Talk:Hearts

Merge with heart (disambiguation)

Greetings. I am fixing to merge this whole thing into heart (disambiguation)--let me know if you don't like that. Red Slash 20:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved Hearts → Hearts (card game) by consensus. There was no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name or to redirect hearts to heart, nor whether to keep the hearts disambiguation page separate from the heart disambiguation page. Hearts had to go somewhere, though. I've moved Hearts (disambiguation) → Hearts in order to finish the first move and will reopen it as a "partial relisting" in the absence of any smarter idea from me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

---

• Hearts (disambiguation) → Hearts
• Hearts → Hearts (card game)

– DAB from Heart and the other various articles at the DAB page, while per WP:PLURALPT "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form" in this case there are a number of other articles at the plural form and the singular does get over 8.5x the views and Heart of Midlothian F.C. comes up first in a Google search (though I don't think that's a major contender here, its existence does help to push over into the situation where disambiguation is probably best). Note that Cars (film) gets a comparable number of views compared to Car but the vehicle is still primary for "Cars" and although the card came isn't a recent topic and Hears aren't pluralized as much as cars it does seem that there is no clear primary topic for the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The card game article gets almost 75% of pageviews for "Hearts" article on the dab page. Very few people (4 per day) go through the dab page itself, so the current setup seems to work very well. This is exactly the kind of exception contemplated by WP:PLURALPT. This is one of the relatively rare occasions where there is a separate primarytopic for a plural. Dohn joe (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st, support 2nd - Fix links to the card game, then Hearts should redirect to heart per WP:RPURPOSE, and Hearts (disambiguation) should merge into Heart (disambiguation) all per WP:DABCOMBINE. The page views arguments above becomes silly when you compare with "Heart". If you need additional evidence that the primary meaning of "Hearts" is "plural of heart" and not "card game", see this Google Ngram. --Netoholic @ 00:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 1st neutral on second. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  @In ictu oculi: If you oppose 1st but are neutral on second do you support that the card game is primary or that the organ is primary? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That was what I was stuck on. Probably no primary, or Hearts (suit); I had never encountered Hearts (card game) before this RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Hearts (disambiguation) → Hearts per Netoholic and In ictu oculi and support Hearts → Hearts (card game) per Netoholic. The Heart (disambiguation) page is arranged by section headers "Music" (with sub-section headers), "Film", "Publishing", "Sport", etc. Upon being merged into Heart (disambiguation), all the entries listed at the Hearts (disambiguation) page would be easily located under those headers. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I can see the 1st !vote is clear that they favour keeping the trick primary, the 2nd and 4th are opposing on the grounds that not only is the trick not primary but that the organ actually is. While the 3rd is saying that the suit is actually primary. What I have noticed is that Hearts (suit) is also a card game topic so the proposed disambiguation is insufficient, how about Hearts (trick)? Also I don't think that the suggested primary topic swaps are a good idea, while I do think that both the organ and suit are more common, per User:Andrewa/Incoming links if we swap PTs then many readers coming from external sites may end up on the wrong title, the fact that we seem to be debating which topic out of 3 is primary is good evidence that none is primary. As far as merging Heart (disambiguation) and Hearts (disambiguation) I would weak oppose that due to the fact that some of the uses (such as the album and film) aren't interchangeably with the single/plural, however only weak oppose since there aren't many uses of the plural. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose redirecting Hearts to heart per WP:NOTDICT. If someone bothers to type "hearts" with an s, s/he is unlikely to be looking for the organ, which is rarely referred to in the plural. I'm agnostic on the original proposal and on merging the DAB pages. —  AjaxSmack  00:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  @AjaxSmack: - I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence for "unlikely to be looking for the organ, which is rarely referred to in the plural" because that does not seem to be correct. There are 7 uses of "playing Hearts" and at most 17 uses of "play Hearts", but these are dwarfed by uses of "their hearts" which returns over 2,000, for example. While we can nitpick some of these returns, its pretty overwhelming proof that people do indeed use the plural of hearts more than the name of the card game. Also, this has nothing at all to do with WP:NOTDICT, you're just blatantly misusing that guideline. --Netoholic @ 01:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't say hearts is never used in the plural in running text, but Wikipedia is a word frequency list. I merely noted that the encyclopedic concept is typically not referred to in the plural (cf. "the human heart" and "human hearts") and is therefore unlikely to be a search term. On the other hand, the card game search term is almost certainly to be the plural. While the card game might not be primary for the plural form, there is no evidence that heart is either, hence my opposition only to the redirect. —  AjaxSmack  02:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose first, support second, redirect Hearts to Heart. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal, oppose redirecting Hearts to Heart. Per AjaxSmack, Heart is not the primary topic for "Hearts" because of how rarely the organ is referred to in the plural in encyclopedic prose (and as a search term, the balance is even more strongly tilted against the organ). Regarding the 2,000 instances of "their hearts," I note that a majority seem to be using "hearts" in the metaphorical sense, one which doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Also your methodology is flawed because "their" is a much more common word than "play"; even if you achieved a perfectly fair comparison, it still doesn't establish the organ as the primary topic, as you've merely shown it to be more popular than the card game, not all other uses. A search for "hearts" alone seems to suggest no primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: - The metaphorical "heart" is covered in the main article for the organ under Heart#Symbolism, so even if you think most of plurals refer to the metaphorical sense, its still appropriate to redirect Hearts to the Heart article. -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair. But the rest of my point stands, about the flawed methodology. Personally, I think many people would be WP:ASTONISHed if they typed in "Hearts" and got an article on the organ; it's reasonable for people to say "I want to read about cats" and mean the animal, not the musical, but almost everyone would say "I want to read about the heart" for the organ. But we don't have to go with speculation and opinion. One way to solve this is to make Hearts a disambiguation page for a provisional period and link to special-purpose redirects for the main topics. After measuring pageviews, we would know if people really are looking mostly for the organ. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the first, oppose redirecting hearts to heart. Given the multiplicity of things known by the plural only (some of which are common), and the relative likelihood of referring to the organ primarily in the singular, I think a dab page has the most utility. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 25 March 2019 (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 25 March 2019

