Talk:Out

This non-article should be deleted: all useful content is already in The Closet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 01:44, August 14, 2002 – Please sign your posts!

This comment is outdated. --128.2.20.101 02:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outside, outdated, outlandish, and other out- compound word relevant dab (and non-dab) links should at least be in the "See also" section (if not the main list, just as various surname dabs include links to various people with that surname--and many non-surname dab pages include links to compound word articles)... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it should not, since dabs are not search indexes. Taemyr 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then remove all compound word links from all dab pages. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 12:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? The fact that it is a compound does not mean that it is not simply known by the title of the relevant dab page. Taemyr 14:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Because otherwise you're acting contradictory and hypocritical, Taemyr. If you allow even one compound word/phrase link on a dab page, you must allow all in order to not be biased towards certain articles. That's why! ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 21:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We want a bias. We want a bias for pages where the title of the dab could stand as a title for the article. Taemyr 23:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

False attribution--any compound word article could stand for the dab word/phrase, however. For example, "outer space" can simply be referred to as "outer" in the specific context of space. Context is relative and subjective. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a false dilemma, Eep²: there is no "all or nothing" choice. Some compound titles are ambiguously referred to by one of their primary constituents, and it's exactly (and only) those ambiguous ones that belong on the relevant disambiguation page. (Hence the name "disambiguation page".)

Various editors have explained this to you in the past, and is spelled out quite clearly in the disambiguation guidelines: why do we need to keep going over it? --Piet Delport 04:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And that is a false premise, Piet--because it's wrong, obviously. The disambiguation system is selectively disambiguous while still remaining ambiguous in most other respects; it's defectively incomplete and lacking in being more fully disambiguous (as I've tried explaining/showing you and others in the past). ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 08:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be the sole proponent of this view. --Piet Delport 09:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)