Talk:Lada (disambiguation)

Requested move 25 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There discussion shows a very clear consensus not to move the article. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 23:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

---

• Lada (disambiguation) → Lada
• Lada → Lada (automobile)

– No clear primary topic. At a recent move discussion, some users said that the car should be primary, mostly because it's what "first comes to mind", which is not a valid criterion. In terms of "enduring notability and educational value", I think that several topics with the name Lada or LADA are just as significant as the modern car brand, including Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults, Lada Terra, Josef Lada and Lada (mythology). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: FWIW, anecdotally, a type of car was also the first (in fact the only) thing to come to mind for me upon encountering the term Lada. If this turns out to be a general trend for others as well then it would seem to support an argument of 'general usage'. Seems like I may have seen something about 'general usage' come up in wp:policy and guidelines a time or two ... My memory's not perfect though ... Does anyone else recall seeing terms like 'general usage' and 'common usage' put forth as Wikipedia best practice? Anyway, I'll concur that a single instance of "first comes to mind" hardly seems decisive and two could be a fluke, but imagine if three, four, (n+1) ... were to chime in ... ? soundtrack ;-)

--A Fellow Editor (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of WP:COMMONNAME, which refers to a choice of multiple possible names for a single topic. The car being a common (even the most common) usage of the term doesn't necessarily make it primary – compare Apple Inc. vs. Apple. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - although I am a fan of the illustrations of Josef Lada, having read Švejk about a dozen times, the car is clearly the primary topic. For the others, except the rather obscure goddess, "Lada" only makes up part of the name, or is an acronym.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. It would be helpful to provide a reason why the car should be the primary topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the car is overwhelming the most commonly sought topic based on page views as well as search engine results. No evidence has been provided that any of the other topics approach the notability of the car. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Notability on Wikipedia is not the same as popularity. The car may have the more common contemporary usage, but other topics seem to have equal if not greater historical significance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Notability is marked by frequency of usage in reliable sources. The car satisfies that criteria. No evidence has been provided that any of the other topics in any manner challenge the car with regards to either usage or long-term significance. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, usage in reliable sources is not an absolute determining factor, due to potential bias and other reasons. There are two considerations here: usage and long-term significance. Neither one is necessarily paramount. With regard to long-term significance, Lada (mythology) has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources going back at least to the 19th century (see e.g. Ralston's The Songs of the Russian People). There's also the educational value of the various topics. Does the car brand really have more than an acclaimed illustrator, or an ancient mythological figure linked to social and religious developments over several centuries, or an area of another planet of the Solar system named after said mythological figure? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
        • In the absence of actual evidence, yes. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
          • What sort of evidence for educational value are you asking for? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
            • Reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 20:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I can empathize with an urge to encourage discoverability of new knowledge. Readily available learning side-trips make up a great part of what I, and many others, find attractive about Wikipedia. But over the years—in context of life-in-general as well as Wikipedia—I've come to suspect that there can be at times an important distinction between offering information to others and forcing it upon them. While I can see how someone 'info-philic' like myself might enjoy picking up some new knowledge tidbits during an unplanned stop at a disambiguation page, others with less diverse tastes in learning may find such to feel like just an annoying tangent on their way to the most common target article.

Is it best to serve everyone who searches Lada a taste of wp:astonishment by landing at something other than an 'article', or to just go ahead and serve up the most commonly desired article with a clear WP:DAB link at the top allowing the majority to explore further if they choose to while still offering a path-at-hand to the minority seeking something else? WP guidelines even allow for offering hatnote links to both DAB pages and specific common alternatives simultaneously when prominent secondary topics sharing the same title term exist. So ...

Possible middle-ground: If there's a specific 'l-a-d-a' article or two that stands out in prominence from the other non-automobile articles maybe for now try noting such in the hatnotes alongside the existing DAB page links and see if it serves to offer some additional opportunities for discovery without forcing everyone through an extra page. --A Fellow Editor (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems fair. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose hatnote addition per stats below. Please make a case for the hatnote as by my reasoning (below) it's not justified. Widefox; talk 01:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, so everyone has to convince you personally? You may want to see WP:OWN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I concur with the WP:OWN concern ... I as well am feeling frustrated by a mix of talkpage declarations and active page edits while related topics are still under disussion ... Was going to comment regarding such in the subsection below when I noticed Sangdeboeuf had brought it up here. I'll continue this below as I originally planned. (in a bit perhaps, I'm sorting through edit conflicts as Widevine happened to post while I've been composing) --–A Fellow Editor– 12:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, your edit(s) are contested, it's your burden to reach consensus (despite A Fellow Editor's kind offer of a compromise). Widefox; talk 13:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I also oppose hatnote addition. See my general oppose !vote for my reasons. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Bold text