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 section.

Not moved. See general agreement below that outcome #1 is the optimum solution. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Hearts → Hearts (disambiguation) – no consensus emerged in the above RM as to what to do with "Hearts" once the card game was moved from the primary topic. Possible outcomes here:

1. Place the disambiguation page for "hearts" at the base name (the stopgap solution from the last RM)
2. Move the disambiguation page back to Hearts (disambiguation) and redirect Hearts → Heart as {{R from plural}}
3. Merge the disambiguation page into Heart (disambiguation) and redirect Hearts → Heart as {{R from plural}}

-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 or 2. I don't think the ambiguous sets for the singular and plural have a lot of overlap in the readers seeking, so the disambiguation pages should remain separate. No preference as to which of 1 or 2 results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1, weak oppose 2. Per the comments made by AjaxSmack that the organ isn't referred to in the plural that much in addition to the fact that there are common uses of the plural (like Windows and Wells). Also per User:Andrewa/Incoming links since there will be external links pointing to the trick, we don't want to send those to the wrong article so DAB at the base name seems like the best compromise. We has assertions that the trick was primary (by Dohn joe), the organ was primary (by Netoholic and Necrothesp) and the suit may be the best candidate (by In ictu oculi who probably though there was no primary topic). If different editors think different topics are primary and there is evidence that either could be primary that's probably a good sign that there is no primary topic. And as per JHJ I oppose to merging the DAB pages (3), this is a case where it appears that only 1 of the topics (the organ) would be referred to as both "Heart" and "Hearts", this is similar to Sun/The Sun where generally only the star (though Sun (motorcycle) might be an exception among others) is commonly known both as "Sun" and "The Sun". This is because readers looking for Sun (Two Door Cinema Club song) are unlikely to search for "The Sun" and readers looking for The Sun (United Kingdom) are unlikely to enter "Sun". Same with Skye/Isle of Skye, Skye, Victoria is unlikely to be searched for with "Isle of Skye" and Isle of Skye (bar) is unlikely to be searched for as "Skye" but the Scottish island is likely with both. Neither the trick or suit articles indicate that they are called just "Heart".
• Also what about the destination of the trick, as I noted because Hearts (suit) is also a card game topic maybe we should actually use "Hearts (trick)". Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  Clarify that, I guess. Redirect Hearts → Hearts (trick) after moving or merging the disambiguation page? No, because then that article is the primary topic for "Hearts" and should just exist at Hearts. What would be the content of this "trick" article, wherever it lives? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting having Hearts redirect to Hearts (trick) as that would violate WP:PRECISION! I was only asking if the article currently at Hearts (card game) should actually be at Hearts (trick) due to the fact that Hearts (suit) "is one of the four suits in playing cards of both the French deck and the German deck". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see the basis for the idea that Hearts (suit) is also a card game that would make Hearts (card game) confusing for the article about the card game. But that'd be a happily distinct RM from this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. Hearts (suit) and Hearts (card game) are consistent with the naming of card suits and card games respectively. Bermicourt (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any further change. It currently all makes reasonable sense. The proposal all potentially add an unnecessary layer of confusion or double clicking. Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  Would you mind editing your !vote to "Support 1", for the closing admin's clarity? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Revert to status quo ante with DAB located at Hearts (disambiguation), per its long-term status there. Proposer closed the prior RM as "no clear consensus whether to move the hearts disambiguation page to the base name", yet moved it anyway and then opened this RM. That's a backwards process. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC) ADDED: And also seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE. -- Netoholic @ 18:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  There was no consensus for either the card game or organ to be primary so putting the DAB at the base name makes sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  "There was no consensus for either pepperoni or sausage on the pizza, so putting mushrooms on it makes sense." Total logical fallacy. There was NO CONSENSUS to move the Hearts (disambiguation) page, so that means it should have stayed where it was. There was consensus that the card game was not primary - that was the only page that should have moved. -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  In a situation where there is no consensus which topic is primary we put the DAB at the base name, if you think the organ should be primary instead then I'm not sure why you think the previous close was incorrect, its certainly an improvement in respect to