Talk:Pain (disambiguation)

Philosophy

Not a huge issue, but "a subject of interest in philosophy" doesn't really say anything. Yes, not everyone will know what qualia are, but it at least describes the topic of the article.

As for Suffering, eh, I'll admit that my summary was a bit fluffy as well, but it seems somewhat better than nothing. SnowFire 21:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For Suffering, see MoS:DAB#Synonyms : pain is often a synonym of suffering, and there is no use to add anything in such a case.

For Pain (philosophy), we should probably say something like "Pain is often referred to in philosophical discussions concerning qualia and the fundamental nature of human experience.". But on second thoughts, what's the use to refer to philosophy of pain in a disambiguation page? So, I think we should simply remove it. Robert Daoust 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant that you can cite MoS:DAB there on synonyms. I actually don't agree with that part of the style guide anyway, but I don't think it even applies here anyway. If they were truly synonyms, then they should be the same article or at least have one be a spin-off of the other article, which they aren't.

As for philosophy, I can't agree either. That's exactly the point of disambiguation pages, different senses of the word. In fact, since it uses the exact same word but with a disambiguating parentheses, it is in a sense the most deserving entry. Look at, say, Will for example. I see your point about it being linked from the main pain article, but it's sufficiently different (and not a direct spinoff) that I think it merits a link. SnowFire 22:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss some more. Your example with 'Will' is good, but have a look at Wikipedia A-Z Index at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&from=Paige_Kreegel : will you disambiguate all those occurrences of pain? ;-) If you insist, go ahead but please include both parts: "philosophical discussions concerning qualia and the fundamental nature of human experience".

You say you don't agree with that part of the style guide: bad argument! I think personally that it does apply here. There are no really 'true' synonyms in language, each word having a bit of difference in its meaning. Moreover, I think that the pain article is somewhat a spin-off of the suffering article, pain being one among other kinds of suffering. Robert Daoust 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we disambiguate all the ones that someone might reasonably looking for when they type in "pain?" Why yes, yes we should. Length is not a concern. (A lot of the All Pages items aren't likely meanings of "Pain" though; it's highly unlikely that someone wanting the Pro-Wrestling talk show Pain Clinic would type in "Pain.").

As for the style guide, I assure you that I am well aware that style guidelines are not broken without reason. However, if you read what I said again, I said that even if I agreed with that particular guideline, I don't think it applies here as the words are sufficiently distinct. That is my argument (which you have responded to as well, but please don't misrepresent my position). SnowFire 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Minor note, browser cut off in latest edit, summary should have been "Let's try this."

Sorry, I did not intent to misrepresent your position at all, but I realize that it looks like that! My sentences were not well enough separated. I meant that on the one hand you don't agree with that part of the style guide and that's too bad, while on the other hand you think it does not apply while I think it does... This being said, don't you agree that pain is a very important synonym of suffering? I think a lot people will go to see pain while in fact they do not mean 'physical pain' but 'mental suffering'. Thus, suffering should be in the first place after 'an unpleasant sensation'.

Besides, I wonder why you restrict philosophy of pain to philosophical discussions concerning qualia, without referring to the even more important discussion concerning the fundamental nature of human experience. In fact, this question is closely related to the preceding one: philosophers often speak of pain when they actually mean suffering... There are few more ambiguous terms in English than pain and suffering! Robert Daoust 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of disambiguation guidelines

