 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Snake pit
editThe entry:
- Loreal pit, the deep depression, or fossa, in the loreal area on either side of the head in a pit viper
looks like a WP:PARTIALMATCH to me. In article Loreal pit it is not referred to solely as "pit" (it is a type of pit). A similar PARTIALMATCH is for Pit viper. In contrast, the Pit bull dog is (at least in the the UK, widely known as a "Pit" - although I concede that's not currently reflected in the article). The weakness of the entry is shored up by including both partial title matches, as neither as referred to (currently in the articles at least) as "pit". Do people refer to them just as a "pit"? If the Loreal pit article was filled out a bit it may be more clear, but it's a stub, and dabs aren't for explaining the connection. There's many types of pit, so it may be useful to keep partials out. Widefox; talk 08:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added both entries to Snake pit (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 09:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Widefox, please click on lacunal scales in Loreal pit and see if the word "pit" is used there all by itself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure - it's a type/example of pit. Another WP:DICTDEF stub with one ref. WP:D "readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek." Is it reasonably likely? It's already linked with both intitle:Pit (gives 344), and containing "Pit" (giving 12 pages, 3 columns each). Balance the idea of listing some of them and all the WP:DABMENTIONs against that reasonably likely. We don't have to list everything, and I bet there's a few more popular ones we need before it. The viper article may be a better candidate, if it's reasonable to expect readers to find it just using "pit"? (I personally don't know it.) I added the Latin dab link just now for instance (which has article(s) with pit mentions). It's not clear to me that a lot of the entries already should be listed, possibly there's room for either a further clearout, or consolidating with a WP:BROADCONCEPT for the indent. You may want to get more opinions at the project. Widefox; talk 22:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)