• Oppose. There is really only a choice of 2 topics for primary: the car, and the goddess. Simple Google search and Wikipedia page view statistics show orders-of-magnitude preference for the car. (I appreciate all the arguments above, but, really, this is not a marginal case). "Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults" might be the primary topic for "LADA" (all caps) but that is a discussion for the redirect LADA. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Unconvincing per the stated nom. List of ambiguous terms are obscure and/or WP:PTM and a distraction from the fundamental question - does the goddess rival it? The status quo needn't be defended, the nom has to be convincing for change. Widefox; talk 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment see below for viewstats, this is a SNOW Oppose per viewstats by factor of 100. See also - a related RM recently closed here Talk:Lada_(mythology)#Requested_move_5_November_2017 Widefox; talk 18:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC) Widefox; talk 15:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As Widefox and Shhhnotsoloud stated, there are only two topics to consider as per WP:PTM and common sense. And those left out didn't seem to hold up well either. Josef Lada is somewhat famous/relevant but not nearly as famous/relevant as the Lada car marque, and Venus topography is a topic of interest for a narrow group of people.

So we are left with the goddess Lada and the Lada car marque. The car marque is the primary topic by a good margin. It has a fairly large coverage on all kind of published and reliable sources, much larger than its goddess counterpart. As other editors mentioned, googling and Wikipedia views also confirm it. If you ask someone in the English-speaking world what Lada is, most would say it's a kind of Russia-assembled Fiat car (or look at you perplexed). A few would tell is also a goddess, and those would probably have an interest/academic formation on Slavic mythology. Reading through the goddess Lada article, it seems her actual impact is unclear, as most written sources on her are vague indirect accounts, folk songs, philology, and modern material combining all the (small) historical evidence (some authors on the minority even doubt she ever existed). Also, it seems it's actually a god pair with another supposed deity called Lado, and the article isn't really clear on why Lada is the only that should be mentioned in the title. The goddess might be a primary topic/equally relevant in (some) Slavic-languages Wikipedias, but not in the English-language one.

As for including the goddess in the desambiguation hatnote, I oppose that. She isn't a relevant and impactful deity in the English-speaking world as, for example, Jupiter or Isis that actually inspired artists and writers. And even in the Slavic world, if she has some influence today is through her implied assimilation with the Virgin Mary. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, the car brand is a clear primary topic. I also oppose any change to the hatnote, none of the other ambiguous terms are prominent enough to warrant mention on it. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The car very definitely is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2017 (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.

Primary topic style

User:Sangdeboeuf Please stop changing the style as if it had no primary topic [1] , [2]. It's been undone by two of us, and only if and when the RM above goes ahead should it change per WP:DABPRIMARY. Widefox; talk 11:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: With this change, you put some topics under the subheading "Astronomical". "Astronomical" isn't a subject area; that would be "Astronomy". And I doubt that the asteroid 2832 Lada is what readers have in mind when they're looking for topics under "Places". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Headings should also be in alphabetical order; see WP:DABORDER. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Lada (mythology) one of the most common options (more so than most others, excepting the cars)? If so, perhaps it might be better placed near the top as allowed for in MOS:DABCOMMON rather than towards the bottom of the page as it is now. --–A Fellow Editor– 16:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Sangdeboeuf

@Sangdeboeuf: I take it we agree about the primary topic style then. Although my edit has nothing to do with the primary topic, I agree astronomical object ie "Places > Astronomical" is unusual on a dab so changed to the better "Solar System" (note that it's common on dabs to have qualifying section names e.g. "Transportation" sub "Air", sub "Road" etc), but my overall concern on this dab is to reduce the number of sections with two items per WP:MOSDAB. A Lada Terra, a highland on Venus sounds very much like a place to me, and only a slight stretch for a minor planet. I'm open to ideas eliminating small sections per MOSDAB, sometimes it's difficult like this one. I'm aware of DABORDER, and its a style guide (rather than policy) that I attempt to follow to the letter, but I'm not sure you're aware that even if sorted alphabetically (which is optional), "People" sections go at the end per MOS:DABNAME (not like in your edit). That leaves Places and Military that could be sorted, sure, but ab sorting isn't mandatory and only recently in MOSDAB (editors have got blocked for mass doing it), what matters is reader navigation. Widefox; talk 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@A Fellow Editor: MOS:DABCOMMON 2.? This has a primary topic, so is currently 1. I have nothing against putting it at the top but it's slightly moot as we assume readers have already navigated via the primary topic (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) which now includes that entry in the hatnote, so by that logic: anyone at the dab does not want that entry. This is the logic of why we put the primary topic at the top to eliminate it for readers. As I said, my main concern is less sections. Widefox; talk 17:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Astronomy" under "Science and technology" as a better heading for other Solar System objects as shown at Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area. That is, unless Lada, Asturias, Łada, Lublin Voivodeship, etc. are not part of the Solar System. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary topic style? (I'm still waiting for a reply, per this section name). Ho hum, "Extraterrestrial" is another option. (There is no fixed layout, see the WP:LONGDAB you've linked - it even says that, plus see the disclaimer at the top of it - it's one editor's essay). You know only 8 editors per day see this? I think it's overly precise to categorise "Earth" and elsewhere. One is Astrogeology, the other an Astronomical object, so either a "Places" subsection, or "Astronomy" is OK with me. As I said, I'm more concerned that we eliminate small sections. (NB Britannica has "10 Places to Visit in the Solar System" it could be either section) Widefox; talk 14:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Pageviews

