Talk:Death by a Thousand Cuts (disambiguation)

MOSDAB

User:Jaydiem What is "Undoing edit that was made in good faith but seriously harmed the conciseness and readability of the page" referring to? [1]. Use of the ambiguous term is preferred per WP:MOSDAB, and using the article text is quite normal, so I've undone this unknown, pending explanation here. Widefox; talk 00:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jaydiem, instead of trying to force your preferred version, please discuss here. Widefox; talk 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The reverted edit inexplicably inserts the term being disambiguated ("Death by a thousand cuts") into not just one but two of the list items, and also replaces a valid link to a canonical article title (Lingchi) with a superfluous and nonencyclopedic redirect (Death by a thousand cuts (torture)) that you set up yourself for no apparent reason. I'm sorry, but these changes are completely unsupported not only by MOS:DAB but also by common sense. — Jaydiem (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Can you expand on "inexplicably"? This is how disambiguation pages (dab pages) are written - the ambiguous term is preferred for linking on a dab page per WP:MOSDAB. The little orange warning shown when editing at the top of the dab page has help, as the style of dab pages is strictly controlled, and those editing them should familiarise themselves before editing.

2. Death by a thousand cuts (torture) is a valid (bold) alternative title supported by a valid redirect, and in the article. If you are questioning the validity of that, then this isn't the correct place to take that up, which is at the article and/or WP:RfD not here.

3. Please read WP:DABREDIR "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both: 1. the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and 2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section.". Both are satisfied, so it is incorrect to say it is "unsupported not only by MOS:DAB".

4. Going against WP:CONSENSUS - your suggested version is against the consensus of the MOS, and you appear to wish to edit war over your incorrect version, and have incorrectly (presumably erroneously) removed my talk comment here (now restored).

If you wish to get further opinions then please do (which is common sense in this case). Widefox; talk 02:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your claims here.

• Re: "the ambiguous term is preferred for linking on a dab page per WP:MOSDAB" — It's unclear what you're talking about. Please quote precisely what content found at MOS:DAB you are referring to here.

• Re: "Death by a thousand cuts (torture) is a valid (bold) alternative title" — I don't see any good reason for this "alternative title" to exist. The canonical article title Lingchi was established by consensus, and is concise and specific without ambiguity. This redirect you created is unnecessary, and is linked to solely by the superfluous edit that you also created, here on this dab page.

• Re: "Please read WP:DABREDIR" — The example provided there does not parallel the situation here. There is already a perfectly concise, established-by-consensus canonical article title at Lingchi. It appears that you created the superfluous redirect at Death by a thousand cuts (torture) for no other reason than to invoke this provision of MOS:DAB. That passage only has a chance of being reasonably applicable when the redirect in question has a valid reason to exist without regard to the dab page. To use the example given there, the redirect at James Carrey exists organically because of the variation in the given name of Jim Carrey, and would be linked because of its phonetic similarity to James Cary. You don't go creating a superfluous redirect for the sole purpose of introducing a completely new and unnecessary layer of complexity separating an item shown in a dab page from its Wikipedia article. Lingchi is the target here, and I see no good reason not to link directly to it.

• Re: "your suggested version is against the consensus of the MOS" — The MOS in general is a work of consensus, yes, but your particular attempt to apply it in this case is not. The edit at issue here makes a mockery of the kind of clear, streamlined dab page that MOS:DAB is intended to encourage.

— Jaydiem (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(inserting my response after Jaydiem's due to edit conflict)

Just popping in from the project page to provide another opinion. Regarding the redirect, it seems like a good idea to me. It's supported by the MOS and in this case could easily help the user even before they arrive at the DAB page because as they begin to type this title into the search bar they would see the torture option and head straight to that article.

On the other topic I would have to agree with Jaydiem. Of course creeping normality is also called "death by a thousand cuts" because otherwise it wouldn't be on this page. According to the MOS, pretty much the entire point of having a description for an entry is to help the user determine which article covers the subject they are seeking. Repeating the title of the page does not help them do that. It does not give them any information at all that they didn't have when they arrived at the page. Widefox cited that "the ambiguous term is preferred for linking on a dab page." Yes, it is preferred for linking, not for plain text sitting next to the link. I just can't see what function it serves. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It strikes me as silly that a five-word-long phrase such as "Death by a thousand cuts" needs yet another word tacked onto the end in parentheses to "disambiguate" it. Isn't that what this dab page is for? And what about the alternate meaning that refers to "creeping normality"—are we going to create still another redirect at "Death by a thousand cuts (creeping normality)" to keep everything fair and balanced? Where does it end? I know redirects are cheap, but this seems rather excessive. — Jaydiem (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Having Lingchi as the bluelinked term seems perfectly fine to me, as long as the description is clear that this is the torture article. In any case this may be moot, Lingchi is the primary topic for death by a thousand cuts, this page should be so redirected, and the disambiguation page moved elsewhere. Those looking up this term are most probably looking for its origins, the metaphorical meaning (allegedly creeping normality, but I find that arguable at the very least) is fairly self evident and thus not so likely to be sought. SpinningSpark 10:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

* WP:DABREDIR (as explained above) is explicit about using a redirect to match the ambiguous term (in this case "Death by a thousand cuts"). "The above example of a redirect is only appropriate because James Carrey is indicated as a name in the lead section of the Jim Carrey article. If it were not, then the second example could have been used instead."

