Talk:Complex

Housing complex?

What about a housing complex? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.116.90 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This use of "complex" is included in the main meaning. A housing complex is a grouping of several housing units that are interconnected or somehow related. This meaning does not have and does not warrant its own article in an encyclopedia, so there is no reason to specifically mention it. -- Centrx 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I wanted this aswell. ('educational complex', etc). Surely it's worth having a mention. It doesn't need to be an article - just a redirect to building, which in turn can mention 'complex' somewhere. 86.176.242.250 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Complex (medicine)

Used either before or after another term, e.g. Alzheimer complex, complex condition. Would be nice if an expert could put in a phrase. --Lisa4edit (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversation copied here

Having exactly one navigable blue link is not a categorical rule. In this case, "complexity theory" and "imaginary number" are highly relevant and would themselves warrant separate entries on the same page if it were logical to organize them so. Also, changing links to point to redirects here misleads the reader. "Complex algebra" is not "an element of a field of sets"; and a "mimicry complex" is not "mimicry" or even merely an instance of "mimicry". Blindly fixing every disambiguation page in a set format, which is not even required by Wikipedia:Disambiguation or the Manual of Style, impairs the usefulness of the disambiguation page, impedes the reader, and sometimes leads to downright false listings. —Centrx→talk • 09:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Having exactly one navigable blue link is most definitely a Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) rule. While we certainly may ignore it if it helps the page, I don't think you have shown that it does on Complex. Please remember that this is not a page about the concept of "complex", it is a directional page for users who have typed in the word "complex". It should not contain informational content beyond what is necessary to direct them to the article they were seeking. This is not an educational page, it is a directional page. Very technically, there should be no links here that weren't synonymous with the word "complex". Let's look at your changes individually:

1. Mimicry or Mimicry complex - Both link to the same article, from which I quote, "...mimicry occurs when a group of organisms, the mimics, have evolved to share common perceived characteristics with another group, the models, through the selective action of a signal-receiver or dupe. Collectively this is known as a mimicry complex. This is the intro to the article, so I can't figure out what your objection is to using the Mimicry complex redirect. Since this page is named "complex", we ought to be linking to things known as "complex", which this obviously is.
2. Imaginary number - This article declares in its introduction that it is a complex number, and the Complex number article seems to contain extensive explanations of imaginary numbers and units. I am not a mathematician, so I hope that someone who understands the terminology and concepts better will keep me from error here, but it seems that an imaginary number is a type of complex number, which doesn't seem to make it synonymous with the word "complex". Any user investigating this use of the word complex, will certainly be put on the right track by going to the Complex number article, which would seem to be the broader use of the word "complex". I can't see why we should break the rule here.
3. Your piping of Complexity theory in the Complex system entry is certainly deprecated in MOSDAB per WP:PIPING, especially the way you have added it as a secondary blue link. If you'd like, we can add Complexity theory (which is actually a dab page anyway, not an article) to the "See also" section.
4. I will accept your rewording of the field of sets entry, since I didn't think I had that quite right, but I think it would be better to link complex algebra in that entry, since it is a redirect to the exact same article, and it acually uses the word "complex", which is what a user who ends up at this page would have been seeking.

I hope we can sort these changes out. I have no intention of edit warring, and I do accept my limitations of knowledge, but unless there is a compelling argument to ignore the rules, I will abide by the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), since they have been reached and held by long consensus. I will copy this conversation to Talk:Complex and we can continue it there. SlackerMom (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• MOSDAB says that an item should have exactly one navigable blue link in almost every case. It does not say "without exception", and regardless this is a style guide not rock-ribbed law.
• Mimicry and mimicry complex link to the same article, so linking to the redirect mimicry complex is a distinction with a difference, except that doing so silently without context in the disambiguation item is misleading. "Mimicry complex" != "mimicry". If any change is warranted, the item does not belong here at all, since it seems to be a generic use of the dictionary word "complex".
• All imaginary numbers are complex numbers, and all complex numbers worth talking about as "complex numbers" involve imaginary numbers. The entire study of complex numbers would not exist without imaginary numbers. Anyone seeking information on complex numbers in an encyclopedia wants information on imaginary numbers, and it is not clear that the topics even belong in separate articles.
• Complexity theory: If you have a better way of describing the relationship between complexity theory and complex systems, which helps the reader at the top level decide which article is relevant, please provide it. Deleting the link, or shunting it to a bottom section as though it is unrelated to complex systems, does not help the reader find an intended topic. The relevant non-disambiguation link is supposed to be Computational complexity theory, which may have been moved or such like.
• Complex algebra: By the same principle piping is not generally used, neither are redirects, as it says at WP:PIPING. Although, this usage is better than "mimicry complex", because a "complex algebra" is the same thing as a "field of sets", and should be worse than "computational complexity", which was supposedly merely a different word ordering and part of speech. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm about to take a serious wikibreak, so I'm going to leave this in your hands. Here are my thoughts, building on your responses:

1. Let's pull mimicry altogether. I think you're right about the generic use of the word.
2. Let's rewrite the complex numbers entry to succintly explain their relationship to imaginary numbers and include both links. We can't solve the content problems of the articles from here, so I won't object to including both links for now. I'll take a crack at it and you can improve it if I don't get it right.
3. I'm not yet convinced that a link to computational complexity theory belongs on this page. That article doesn't even use the word "complex", so I'm not sure that's what someone would be seeking by typing in "complex". I think complex system is included here because it seems possibly (more) synonymous with "complex", but perhaps we're treading close to the generic meaning of the word again even with that link.
4. Concerning complex algebra, WP:PIPING actually offers exceptions to the rule against redirects under "Where redirecting may be appropriate". Here's the quote: Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative title for the target article, meaning an alternate term which is already bolded in the article's lead section. I think the complex algebra redirect meets this exception, but if you disagree, I won't object to changing it.

Also, I think we might as well leave Complexity theory under "See also" whether we include Computational complexity theory as an individual entry or not. SlackerMom (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

subsequent addendum

A complex system is more special than a general complex. Complex systems the theory of such things. the respective articles are not that good worded, but the links should be here. Correlatively a mimicry complex is special, too. Changed the page accordingly (among other things) -- Tomdo08 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 20:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Complex → Complex (disambiguation) – Should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Complexity as the broad concept topic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose since Complex (psychology) is also a big hitter and there are some other prominent entries on that dab page as well. Complexity should be listed on the dab page however, since it doesn't appear to be at the moment? Maybe put Complexity and the psychology term in a "usually refers to" section at the top per Amazon and Mercury. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As Xezbeth points out, Complex (psychology) gets a similar number of pageviews (and Complex (magazine) gets even more). Furthermore, complexity has a weaker claim to primariness because of WP:NOUN. We prefer nouns as titles - readers will generally recognize this and adjust their search patterns accordingly. Colin M (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've cleaned the page up a little, including incorporating the suggestions above, but there are probably still too many partial title matches not known as simply "complex", and some descriptions are not concise enough – it's hard to make "complex" things simple! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.