phylum of marine sediment-dwelling animals with twenty-two described species in eight genera	very small to microscopic
Micrognathozoa		microscopic
Nematoda	round worms
Nematomorpha	parasitic worms
Nemertea	ribbon worms
Phoronida	horseshoe worms
Platyhelminthea	flatworms
Priapulida	a phylum of marine worms
Sipuncula	peanut worms
Xenoturbellida	a genus of bilaterian animals containing two marine worm-like species

Cheers! bd2412 T 13:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is on the DPL list in this month and last month. All incoming links are unfixable (meaning: sea worm is used as a general group, linking a particular item from the list isn't intended). So it is time to de-disambig this page. This list is an improvement, I'm gonna use it. LittleWink (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a referent for the first sentence in this new article. There is no "group of worms" to which it refers, unless you can provide a citation to a reliable source. As such it should be stricken, and the article start with the second sentence. --Bejnar (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)