Talk:Abatement

Untitled

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abatement article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abatement}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cleanup

I've done some cleanup and removed some links. I'm not sure if more should be done. Gflores ^Talk 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I saw this page I couldn't figure out what to do with it (other than tag it for cleanup). Is it a dismabiguation page? Although it claims to be it's so far away from the MoS. Is it something else? I'm not sure. I still don't know what to do with it, but thanks for taking a stab at it! Ewlyahoocom 12:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

Looking for advice

Hey all! As a teaching excercise can some of you look at Abatement and make suggestions about how best to deal with it? I can't figure out if it's really a disambiguation page or something else. Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't make up its mind what it wants to be. It starts out more like a disambig page, but ends up more like a multi-stub page. The first link is circular. Some entries provide good links, but are horribly overlinked and extremely wordy. It breaks nearly every rule in MoS:DP, but could be made into a good dab page after a LOT of work, probably by creating a few new articles. Just chopping out descriptive wording would probably result in loss of information from Wikipedia. The frequent quoting of legal acts leaves us in the dark about what country passed these acts. But let's not all work on it at once. First, create an article "Abatement of freehold" , as "Freehold" now redirects to "Fee simple", which doesn't mention abatement. I haven't explored all the rest yet. Once some decent articles or stubs exist, we can trim this down. Chris the speller 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, what a lovely disambiguation page. I agree with Christ the speller, it does end up seeming like a bunch of stubs. But overall, it should stay as a disambiguation page. Here's where I would start:

Take out the word derivation information of "abatement"
Remove "Abatement of a nuisance" - not only is it a circular link, but it is the first definition in Wiktionary.
The second definition is questionable. I would certainly remove both the bullet points, because Intrusion is an article about a rock, and Disseisin is redlinked and not very applicable. Deciphering what the rest of it is trying to say is very confusing, but it does relate to Fee simple if you take a look at the Wiktionary link. If not, at least make a red link to Abatement (law)
Leave in Abatement of debts and legacies, just shorten the description.
Remove the wikilink to Abatement in pleading, but shorten the bullet and have it link only to plea. This could deserve it's own article, but I don't think it's worth it to leave the red link there, especially when plea mentions it briefly.
Remove "Abatement in litigation" - it is a circular link, and the definition given only seems to use abatement as a verb, not actually referring to something: ...in civil proceedings, no action abates because....
In the "Abatement of false lights", shorten the definition and make Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 a red link, as it is an article that could be created (too bad it's not already).
Remove "Abatement in commerce", it seems too much like a dictionary definition, and none of the wikilinked articles refer to it.
Leave in Abatement (heraldry), just shorten the description.

But that's just what I would do. :) -- Nataly a 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup

I've been trying to cleanup pages in this category. I've done the easy/obvious ones, but I've been having difficulty with some others. I have a few questions. Should information about its usage and origin be included? example, which I was reverted. Secondly, I'm not sure what I should do about entries that don't have a relevant link. The best example of this is Abatement. There are some terms there that are defined, but they're entire paragraphs. I'm always hesitant to delete stuff, especially since I usually get lambasted. :) Should I create a red link instead or create an stub with that information there? I'd appreciate some input, thanks. Gflores ^Talk 15:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the definitions are clearly excessive because they introduce component elements of detail that are extraneous to the primary meanings. Although it would mean leaving the odd complete sentence in place (sorry about that), I will distill them to a point which balances content with purpose. David91 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend Ogre needs to read these guidelines and understand that dab pages should not be the place to store any info, and the reasons for not putting it in the entries are just as valid for the leading line: streamline to reduce clutter, the dab page is ls out of the mainstream and therefore less visible and gets less maintenance, a dab page is not an article, is not the place for brilliant prose or even for complete sentences, usually. Maybe we should find out where the best place is to put name origins and add that to these guidelines. I have occasionally taken out things like "Jones is a very common name" (well, duhhh, that's why there are so many of them on this dab page!), but I don't see that as removing valuable information. As for the Abatement page, you may have missed the section above, "Looking for advice". Good luck. Chris the speller 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the Abatement article was original to the 1911 encyclopedia -- most of it, IMO, should have been tossed long ago. As far as deleting stuff and getting lambasted, sometimes it can be best to take a first stab at it, delete some stuff, add some redlinks, etc. but not so much as to draw fire or get into a revert war. Add {{disambig-cleanup}}, then wait and come back again in a couple weeks to clean up the rest, delete the redlinks, etc. -- someone else might even have finished the cleanup in the interim. Ewlyahoocom 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abatement is a stick disambiguation page. As Chris the speller mentioned, it was brought up a few sections ago (though did not get much response). As for usage and origin of the word, I am not a proponent of keeping word origins on disambiguation pages, for two reasons. One, the origin of the word may not/usually does not apply to all of the entries on the page, especially when there are any kind of proper nouns involved (which there often are). Secondly, word origin seems to be more appropriate for a dictionary, and especially when there is a Wiktionary link, it is not needed. Anytime I run into it, I let the person who added it know that while it was an informative addition, it belongs more on Wiktionary than here. But if I am wrong it doing so, someone be sure to correct me! -- Nataly a 19:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Expletive deleted] the rules, there's nothing wrong with a sentence of etymology here and there (yes, even in an encyclopedia). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When discussing issues, could we all please start our sentences, "I think that we should do this because...." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David91 (talk • contribs) .

There's nothing wrong with it at all (and in fact is very useful)! It just doesn't seem appropriate for a disambiguation page. I'm all for moving any word-origin information from a disambiguation page to an article, when appropriate. -- Nataly a 21:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]