I would like to understand. Wikipedia:DAB#Partial_title_matches says: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion). Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Can someone be caught in confusion while looking for philosophy of pain? Well, the person who types pain cannot expect to be brought to Pain (philosophy), and Pain (disambiguation) is not the place for search indices. In fact, the person should type "pain philosophy" or "philosophy of pain" and click Search. Then, why include Pain (philosophy) in Pain (disambiguation)? And if it is included, then, why not many others? If we look at the alphabetical index of articles at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AAllPages&from=Pain&namespace=0, there are more than a hundred titles, not counting those pages that do not begin by pain, like Chronic pain : which one should figure in Pain (disambiguation)? --Robert Daoust (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the article was named Philosophy of pain - and, in fact, if it should be re-titled please do so. My understanding of parenthetical adjectives is that it means (in this case) Pain, in terms of philosophy. Just as we properly list Pain, in terms of the American band or Pain, in terms of the album. No, we should not include Pain & Paper, Pain Is Love, and similar partial matches on the alphabetical index (although I have run into editors who feel terms like that do belong). In your example of one searching for Pain (philosophy), I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume one would type "Pain" into wiki's search. That would bring them to Pain which shows a link to Pain (disambiguation) in its heading. In short, the whole idea of disambiguation pages is that ANY article (or redirect) named Topic (adjective) belongs on Topic (disambiguation). Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. You would include Pain (philosophy), but not Pain management or Chronic pain. I can agree with that. As to redirects, I am not sure that you mean to include Pain (biological), Pain (biology), Pain (journal), Pain (physical)... Or should these redirects be renamed? --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I should clarify that I meant redirects that go to articles not already linked. Since Pain (biological) goes to Pain which is already listed, right - there is no reason to include it. But I'd actually include Pain (journal) seeing as it's an unlisted article destination and the term "Pain" is further explained in the target article. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

TOC location

Now as to the TOC location, I was following WP:MoSDAB#Longer lists which says to use {{TOCright}} for longer lists. I realize "longer" is purposefully vague, but I wasn't sure if you were aware of this point. If you don't feel the page is too long, I can live with a normal TOC. Hoof Hearted (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pain as suffering

Thank you Abtract for your invitation to discuss. I believe Pain (disambiguation) should first and foremost have a link to Pain for physical pain, and to Suffering for pain in the broad sense. Don't you agree? If no, why? If yes, how would you do it? --Robert Daoust (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Pain is clearly the primary topic (both because it is at the "root" of this dab page and through common sense) - this is why it should be shown (as I put it) as the lead line "Pain is etc ... ". Suffering is not as clear because the article is not titled anything like "pain" and dab pages are to disambiguate between articles named like the term being dabbed (or something very similar) not for concepts based on the primary meaning; this is why I have put it in the "see also" section. This is all covered in mos:dab. I do see your point about "suffering" but I still think it is better where I have it. Abtract (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Pain is the primary topic, and should be shown on the lead line. But Suffering should come immediately after, by all means. I disagree that "dab pages are to disambiguate between articles named like the term being dabbed (or something very similar)": I cannot see that on mos:dab, where I see rather that "Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." The term pain is ambiguous to a high degree because it has two main meanings that are often mixed up: pain in the broad sense, and pain in the sense of physical pain. Some people would like to have only one article for those two meanings, but others consider that each meaning is sufficiently different and important to have its own article. So, presently we have the article Pain (formerly called Pain and nociception) which begins by "Pain, in the sense of physical pain,[1] is a typical sensory experience...", and the article Suffering which begins by "Suffering, or pain,[1] is an individual's basic affective experience..." It must be noted, then, that suffering is NOT a concept based on the primary meaning of pain, it is pain itself under another name, or synonym. So, people looking for pain at Pain (disambiguation) should be able to find readily not only physical pain, but also suffering. That may not be simple, but it seems important. Is there something that I do not catch? --Robert Daoust (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point; I have moved three entries to the top. Abtract (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! The page just looks fine now. Thanks. --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, on closer scrutiny, it appeared that Pain (journal) was not in the right section, and that Pain (philosophy) is not so important as to figure in the lead section, because what is called philosophy of pain nowadays is actually a narrow technical investigation on certain aspects of physical pain. --Robert Daoust (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pain of excommunication

There is also a legal use of the term pain, as a synonym for sanction, such as in the expression pain of excommunication. A similar term in Latin is poena, and another in French is peine. ADM (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)