Talk:Arabic (disambiguation)

Untitled

Although it may be technically correct that "Arabic" as a noun normally refers to the language, the fact remains that the word Arabic appears frequently in Wikipedia links in other contexts. The redirect to the disambiguation page is intended to assist the reader in locating an appropriate article, at least until the original link is redirected somewhere more appropriate (such as Arabic language). I don't believe we should elevate technicalities over user-friendliness. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Adjectives are not supposed to be disamiguated in this way unless they are truly ambiguous. The noun has very clear presedence over the rather nonstandard adjective. See talk:Arab (disambiguation) for further comments. Correct people's usage of terms, not the articles. Justifying incorrect usage of terms among our users is not what I would call user-friendly.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

French, German, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese -- all disambiguation pages. I think you are doing a disservice to readers. I am not going to get in a revert war with you, but will ask for input from others. --Russ Blau (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

All those examples can and should be used as nouns in proper English. They can refer to the ethnic group in the plural and individuals belonging to those ethnic groups as well as the languages in the singular. Examples:

• A Chinese bought the TV yesterday.
• The Germans went home.
• Italian is a decendent of Latin.

The same can not be done with "Arabic". It can only refer to the language as a noun and to the ethnic group as an adjective. Exemples:

• *My friend is an Arabic.
• *The Arabics by the corner store are all wearing jeans.
• Modern Egyptians speak Arabic.

I am not doing a disservice to readers by informing of standard usage. I'd say that the disservice is done by a) confusing terms and b) improper usage of dab pages.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The dab page should (and does) inform readers of the proper usage, but also points them to alternatives in case the link was incorrect. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the solution to this problem is to correct the links rather than keeping very confused dab pages. It's especially unfortunate that Arab, Arabia, Arabian and Arabic for some reason all wound up in Arab (disambiguation). This makes no more sense than keeping links containing the words German, Germania and Germanic in German (disambiguation).

Peter ^Isotalo 20:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved, but I thought I'd add this since there was the same discussion recently at Talk:Yiddish.

WP:Lang says clearly (emphasis added): Each language should be on a page titled XXX language. Reasons for this policy: #Ambiguity. While some language have special forms that refer unambiguously to the language, English is inherently ambiguous about language names. Having a standard of "XXX language" ensures that it's always unambiguous. There is always the possibility of "XXX literature", "XXX grammar", but these cannot be referred to simply as "XXX", and so are not a reason for disambiguation.—msh210℠ 00:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on the "Yiddish language" bears precisely that title in full conformity with WP. That frees the title "Yiddish" for use in some other context that does not exclusively designate a language. Since WP apparently prohibits it from being used to head a disambiguation page, I've removed formal indication of disambiguation from the article. It now simply provides information about the word Yiddish as it used in composite designations for various facets of Yiddish language and Yiddish culture, coincidentally also meeting the need described in the following section. --futhark 08:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dekimasu 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside Comment from RfC

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, arabic as an adjective means "1. of, relating to, or characteristic of Arabia or the Arabs 2. of, relating to, or constituting Arabic 3. expressed in or utilizing Arabic numerals." I think in particular someone might type in Arabic, looking for Arabic numerals. The word can be used as an adjective and as a noun. I don't see where "Adjectives are not supposed to be disamiguated in this way" is part of some general policy. Also, if people type in Arabic, incorrectly assuming it is a noun referring to Arabic people, (like in Peter Isolato's examples) then it is not our job to teach them what is correct, it is to help them find what they are looking for. I think the disambiguation page should remain, including links to Arabic numerals, Arabic people, etc. Maybe there could be a note on top of the disambiguation, to the effect of "Arabic is a noun refering to the Arabic language. It is also used as a descriptive adjective..."--Kewp (t) 17:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

While it would be delightful if everyone was born with the knowledge of proper usage and connotation for every word, alas, this is not the case. Since we are attempting to make knowledge accessible to the masses by publishing on the internet, there are times where we need to take into consideration some of the common mistakes and misconceptions our readers may have. Given the number of pages linked to Arabic, it would appear some concession must be made in this case. I agree with Peter -- Arabic should redirect correctly to the language, however, in deference to Russ Blau's concern, some disambiguation should be handled on that page. I would suggested both Arabic numerals and Arab appear at the top of the Arabic language article as alternate topics the reader may have been looking for. --.:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 16:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Arabic" as a noun means only one thing and I dare you to find a a dictionary that states otherwise. This is not American vs British or even "facade" vs "façade", but simply a misunderstanding. And, really, this is a matter of ignorance vs verifiability. People obviously think we should (sometimes) write lenghty descriptions of adjectives, which we shouldn't, because we're not a dictionary.

If we have incorrect links, then correct the links, not the articles they link to. Articles are written for the readers, not for the relativly tiny amount of editors that make occasional incorrect edits.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)