* Let's not conflate alternative names and article titles. Nobody is talking about changing article titles, it's a red herring.

** Creating a redirect for alternative titles is not "superfluous" as it is policy and making it available from a dab policy per (just below) WP:TITLEVAR WP:ALTTITLE "If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term." . No argument has been made for going against policy so far, seems just a lack of familiarity with the policy and MOS, which is just going against WP:CONSENSUS.

*** Putting alternative name policy aside for a second, (as explained above) RfD is the correct place to discuss the redirect not here

* Agree with you that there's a difference between the policy/MOS and applying the policy/MOS. That is still no excuse for edit warring even if you feel you are correct. You must attempt to reach consensus here, and we must all abide by any consensus. I posted twice here without a response.

** Are the policies of edit warring and TITLE clear now?

* User:Fyrael thanks for your input. It's not clear to me that undoing the whole edit [2] hangs on the additional (optional from my POV) ambiguous term text next to the link. The whole issue is throwing away all the cleanup fixes - I certainly wouldn't object to anyone removing those few words of duplication. Throwing away the whole edit (including avoiding the template redirect, sorting by most likely etc) seems baby and bathwater. It certainly isn't (currently) in MOSDAB. My recollection is that something along those lines used to be there i.e. when it wasn't obvious why an entry is justified. It doesn't really matter, as (per policy) there's a valid alternative name and a new redirect to use it Death by a thousand cuts (psychology), so it's now moot.

In order to reach consensus, please comment on this proposed dab:

Death by a thousand cuts may refer to:

• Death by a thousand cuts (torture), a form of torture and execution originating from Imperial China
• Death by a thousand cuts (psychology), the way a major negative change which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments is not perceived as objectionable
• Death by a Thousand Cuts (album), an album by the band Leng Tch'e
• Death by a Thousand Cuts (book), a non-fiction book about a form of torture and capital punishment in Imperial China

Widefox; talk 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Spinningspark I agree about your suggestion for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If nobody disagrees then suggest moving the dab. Widefox; talk 10:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So, moving debate forward to the proposed primary topic (after the move, so Death by a thousand cuts is a redirect to Lingchi):

Death by a thousand cuts is a form of torture and execution originating from Imperial China.

Death by a thousand cuts may also refer to:

• Death by a thousand cuts (psychology), the way a major negative change which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments is not perceived as objectionable
• Death by a Thousand Cuts (album), an album by the band Leng Tch'e
• Death by a Thousand Cuts (book), a non-fiction book about a form of torture and capital punishment in Imperial China

Widefox; talk 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done per Spinningspark's suggestion. Per my edit summary, I had to style the dab for the new WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - note that there is no other option but to restyle for a primary topic, and in the absence of alternatives, bold implement only version pending consensus here at the talk. Widefox; talk 12:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To summarise, I agree with Spinningspark that the psychology article is tenuous (a quick look for sources found no obvious book) and I was aware that the source I used for the use of the term in the article may be non-definitive. This makes the WP:PT strong, and we certainly want to avoid the non-policy/MOS arguments above, for example creating more than one blue link per entry like this [3] edit. Widefox; talk 12:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I can agree that Lingchi is the primary topic for Death by a thousand cuts, and that the latter title should be a redirect to the former. However, I'd like for you to explain why, in this newly-moved dab page, our readers are better served by the contrived and convoluted bluelink Death by a thousand cuts (psychology) than by the straightforward and direct bluelink Creeping normality. I must point out that the provision of MOS:DABREDIR that you've been citing says that "redirects should generally not be used in disambiguation pages", with exceptions to be made only when there is a compelling usability argument for doing so. The guideline says linking to a redirect "can […] be helpful" in some cases, not that it should be done routinely as a default.