• Comment to provide a fact about what readers want (absent in the RM above per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), the viewstats say reading the car article is more popular than the dab or the mythology by a factor of 100 [3] . This refutes the assumption readers want the mythology much, or that this dab is that big a deal. Widefox; talk 17:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, it's how the mythology article compares excepting the car article that interests me. Does it stand out as a clear second or third? If so it seems to me that moving it up near the top on the DAB page as a service to readers (the folks who we—ostensibly—do this all for) would be warranted. Offer them minimal wp:astonishment, better convenience, etc. --–A Fellow Editor– 18:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@A Fellow Editor: The mythology article was moved, so I hadn't included the old name [4] (this one excludes the car [5] ): daily views:

90 days pageviews

"Lada"

"Lada (disambiguation)

"Lada-class submarine

"Lada (goddess)

• Lada: 700
• Lada-class submarine 200 [6]
• ČZ 2000 50
• HC Lada Togliatti 50
• Goddess: 30
• Dab: 8

So the assumption that anything on this dab is important for the goddess is incorrect - most readers are going via links not this dab. The new link in the hatnote is not needed and this whole RM and fuss about location is based on a false assumption of navigation. Can't be clearer than that from these limited stats.

Now, when you say excluding the car, there's no big numbers at the dab, let along any slice of the traffic through it. If we see dropoff at the dab from 8 downwards due to the new hatnote to the goddess then we'll know what portion of those 8 a day at the dab want the goddess. It's small stats. My suggestion - if the stats don't change, this assumption the the goddess is so important it must go in the hatnote is wrong, and it should be removed from the hatnote, and all the above recognised as folly (which is my gut feeling right now). Now, in terms of Apple vs Apple Inc., I agree we should generally favour long-term over popularity, but PRIMARYTOPIC is clear that noms use stats and other standard reasoning to make a case, which is totally lacking above, but from the stats this has an undisputed primary topic per viewing numbers alone. Widefox; talk 00:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Meh, let the hatnote link to Lada (mythology) stand, it helps address another editor's concerns, is relatively unobtrusive, and doesn't break anything. And, BTW, Widefox, FWIW, your concerns-for-particulars might come off in a better light if you were to clean-up the formatting of your own preceding comment so as to have some sort of self-consistent indenting scheme going within it. --–A Fellow Editor– 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, talk indents (done), false assumptions, trickle of views is all meh. If the stats don't change I will remove it from the hatnote citing this, as all that matters is navigation here and we needn't put any weight on blind assumptions against overwhelming odds to placate a writer when we all agree it's only the readers that matter and there's nothing convincing on this page to say any of this helps them. Widefox; talk 01:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact, now I checked some more, the fact is the goddess viewing is swamped by the rest, it's at most 5th most popular with so far the submarine being a factor of 10! I'm removing the hatnote addition now pending justification here. Widefox; talk 02:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with the guideline on disambiguating links in articles. Analysis of pageviews may be helpful for determining a primary topic, but is largely irrelevant when clarifying an ambiguous title. Per WP:DABLINKS, "any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article". Readers searching for Lada-class submarine or ČZ 2000 are unlikely to go looking at Lada, whereas readers searching for Lada (mythology) or Latent autoimmune diabetes of adults might. As A Fellow Editor said, the hatnote doesn't break anything. I suggest replacing the {{redirect}} note specifically mentioning LADA and Lada (mythology). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a flaw in that argument: if readers don't use "Lada" to go to those articles, the links shouldn't be on the dab.

The bottom line is that the nom and all this is unconvincing. View stats say this is minor.

