Talk:Plute

Untitled

Bkonrad If you wish to change the result, you can either start another RfD or I can reopen the old one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I've no interest in changing the results of the RfD. An RfD discussion is not a permanent binding decision that prevents any further changes to the topic. The proposed disambiguation page completely fails WP:disambiguation guidelines in that not a single entry so much as mentions the term. That is unacceptable regardless of the outcome of any backwater RfD. If you or any other editor (including participants in the RfD discussion) want to improve the existing articles such that disambiguation guidelines are satisfied, the soft redirect can easily be changed. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Each of the entries are "synonyms" of their targets so WP:DABMENTION doesn't apply. – Uanfala (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I see no indication in the linked articles that support a claim of being a synonym. That does not constitute an exemption from WP:DABMENTION. Without supporting mentions, any claim of being a synonym is simply WP:OR. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Atleast plute as plutocrat is easy to verify - [1]. Just because it doesn't exist in the article doesn't mean it is WP:OR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

If references can be produced for the claims, they should be added to the relevant articles. Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not contain any information that is not supported by linked articles. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

All the entries have sources in the html comments. I haven't added any of them to the respective articles because I don't think an article generally needs to list all obscure informal names or old spellings of its topic. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hidden comments aren't helpful for most readers. WP:DABMENTION is clear: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The comments aren't there for the readers, but for the editors :). Cheers – Uanfala (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Which make the links somewhat WP:ASTONISHing for readers. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Except that it's a synonym, so DABMENTION doesn't apply. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Where is the exemption for synonyms from WP:DABMENTION? older ≠ wiser 16:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As the guideline starts: If a topic does not have an article of its own... (emphasis added). – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the topic is "plute", which does not have any article of it's own. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Applicability of WP:DABMENTION inviting additional opinions. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And behold, your net has snared at least one editor from that project. I actually don't think that DABMENTION was intended to be applied to synonyms since one could argue that the entire linked article supplies the reader with information on the topic. However, I do use DABMENTION as a litmus test for DAB entries and believe there's good reason to do so. If the term is truly such an "obscure synonym" as to not bear mentioning in the target article then I would say it doesn't require a DAB entry either. If, on the other hand, the term gets enough use that a significant number of readers are going to search on it, then that seems like good information to include in the article (which could be done in as few as three words). Seems to me like the threshold for usefulness of the two inclusions should be very similar. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I basically agree with you. I have in the past argued that Michael Jordan should have an entry on the MJ disambiguation page, regardless of whether the athlete's article described usage of the initials. Although as a result of that discussion, other editors added that information to the article -- so all were satisfied (except perhaps some anti-trivia curmudgeons). In this case, I don't think the synonymy of the term "plute" is all that obvious as both are slang usage and I don't think disambiguation pages should serve as slang glossaries, as that can turn into a very slippery slope. With regards to the Wobbly/IWW usage, this is fairly well-attested and likely should be added to the article on plutocracy. With regards to plutonium, I'd be extraordinarily surprised if reliable sources made any mention of the term "plute" without clarifying that it meant "plutonium". This seems an extremely casual slang. Again, I don't think we want disambiguation pages to become glossaries of slang usage. older ≠ wiser 17:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the use of this term for Plutonium is slang, but the other two uses aren't. – Uanfala (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Peraps your understanding of slang differs from mine, but to me both (plutonium and plutocracy) are pretty clearly slang. The third usage is simply obscure archaism. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

older ≠ wiser is entirely correct on every point as far as I can tell. See also WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOT#DICT. We should not have pages existing for random alleged slang that virtually no one uses. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE also covers this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned this up per WP:MOSDAB, which left it empty, so I tagged it for further cleanup, since in its current state it is useless since there is no Wikipedia ambiguity. Alternatively, it could be made into a soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Found some mentions, surnames mostly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ Not sure how there is no wikipedia ambiguity. Why have you removed the entries? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Because, as mentioned several times, the linked articles didn't mention "plute". If the Wikipedia article doesn't cover the topic, then the topic isn't ambiguous on Wikipedia. MOS:DABMENTION again. At any time if the linked articles are edited to cover "plute", then (and only then) they can be restored to the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a synonym so there's no need to have mentions Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's been explained at length (although not everyone agrees) that the guidance in WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB on synonymns does not apply in this case. In it's present form this is purely and simply an invalid disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Galobtter, picture the user who searches for "plute", lands on this disambiguation page, selected the article that supposedly will provide the information on the topic they sought, searches for "plute" in the page, and cannot find it. WP:SURPRISE! Much, much, much simpler and better for the encyclopedia user experience to just add the info to the article if it is indeed encyclopedic information. And until then, to treat it as unencyclopedic information (in that, it's not in the encyclopedia) and not jerk the reader around. The guidelines on synonyms do not contradict the guidelines on mentions or surprise (or dictionary or slang) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? How is it a surprise. The readers finds the information they are looking for - that plute is an informal synonym for plutonium and if they were looking for what it means, they find the definition of plutonium Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm? I get "no matches" when I search for "plute" on those articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And???????? The reader still can find out from the dab entry which explains things that plute is an informal synonym. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I see the problem. Dab pages are navigational, non-article pages. If we have to provide information in a dab page that is nowhere else in the encyclopedia, we've made a mistake somewhere. But luckily, as I've repeated, the mistake here is easily corrected: add the information to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, a user reads on the dab page that "plute" is an informal synonym for "Plutonium" and when they then go to the article about plutonium they will think "OMG! Where am I?". I know interactions with editors who edit dab pages might really distort one's perception of what people are normally like, but our readers are nowhere near that thick-headed. – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Think we'll need an RfC on this, probably more usefully on the general question.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how surprising it is, but the usage is unattested in the linked article and it is a dangerously slippery slope if we open disambiguation pages up to including slang definitions that are not supported by verifiable sources in the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 16:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The general question already has a consensus in WP:MOSDAB. Again, there's an easy path forward within all the guidelines: add the info to the articles to be linked. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Uanfala please also see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The discussion you reference resulted in a keep as dab for this page. It is now kept as a dab and edited to follow the dab guidelines. If you disagree with those guidelines, WT:MOSDAB is your avenue for pursuit, not editing this page contrary to the guidelines based on some perceived WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which, even it had been formed, should yield to the broader consensus). -- JHunterJ (talk)

It's definitely not clear that DABMENTION applies here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It definitely is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is. If the claimed usage isn't so much as mentioned in the linked article, it has no place on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)