voludu2 wrote:I'm going to suggest that this particular disambiguation page be pitched slightly differently from the usual, as we are trying to avoid the use of "split"

* begin by saying this is a term we are avoiding because it has caused confusion -- this term is deprecated.

Then, in each line, we would use the preferred term and not use split at all on the rest of the page.

I am willing to make this change to the page, if that is OK.

voludu2 wrote:https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Talk:Split_(disambiguation)

kentsmith9 wrote:As you said it is not a traditional DAB page, but I think it is very effective in carrying out our goal. The only other choice would be to put this very good content into the glossary and redirect "split" to that page with these links.

Then on the DAB page we would still have the links, but use the traditional DAB formatting.

The reason I am pushing for keeping the DAB formatting consistent is to prevent DAB pages from getting out of control and having them look inconsistent. This is something held very strictly in the Wikipedia editing world and I think for good reason.

kentsmith9 wrote:

PesachZ wrote:However if we move all this text to the glossary, and make [[split]] redirect to the glossary. We no longer need a DAB at all. I'm opposed to having any page use the split terminology without explicitly saying it's use is deco deprecated, and resending the preferred terminology.

I don't mind using the glossary instead, but as replacement, not as a means to have a standard dab here.

We (two) are in agreement the glossary can keep this great content. It will be the redirect for [[Split]].

My proposal for having [[Split (disambiguation)]] is to have a place that is consistent with other DAB pages for similar terms that are used with too many meanings. The only difference from other DAB pages is we want to "strike" the term Split from the Wiki due to the confusion. I am OK to keep the DAB with the addition of the comment at the top that the term is now deprecated.

Having a DAB page does not prevent the Glossary from being the primary point to lead people to the correct place, but I don't understand why having a separate traditional DAB format page is a problem? It is still searchable if you don't simply accept the Split redirect to the Glossary.

kentsmith9 wrote:The glossary is a detailed description of what the terms mean. The consistent DAB page is very brief. If you search the Wiki for Disambiguation pages, you will not find the glossary. Keeping the simple version of the DAB will enable those searches to include Split which is still a common term people will "search for." While the Glossary will be the point most people will first come, the DAB will permit tracking the disambiguation.

kentsmith9 wrote:Split DAB with Deprecation note

I think we can consider pulling out the split terms at the front of each entry and only show the remainder of each line. The classic DAB uses only a single line for each entry with only one link per line.

It will be similar to the Glossary entry, but much more condensed in the classic DB style.

voludu2 wrote:That's OK Kent. Many hands make light work.
Can you have a look at
the work going on in the talk page

sketch wrote:As many of you know, I do agree with this generally, and for the most part.

I do not believe it is necessary to use "fork in the road" for the proper, actual meaning of "split." IMO it's better to stick with the proper MUTCD definition of the word, because it's the accepted term.

Same thing with "level" – we didn't need to change to both "elevation" and "rank", just changing "elevation" was fine.

Otherwise, I am in full agreement.

Oh, I believe "undivided" is the preferred term for "not divided," also.