Talk:RST

Incorrect sectioning

User:Froid, howdy, see Royal Shakespeare Theatre - it's a building, and "Organizations and enterprises" has two issues - an enterprise is a subset of Orgs so superfluous and we can keep to the typically usefully wide-scope section name "Organizations" (in fact, normally I'd spell it "Organisations" given the entries here, an unlined obscure TCP dabmention can be high or low in the section depending on optimising for the match of the ambiguous term or what users most likely want (I think the latter). Widefox; talk 23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User talk:Widefox; there is nothing wrong with distinguishing between organizations and enterprises; since they're categorized separately in many other Wikipedia articles. Additionally, items that exactly match an article's title or alternate rendering of such (in this case, the item called "RST" without additional terms in its name) is typically placed first in the list, which I think is preferable. Froid (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Orgs or enterprises is just wrong [1] , no matter what the section is called (and that edit has other issues - it creates a section with one entry where WP:MOSDAB says to avoid small sections). The org is the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC). We typically use "Organizations" and any company (enterprise) is one. The only thing I typically see is "brand" as they're often grouped, but that's about all I know. Can you list some where "Organizations and enterprises" are used, then I'll fix them. (see Organization#Types including corporations , corporation a corporation is an organization) Repeating the not so bad parts of that contested edit is bordering on edit warring [2] [3] and you should self-revert and get consensus here. Widefox; talk 23:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended section titles are at WP:LONGDAB. The recommended section title is actually "Businesses and organizations". I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not a theatre would go in there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhnotsoloud yes WP:LONGDAB is misleading {Businesses|organizations} should be a logical OR, so either "Businesses" or "Organizations". (and we don't categorise buildings as organisations, especially in a clearcut case like this when there's no one-to-one match as the RSC has several theatre (buildings) in different cities and towns, but there's only one organization, so there's no exclusive association between the two. That's just wrong. One goes to an RSC production.) See Wikipedia talk:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area where disagreements with LONGDAB are voiced, and MOS:DABGROUPING Section headings should be as simple as possible so a category and a subcategory in one heading clearly should be avoided.Widefox; talk 12:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:Swpb. LONGDAB is incorrect - it needs changing to Businesses||organizations as businesses are a subset (per above). Widefox; talk 12:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with using a heading of "Businesses and organizations". Yes, businesses could be considered a type of organization, but by itself, I think the term "organization" more commonly evokes governmental, non-profits, and NGO types of entities. And the phrase has considerable usage in dab pages. "Businesses and organisations" has somewhat less usage, but is an acceptable variant. I think "Organizations and enterprises" (or "Organisations and enterprises") is less clear. Yes, I suppose most businesses are an enterprise of some sort or another, but the term is somewhat more specialized and has a many other uses that dilute its values as a category. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Bkonrad/older≠wiser. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree businesses are a type of organisation (as per our own articles quoted above). I concede it can evoke third-sector organisations, but it's just superfluous to have a category and a subcategory as one heading. DABGROUPING is clear to keep them short and logically removing a sub from the heading name (as by definition it is superfluous) is in line with DABGROUPING. There's 738 out of ~180,000 dabs "Businesses and organizations" and I hope we all agree "Agencies, businesses and organizations" at ICT is an example of extending this unnecessary subcats in the category? How many dabs just use "organizations"? (and remember there's "organisation" too). Widefox; talk 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to make it intuitive for readers, IMO if there is a single section of mixed types of entities, the heading "Businesses and organizations" is far clearer that simply "Organizations". If I were scanning the page for a company, I might well overlook "Organizations" at the first pass as that term is not something I commonly associate with commercial entities. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do. I aim to do dab cleanup strictly to MOSDAB and common practice as possible with that in mind, so this has surprised me as controversial. OK, coming back to the main issue [4] 1. created a "Places" section with 1 entry, 2. put a building Royal Shakespeare Theatre in the "Enterprises and organizations" section, 3. put "Computing" as a subsection of "Places" 4. and put a dabmention in Transmission Control Protocol above full entries (I can see that both ways, except it's so obscure the end serves readers better IMHO, but it's a minor point). That's enough errors in one edit for a revert as it was a mess. Widefox; talk 22:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkonrad some facts to clarify ... utility aside (where the consensus here is clear), considering the context of building an encyclopedia (and dabs in particular) taxonomy is a high priority... the term "Businesses and organizations" is a hyponym combined with its superordinate term by using "and" which forms a pleonasm (c.f. DABGROUPING). Saying that, "businesses and organizations" get 30MGhits, so it is widely used outside of Wikipedia. Odd considering we would never use "physics and science", "Computing and technology" or "pigeons and birds" (the example in the Hyponymy and hypernymy). On balance, utility trumps taxonomy/English for dabs. Dabs have the following hits "organizations" 7,633 ,"organizations" 2,690 , "Businesses and organizations" 1,149 , "Businesses and organisations" 371 (the single word would likely overrepresent the number of headings hits by matching items). We actually have a dab Business organization which luckily doesn't have enough entries for a section "Businesses and organizations" :). Widefox; talk 14:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

326 hits in EN for "Computing and technology" (and more Ghits than "businesses and organizations") is a fair bit more than never. Natural language is often at odds with strictly logical constructions. I don't see any reason to adhere to artificial logic where natural language constructions are clearer (and where the "logical" categorization may bury the usage under some less obvious technical inclusion). older ≠ wiser 15:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (although I'd use "logic" or "taxonomy" - where a restricted set of words like LONGDAB is useful - rather than "artificial logic" and be mindful that a lot of businesses start as unincorporated (I'm not sure if our articles cover this well, as unincorporated association is third sector and Unincorporated entity is Oz), e.g. Apple Inc.#1976–1984: Founding and incorporation founded and trading in 1976, incorporated in 77). "Computing and technology" as a dab page search gives 221 hits. Cleaned Talk, so now 220. "physics and science" gets 582, but the first one I checked Film (disambiguation) was just a bad item description not a heading - fixed. I found only one dab with such a section: Planck (disambiguation), plus Inertia (disambiguation) had "Physics/science" - fixed. So the actual numbers of headings was 1 or 2 /582 hits, so the numbers above may be orders of magnitudes too high. My point being that organisation entries in dabs isn't so much language as taxonomy work. Widefox; talk 21:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm at the right number of indents here...WP:LONGDAB is fine as is. For one thing, I agree with Bkonrad that "organization" evokes non-business organizations, which is why the otherwise redundant phrase "businesses and organizations" is not uncommon. The interest of preventing readers from falling into that trap definitely trumps the goal of keeping headings as short as possible at all costs. Secondly, WP:LONGDAB is intentionally noncommittal on the matter – like all the headings in the sample scheme, any subset of the suggested terms may be used. Likewise, I often use "Arts and entertainment" or "Arts and media" even when all the entries therein could strictly be considered "arts", because some entries are not naturally thought of at first as "arts", and ease of use is dab goal number one, two, and three. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]