It should also be noted that your remark "for example creating more than one blue link per entry like this edit" above is irrelevant to this discussion, unnecessary, and inflammatory. I suggest you remove it. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss MOSDAB, renaming Lingchi or the validity of the redirects. It's a dab

Been over this, all linked above. ... creating and using redirects is policy. Take it up there, not here. I know the general case well, but irrelevant as this satisfies the specific exception (again, per above). Nothing new. I came here to do a routine cleanup, the original undo (at the top here) is not justified in policy or MOS, let alone edit warring, removing comments, changing section names. This disruption must stop. Widefox; talk 17:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that using redirects as described he is policy. It is an option that can help in some, or perhaps many cases. But I completely agree with Jaydiem that creating somewhat contrived redirects solely for the purpose of making a disambiguation page conform to some artificial standard is not always helpful for readers. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that needs splitting in two 1. It is policy (per above) for alternative names, I do create alt name redirects when I come across them (you'll see on my talk someone telling me I should have created one when I missed one). 2. Seems like a bad faith assumption that the motivation is for artificial standards whatever the merits of this case. I take it the policy is not in dispute, or applied incorrectly?

Looking at this dab, there was an objection for the parenthetic redirect, but none for the primary topic. Worth reflecting on that difference! I know when we've talked about redirects at the dab project there's two camps - less redirects and more redirects. Thing is - as shown by the primary topic - less redirects would not use the parenthetic redirect but as soon as a primary topic would. The area in the middle (as shown above) seems more consistent to use one. We can have opinions about how useful the parenthetic is, but in reality readers are prompted in the interface as well as being useful here. The bottom line, is our opinions are somewhat irrelevant as it is per policy WP:TITLEVAR WP:ALTTITLE "should usually" (agree the wording doesn't include using the redirect in the dab for an ambiguous term, but by then we already have a redirect per wording "should usually" so this is inconsistent), not whim.Widefox; talk 21:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB is not policy; it is an editing guideline. And the section you mention isn't even a strong recommendation but is couched in conditional language (Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both...). I see little benefit to using contrived redirects that are unlikely to ever be used as links in an article. Perhaps a standard similar to that of redlinks should apply: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. And I don't see how WP:TITLEVAR has any relevance for this situation at all. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad above, for WP:TITLEVAR read WP:ALTTITLE - I created the shortcut now. It's policy. Not talking about MOSDAB.

An assumption of "contrived" is the assumption. The reflection is the question: Death by a thousand cuts (torture) which became Death by a thousand cuts so one wouldn't question it as a primary topic, but somehow it's contrived if not. It's an assumption, I don't know the articles it may be used in. Widefox; talk 22:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks to me like the contrived redirect @Jaydiem: mentioned is Death by a thousand cuts (psychology). Although, I'm not sure how helpful Death by a thousand cuts (torture) would really be if there were not a primary topic. The lack of the shortcut did not seem to cause any problems. older ≠ wiser 23:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the top of this section..this section is about removing Death by a thousand cuts (torture), [4] (as well as removing the expanded template and better sorting i.e. strongest article (now PT) first). The comment was "Undoing edit that was made in good faith but seriously harmed the conciseness and readability of the page" which is just rubbish. In fact, my edit didn't go far enough - a PT was needed, not just a parenthetic redirect! Widefox; talk 23:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, let's clarify something here. Widefox, I feel like you've implied a couple of times (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Lingchi only became a candidate for primary topic because of the torture redirect, which simply isn't the case. More editors came to this page because of your request for opinions and it was then pointed out that Lingchi should be primary and I don't think anyone has argued against it so far. The existence of redirects is pretty much unrelated to primary topic here. So, since we're already twisting enough topics into each other here, can we please not mention PT anymore in order to avoid confusion with what's really being debated? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Widefox, I only came to this after the primary topic had been settled. I was responding to the "contrived" redirect that @Jaydiem: mentioned in post dated 16:12, 30 October 2015. older ≠ wiser 06:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fyrael - to be clear: redirects have zero relevance for the selection of a primary topic (which is per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC).

Bkonrad - I asked for more opinions as there was edit warring over the dab when doing routine cleanup. I'm sure you appreciate that there's two camps when we discussed the use of redirects, but it's important to come back to the point - edit warring, removing my talk comments, renaming talk section headings is disruption and clear cut, the finer points of the use of redirects on dabs are valid topics with two valid camps, not bogus. Widefox; talk 10:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just take a moment to review the state of the dab page before and after the edit by Widefox that precipitated this argument. It's very obvious to me that the change was from clarity and economy of language to needless complication and clumsy wordiness. There is no "policy" that justifies or compels this kind of change. I believe a clear majority of our readers would, if asked, agree that this edit "seriously harmed the conciseness and readability of the page", as I stated when I reverted it.

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

— George Pólya

Let's not be pedants. — Jaydiem (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote is longer than the dab. One man's pedant is another's master. The primary topic is the only important change here. The dab was viewed once a month, now it will be less. Everything else obscures the purpose. Widefox; talk 03:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)