The redirect hatnote for "LADA" (uppercase) [7] is overly complex - there's more lowercase ambiguous terms so that is handled better with a normal other uses. I'm not convinced from above facts that any one other article is that important (and there's many)

Per WP:BRD and in general (WP:CONSENSUS), the burden is on the editor wanting change to convince others, and alleging "OWN" at another other editor just because they undid your edit, don't agree with you, and have provided facts that directly refute assertions of importance which has misguided other editors (e.g. "most common meanings at top" when that turns out to be factually incorrect) may not assist in that aim. Widefox; talk 11:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Widefox, your overall tack-and-tone has me seriously confused as to whether in this endeavor you're seeking collaborative consensus or individual control. I suggest easing off the wikilawyering a bit and making more of an effort to consider that the two other editors taking an active interest in this are also seeking to add value to the Wiki. And that there may be a difference between "discussing options" and "laying-down-the-law".* Please ease off editing the related pages and try proposing changes here on the talkpage and then waiting until others have had a chance to respond. This issue is feeling kinda' contentious at this point. Let's slow it down. And please, let's all remember that 'one of the pillars of the community' is that we have the option to vary from WP's voluminous policy-&-guidelines if we decide it serves readers (and doesn't cause significant disruption to the Wiki) to do so.
  

*(It'd probably be a good idea if both Sangdebeuf and I contemplate suchlike a bit more as well.) --–A Fellow Editor– 12:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I understand your opinion, but it's not OWN - an editor undoing contested edits (by one editor who's pushing their edits against multiple editors) and asking for consensus here is not OWN, but the opposite. Responding about tone when the consensus, facts and guidelines are clear isn't a strong argument. Would you agree it's worth putting a note into the dab project to get more opinions? (ec) I contested this edit [8] adding an {{other uses}} to the parenthetic titled Lada (mythology) per WP:NAMB. Widefox; talk 12:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: for the record, it was your tone that inspired the suggestion to read WP:OWN. You've got two editors commenting on it now, so I'd suggest you take a few deep breaths here, since after all only 8 editors per day see this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf hmm, the only two editors here against the overwhelming consensus? Maybe you should have listened about not personalising your content dispute at the last RM? This is offtopic here, and should be collapsed/removed (See Responding to tone). Widefox; talk 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Widefox, where/when have I stated that I'm "against the overwhelming consensus"? First off, WP:OWN concerns were raised before additional 'oppose' responses came in following your prompting for attention[9] on another page. Secondly, please note that I have not as yet put forth any support/oppose !vote of my own as yet. Though the record above does show that I pretty strongly discouraged against the proposed page move. So one with a clue might be able to take a guess on that aspect. FWIW, you've officially [insert epithet of choice] pissed me off at this point. Your !@%5 !@#$!@# is really starting to @#544%%$2 annoy me.

Please, if you might be so kind, try to avoid presuming to speak for me in the future.
Thanks for your time and attention, --–A Fellow Editor– 18:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Only two editors want to change the hatnote, that correctly portrays your position, right? "OWN" rubbish came after I contested that. Enough. Widefox; talk 21:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

"Enough." – Going for that declarative 'because-Lord-Widevine-says-so' tone again I see. Classy. --–A Fellow Editor– 03:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, regarding "that correctly portrays your position, right?", my answer is "no" (I like to think I've been trying to hold off on taking firm positions, emphasizing the raising of questions and considerations instead).

I stumbled across a quote recently where someone commented regarding Richard Dawkins something to the effect of, I largely agree with what he says but the urge to slap him for his arrogant insensitivity generally precludes me from saying so. --–A Fellow Editor– 14:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In which case, I'm sorry to have misrepresented your position, which I clearly don't understand, but did say above that I thought you were kindly attempting to broker a compromise. Your discussion seemed utterly reasonable up to "OWN", where now I've resisted implementing the agreed section name change compromise to avoid further accusations. (the suggested ab sort I also implemented, which worked with view figures) It was neither you nor I that made an attempt to force anyone's hand with outlandish OWN consensus, but that other editor is the one who lumped you with them in that. Please see the previous RM as the nom was previously scolded for personalising hyperbole. I came here for normal cleanup from the dab project, nothing. This is pretty much the most wikilawyering while devoid of facts and guideline based nom for a primary topic discussion I've seen. I consider it good for readers (despite the low numbers) to keep this dab within the normal MOS/guideline parameters, which turns out to be the status quo. You're spot-on that that is a cold, MOS compliant, scientific approach, which I take as a compliment for such a task as cleaning navigation. (If the furniture needs resetting before the clean, in this case, then best get on with it.) A micro mop (not the real mop around here). I hope you can reread my comments above from that position that the readers matter, not the desires (or good faith attempts to placate their desires) of one outlier editor pushing at two RMs against consensus. "Enough" was shorthand for enough of the personalised, editor based attacks. It's just a dab. (my opinion about utterances from astounding pioneers - characters like Richard Dawkins, and Richard Stallman - are that they expand and demarc the limits of rational debate, but at the self-sacrificing cost of something intangible, the saying comes to mind: "know the price of everything, but the value of nothing". Crucially... why are they always "Richard"s?) Widefox; talk 01:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)