Talk:Brazilian

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Brazilian → Brazilian (disambiguation) – I just realized that Canadian redirects to Canadians and the disambiguator is titled Canadian (disambiguation). Similarly with Australian and possibly with other such terms. Following the same logic, Brazilian should be a redirect to Brazilians. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC) —capmo (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - this is obviously a primary topic. Red Slash 03:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite the fact there is no plain "Brazilian" language, this is still a classic demonym disambiguation - one could claim that both "Brazil" and "Brazilians" is the primary topic for "Brazilian". It's common practice to disambiguate these adjectives across Wikipedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Note also that the Canadian exception is far from a settled matter [1], Talk:Canadian (disambiguation); also there's almost a Brazilian language. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Joy, sorry but I fail to see the logic of your argument regarding language. For one side, if "Canadian" is an exception, so could be "Brazilian"; for the other side, the term Canadian can also refer to both Canada and Canadians, just like Brazilian can refer to Brazil and Brazilians; it's better to have a redirect to one of these two main topics (with a disambiguation hatnote) than to take the reader directly to a disambiguation page. —capmo (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

See, that conclusion is not according to the global consensus on the English Wikipedia - both exceptions would be unwarranted (i.e. the other one should be reverted). It's not better to have a redirect to one of the two common meanings because that means we're navigating a significant amount of incoming reader traffic to a place where the readers didn't really want to end up. In the majority of cases, this is more obvious because there are *three* things the term Xian can refer to; in the Brazilian case it's two and a half things ("Brazilian language" may not be correct but it does appear to be a search term). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree that if there's a standard, then it should be followed by all. But if exceptions are allowed (as is the case with Australian and Canadian, then the field is open to creating other exceptions as well. You say that by making it a redirect we'll be "navigating a significant amount of incoming reader traffic to a place where the readers didn't really want to end up." Yes, but wouldn't it be better that directing 100% of readers to a disambiguation page?

BTW, from the statistics page you cited, I'd say that the traffic to Brazilian language is almost negligible, when compared with that to "Brazilians" and especially to "Brazil". That's understandable: a lot of people still think that the language spoken in Brazil is Spanish... lol. —capmo (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

When we don't know what the readers meant by using an obviously ambiguous search term, we send them to a disambiguation page. That is not seen as directing all of them to a bad place, instead it's standard practice. Disambiguation pages are a standard navigational aid on Wikipedia.

While we're at it, the stats are actually interesting - in the same three-month period, "Brazilian" has 12470 hits, "Brazil" has 1,941,133, "Brazilian Portuguese" has 37,797, while "Brazilians" has only 5,634. In the latter case the pattern changed recently for the better, but even if we assume that the new pattern will hold, directing the adjective there would still seem like clearly the least common option. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I had checked these stats too, but they just reflect page views, not the amount of traffic being driven by the term "Brazilian", so they can't be used to make any inferences. —capmo (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Brazilians" just changed within the last couple of weeks, right? Give it time. Of course, Brazil will still get the lion's share of the views. Red Slash 21:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that an indicator to you that maybe a larger share of the searches for the adjective are also meant for the country, rather than the people? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, I must've been unclear. The page Brazilian people just got moved to Brazilians; pageview stats will have started rising considerably at Brazilians because of that. (And I'm right, but clearly Brazil's daily views dwarf the views of the article on the people anyway.) Red Slash 22:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That explains the shift - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Brazilian%20people has the pre-move traffic - but the basic point stands - the discrepancy in volume must give you pause when considering redirecting this adjective away from "Brazil" (with the proposed move, it would be not 1 but 2 clicks away). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Brazil will be either in the hatnote, in the very first sentence, or in both. Almost certainly just one click away. That's the purpose of WP:HATNOTEs. Red Slash 00:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, there is no really major topic outside Brazil itself for this. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not a "support" !vote because the proposal is to have "Brazilians" as the primary topic, whereas you seem to be saying "Brazil" is the primary topic. (I'm saying it's neither.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The point is that Brazilians are just people from Brazil, so pointing to either the country or the people is correct. Keep in mind though that if someone talks about a Brazilian company or a Brazilian TV show, Brazilians would be the wrong target, but if someone talks about a Brazilian person, the country Brazil would not be a wrong target because it is a person from Brazil. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes. So you oppose the requested move as proposed, and instead propose something else. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No, not really. The proposal would be an improvement over things as they stand, so I can support it. An even better improvement would be to point the link at Brazil, but Brazilians would also be okay. It's not like somebody landing on Brazilians is going to be surprised by that, or to have any difficulty finding the article on Brazil from there. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
          • No problem by me (as the creator of this proposal) in redirecting to Brazil instead. —capmo (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, that's not actually true, think e.g. "... the [[Brazilian]] coniferous tree Foo Bar...". Having those links end up at the people article would be fairly surprising. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - leave it as it is. There seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of naming. This is the disambiguation page, and stands for works that are mislinked. there is no purpose and no reason in moving to a page with disambiguation which already directs here. The purpose of the additional naming convention is when the main subject is taken, and there is a need for disambiguation at base. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case how do you explain Australian and Canadian? If they are also made into disambiguations then I'll shut my mouth up, but if they are allowed as exceptions to the rule, then "Brazilian" should be allowed too. —capmo (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly because the language is distinct, in references to it, from Portugese. The current dab page is probably best for this title. Some wanting the people will use the plural. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2014 (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.

