Talk:Marriage equality (disambiguation)

Dab neded?

This is a case of "Partial title matches" since the two targets have only the word "marriage" in common.--Wloveral (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Marriage equality (disambiguation) → Marriage equality – As per ongoing discussion at Talk:Same-sex marriage, I do not believe that it is NPOV to redirect "marriage equality" directly to same-sex marriage when it could also refer to any other type of marriage that has historically been or is currently illegal, such as interracial marriage, group marriage or incest marriage. Also, users searching "marriage equality" are probably as likely to be searching for one of the particular Marriage Equality Acts listed in the dab as they are for the same-sex marriage article. I do understand that the term is currently notable as referring to the ongoing campaign to legalize same-sex marriage, and I thus I would suggest this edit to the dab page. Crumpled Fire (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Based on the sources used in Same-sex marriage, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term; it refers to legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and so appropriately redirects there as a non-neutral but common alternative name. We aren't interested in what it could be used to refer to, only what it is commonly used to refer to. As Wloveral noted above, we shouldn't actually have a DAB for this term based on the current entries, since they are all partial title matches. I support deleting this DAB and keeping marriage equality as a redirect to Same-sex Marriage.--Trystan (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Marriage equality" could be used to refer to other campaigns, but as the term is currently used, it is universally associated with same-sex marriage. If that changes, obviously this decision can be revisited; also, if we get an article on the campaign for SSM separate from the main SSM article, then that would be a more appropriate target for the "marriage equality" redirect. - htonl (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above; the acts disambiguated are nowhere near as prominent as the general debate. bd2412 T 19:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per above; the term has not been used to refer to those things which you mentioned. It universally refers to adults who have been completely left out of the marriage institution. Additionally, I do support deleting this disambiguation page and keeping marriage equality as a redirect to Same-sex marriage, as noted by Trystan. — Teammm..talk.. 21:10, 30 May 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

DAB lacking link to primary topic

We have a rather odd situation here, with a disambiguation page lacking a link to its primary topic. Per MOS:DABPRIMARY, the primary topic should be linked to in the opening sentence of the dab page. Because in this case the primary topic article uses a different title, as with the example in the Manual of Style for Cosmonaut (disambiguation), the link to the primary topic should be through the redirect. This version of the dab page conformed the Manual of Style; the current version does not.

Just as a general point, I can't think of any reason why x (disambiguation) wouldn't link to the primary topic x. The primary topic is, almost by definition, the most important link for a disambiguation page. Is there some reason to depart from that guideline here?--Trystan (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, but what exactly is the primary topic and if there is none then perhaps the disambiguation page is not appropriate as such pages are meant for the exact same title or phrase and this is not that. This just adds pages that have the word in the title. Do we even need this disambiguation page. A piped link is surely not the proper way to add a primary topic is it? I don't believe so. Would it not be our own bias or point of view to state that Same sex marriage is the primary topic here if that is not even the title of the page. See WP:CONCEPTDAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page.

and

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

I fail to see where the topic of marriage equality is even sectioned or discussed at Same sex marriage and seems very much the point of view that could be seen a biased. This is not going to be popular...but it is neutral.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in the RM above, I agree that this disambiguation page could be deleted, as it is mostly partial title matches. While it remains, it should link to the primary topic (the one destination that isn't a partial title match). Not through a piped link, but through the redirect Marriage equality, as set out in MOS:DABPRIMARY.

The term marriage equality is used 23 times in the Same-sex marriage article, which clearly establishes as a term used by proponents to refer to the recognition of same-sex marriage. Barring sources that establish some other common meaning for the term, that would seem to be its primary topic.

You are right that it is not a neutral term. It doesn't need to be neutral to be a redirect; it's a non-neutral but common name (see WP:POVTITLE and WP:RNEUTRAL). We don't want to respond to readers saying "I'm looking for an article on marriage equality," by saying "You aren't using neutral language, therefore we aren't going to direct you to the relevant article."--Trystan (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - we don't have to say that same-sex marriage is a form of marriage equality to neutrally report that supporters call it that. That is sufficient to meet WP:DABMENTION. As for the page contents, we could create a separate disambiguation page at Marriage Equality Act (which currently redirects here) and move just the titles containing "Act" there. bd2412 T 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah...interesting. Yes...correction, not a piped link, a redirect. Now, I have to agree with two points, first that this disambiguation page could be deleted, my reasoning is simply, it doesn't seem entirely accurate or encyclopedic and seems a little biased to me as an 'insider' not an outsider. However, I also agree that we might want to, either move this page to Marriage Equality Act (disambiguation) and go from there or create that page and clean this one up as much as possible. I am not really sure "Marriage equality" alone needs to be a disambiguation page.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)