the fact that you think the organ is primary. As JHJ noted we don't redirect a base name to a qualified title or DAB page so moving the DAB to the base name was the only option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  "Revert to status quo ante" is contrary to the consensus of the above RM. Where should the title "Hearts" land (as a redirect, disambiguation page, or article)? By the above RM, the answer is not the article on the card game, which has the consensus of not being the primary topic for "Hearts" and see also WP:PRECISION. It's also not as a redirect to Hearts (disambiguation), per WP:MALPLACED. There is no status quo ante given the above RM, but there are three possibilities, which I've listed in this RM to determine the consensus for that portion of the above RM that didn't reach a consensus, as a partial relisting of it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  RM is not the proper avenue to discuss this though. Yes, you should have simply allowed the leftover, postmove redirect of Hearts→Hearts (disambiguation). It then would have been a matter for Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not RM. RM already showed no consensus to move the DAB to base name, but you did it anyway. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  RM is generally a better venue than RFD since moves of articles and DAB pages are more suited here than there (where often if a redirect should be deleted if most often discussed). "no consensus to move the DAB to base name" was simply because different editors suggested different PTs so there was no consensus to treat any as primary so per WP:DABNAME/WP:MALPLACED and WP:PRECISION the DAB is by default at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. The other option to the partial relisting was just to move the dab to the base name since there was no consensus on a primary topic. Which would have resulted in the same arrangement only without my opening this RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, the correct option was to leave Hearts (disambiguation) where it was and let someone else open up a new RM with that at the default/status quo location. -- Netoholic @ 19:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  WP:PRECISION and WP:MALPLACED continue to be the reasons that wasn't the correct option. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  In your opinion, and even if true, then there are multiple potential solutions and there is no need for you as the closer to immediately implement the solution you think is best, especially when it was already discussed and that solution did not have consensus. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  As explained ad nauseum, something had to be done as a stopgap, and the stopgap selected has the benefit of not violating WP:PRECISION or WP:MALPLACED, while the solution you think is best (i.e., your opinion) had the same lack of consensus and would violate either WP:PRECISION, WP:MALPLACED, or both. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Would you mind editing your "!vote" to "Support 2" (if that is indeed the outcome you think is best; it's hard to determine for sure amid all the spleen venting). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 (i.e. status quo nunc); oppose 2 or 3 per my comments in the previous RM discussion. —  AjaxSmack  20:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• For now, support 1, oppose 2 or 3 per my comments above. I have started a pagecount trial at Hearts per my own proposal, and we should start seeing results come in over the next few days which could change my opinion if they were strongly in favor of the organ. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Now reporting back with results, which show Hearts (card game, from disambiguation) with 86% share out of the top three, and Hearts (suit, from disambiguation) and Heart (from plural) with 7% each. So clearly people are not primarily searching for the organ when they type in "Hearts". There's a good reason why the card game stayed primary for so long: because most people are searching for it. Now of course there are qualitative reasons (which I agree with) to remove the card game's status as primary topic, but to extend that argument to make the organ primary would be contrary to the intent of the vast majority of readers. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1: Dab page at Hearts: readers wanting a singular usage such as Heart seem very unlikely to use the plural (Lungs might be a different case as we and many other creatures have them in the plural). PamD 09:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 2 and redirect Hearts to Heart. Clear primary redirect. An individual may only have one heart, but the word is still commonly seen in the plural when referring to the organ. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Considering 1, the organ isn't referred to in the plural much, 2, incoming links for the trick and the fact that 3, Hearts (suit) is also common and considering the stats provided above I'd say that no PT is still the best option, even though (like Ovens for example) I'd generally redirect a plural to its singular. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1 — disambiguation page at Hearts. older ≠ wiser 23:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1, weak support 3 - If there's no primary topic, DAB gets the base name. Safrolic (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2019 (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.