Requested move 20 April 2022

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: no consensus that there is a primary topic for the base title, and thus no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 14:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Brazilian → Brazilian (disambiguation) – This was discussed about eight years ago, and the weak consensus (with only a handful of !votes) was that this DAB page should be the primary topic. Looking at the page now, it's pretty clear that's not the right decision. In common English usage, none of the other things on this page are described solely with the word "Brazilian," with the exception of the waxing procedure. Between a country of 212 million people and a type of waxing, the country is the primary topic. This is much more similar to Canadian, Pakistani, or Argentine than it is to German, Portuguese, or French. agtx 14:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Each of these namings should be considered on its own merits. In my view, if it is the name of a language (i.e. French), the main title header should be a disambiguation page since there is also an article entitled French language, but if the main header represents a national identity, without also being the name of language, then it should redirect to the nationality, thus Brazilian should redirect to Brazilians since the article title for the language is Brazilian Portuguese, not Brazilian language, which is a disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Brazilian Portuguese gets more views (12,667) than Brazilians (8,406) and Brazilian jiu-jitsu gets 35,816[[2]]. Google appear to return more results for the county its self though that is probably an unlikely target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary redirect to Brazilians. The dialect is not generally referred to as Brazilian, but as Brazilian Portuguese. The same applies to the sport, generally referred to by its full name. The waxing procedure is hardly as notable as the people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yeah, the language is not very commonly called "Brazilian", but there's still the other main meaning of the word, as an adjective for the country. See also the Wikinav data, which shows how many clicks each of the links on the dab page is currently getting. Brazilians receives 36%, Bikini waxing – 45% (yes, we shouldn't assign too much weight to this topic, but we can't completely ignore it), the language – 10% and the country – 9%. – Uanfala (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Adding that this situation is not uncommon at all: see the dab pages that occupy the base titles for Swiss, Belgian, Sri Lankan, Mexican or Colombian. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think the wikinav data is not very helpful. The page had only 618 incoming page views last month, compared to 12K for Brazilians and 25K for Bikini waxing. I don't think that's really enough traffic that we can extrapolate anything useful from it.

  Another way to think about it is this: we're an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Wikipedia article titles are, generally speaking, nouns. Users know that and go to this page expecting an encyclopedia article about a noun, not the definition of an adjective. To the extent the Wikinav data is useful, it certainly tells us that. As far as the other dab pages you mention, Swiss (a recent move) makes sense, because it is ungrammatical to refer to "a Swiss" in English. The word is only ever an adjective. Meanwhile, Mexican and Colombian should likely be moved. agtx 16:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a valid point about the distinction between adjectives and nouns, and it underlies the comparatively smaller weight we should assign to the latter. As for the thousands of monthly pageviews for the articles, they're not relevant here (unless you take overall popularity to be an indicator of significance) – the great majority of the views for any article come from readers following links (internal or external). The 600 or so visitors of the dab page are exactly the people that matter here because they're the only ones who'll be affected by the proposed move. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Basically per Uanfala, click-throughs don't seem to be largely concentrated on single target and these are the most relevant data for whether people coming here are really just expecting to go through to the page on Brazilian people, and it seems they are not. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but I understand that this is probably not going forward. (I would close as NC but I participated in the last RM.) We frankly need a multi-move request for every adjective demonym that has a noun form (eg Mexican, not Swiss). Maybe even a centralized discussion somewhere. Red Slash 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I would also support for Mexican and Colombian, so ping me if those discussions come up. BD2412 T 20:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Uanfala. Clickstream data does not favor Brazilians as ptopic. Also, even though Brazil only gets ~10% of clicks from the dab page, I can see it being a major distractor with respect to wikilinks. e.g. Foobar is a [[Brazilian]] hedge fund... (yes, such cases will generally be overlinking, but overlinked and mistargeted is still worse than being just overlinked). Colin M (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup needed

as per WP:PARTIAL and MOS:DABNOENTRY. fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)