Talk:Sundries

Should include an example of usage in everyday speech

Since that is where "sundry" is used far more often than in its older usages.

64.134.147.53 (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the redirect. One of those things is not a definition but a potential article. And Sundries are also 5-and-10 cent store objects, so the redirect should stay. I had no idea that it had anything to do with sports, so people need to be open to other uses. Saudade7 04:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:DISAMBIGUATION to read about the purpose of a disambiguation page: to disambiguate topics covered by Wikipedia articles. The cricket term is a topic referred to as "sundries" and covered by a Wikipedia article. Since there appear to be no other topics that meet that definition, the disambiguation page serves no purpose. Providing a definition that is not covered by a Wikipedia article, and listing some examples of that definition, is not disambiguating a topic covered by a Wikipedia article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've reverted Theoldsparkle's revert. Indeed, please do see WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:MOSDAB. Sundries is an ambiguous generic term and should remain a disambiguation page. The more common usage is covered by the linked articles. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

From WP:D: "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article." Aside from the cricket article, which of these other four articles describe the term "sundries"? Two of them don't use the word at all. The other two say, respectively, "Dry goods are products such as textiles, ready-to-wear clothing, and sundries" which gives no clue whatsoever as to what "sundries" means ("Sundries are some dry goods that aren't textiles or ready-to-wear clothing"?), and "There is some small distinction between personal hygienic items and cosmetics, which are luxury goods solely used for beautification, but in practice such sundries are most often intermixed in retail store aisles," which only says that both personal hygiene items and cosmetics are in this category of things called "sundries."

Aside from the fact that this content clearly doesn't meet the standards or guidelines for a disambiguation page, there's the fact that someone looking up this usage of sundries isn't going to find any more information than a dictionary definition, which is why their need would be best met by looking in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, you could just start an article about the "miscellaneous small things" definition, and link to that, instead of trying to add article content to the disambiguation page and pretend that it's disambiguating. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Or we could leave it as a disambiguation page, which would be of the greatest benefit for most users, rather than redirecting to en extremely specialized usage. AFAIC, the use of sundry/sundries as contained in the linked articles satisfies the requirements for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, except for the requirement that for each usage, a single link is provided that describes that usage. If you pretend that means that for each usage, the disambiguation page itself should provide a definition that isn't contained anywhere else on Wikipedia (and is thus unsourced) and list some examples of that definition, then yes, the requirement is certainly satisfied. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand -- each of the links has a usage related to the term. They should each of them be included on the page. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dry goods and personal care use the term, but they do not provide any substantial information about the term. The definition you've added to the page, "Miscellaneous small items, usually of no large value and too numerous to mention separately", is not present and cannot be reasonably derived from the two articles you've linked. Disambiguation pages are intended to aid in navigating Wikipedia content; they are not intended to add content, as you are adding content by inserting this definition that doesn't exist in any article and cannot be sourced because disambiguation pages do not include references.

If the cricket usage did not exist, and the "miscellaneous small item" usage was the only meaning of the term, we would not reasonably redirect sundries to either of these articles in order to inform the user about what sundries are. And the page is including two separate bluelinks for the same usage; must I quote the guideline that specifies only one bluelink per entry? And please don't argue that putting the two links in separate bullets isn't a violation of that guideline. They're clearly supporting the same usage, and it's no more valid than

• "Dark Star" (song)

• By the Grateful Dead

Understanding any of this? (BTW, even though it's clear there's no purpose in doing so, I'll point out another way you could include this content that would be less ridiculous than what you're gunning for: you could add your definition to one of those articles -- which should be easy and natural, since those articles are already about that definition, right? -- and then that article could be the single bluelink for an entry here about that usage. But this time I'm not going to do your work for you.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you say, but I think you are wrong. For the vast majority of people, sundries has nothing to do with cricket and redirecting them to that page would be a disservice. Prior to today, every single article that linked to this page was NOT intended for the cricket sense of the term. Frankly, it would be better if this were a soft redirect to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that your concern is that people come to this page (presumably) seeking the non-cricket usage, and that you want to meet the need of those users. What I don't understand is your insistence that the only way to do that is to place a dictionary definition on the disambiguation page. Just because you have a reasonable goal (it's not a goal that I share, because I think people should be able to cope with the idea that an encyclopedia and a dictionary are different and that not every common word in the English language has an encyclopedia entry, but I can understand it) does not mean that the disambiguation guidelines accommodate meeting that goal in that single specific way. I am okay with the content existing on Wikipedia, essentially anywhere in article space, and linking to it from the disambiguation page. I am not okay with just plunking it into the disambiguation page because you think it needs to be there even though disambiguation pages are supposed to simply be guides to article-space content.

I have been attempting to work with you and compromise on this; I'm not seeing any indication that you're interested in the same. In the past, I've made the choice to back off from disputes with you rather than undertake difficult conversation. I've since decided that I don't want to try to work on Wikipedia under the mindset that as soon as I run into you, I should just let you have your way no matter how weak I may find your reasoning or what the effect is on the page, which is why I've taken the time here to try to talk about this productively. I hope you agree that the best result would be one that we both find acceptable. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, I think the entries currently on the page are acceptable under WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. The use of the term is supported by the linked terms and this is typically all that is required for an entry on a disambiguation page. The page you created at Sundries (miscellaneous items), is by your own estimation a useless article. There is no benefit for anyone to move those entries off of the disambiguation page to such a useless article. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring everything else for the moment in the hope of a speedy response: why not move the content to an existing article, as I suggested previously? Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And what article would you suggest? No one article is really appropriate. Linking to the uesless, and somewhat redundantly titled, Sundries (miscellaneous items) is unnacceptable. I cannot fathom how you see that as an improvement to the encyclopedia, regardless of myopically rigid interpretation of guidelines. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sundries are items found in a hotel like a shower cap or sewing kit. 2001:5B0:292B:1F98:74A0:2ECD:C8D9:B6BD (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines

Below is a list of points from the disambiguation guidelines that I find to be relevant here, and which are violated by this version of the disambiguation page. Most of them specifically support the point that a disambiguation page is intended to link users to content in Wikipedia articles. I see nothing supporting the idea that a disambiguation page should provide definitions of a usage, with two bluelinks to articles that use the word without defining it. (All emphases are mine.):

From WP:D:

• "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles."

From WP:MOSDAB:

• "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia article on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term...Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching."

• "After the introductory line comes a list of individual entries – lines which direct the readers to Wikipedia articles on the various topics which might be referenced by the term being disambiguated. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily."

• "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term."

• "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."

• "References should not appear on disambiguation pages. Dab pages are not articles; instead, incorporate the references into the target articles." (This is not being violated here, but the guideline reflects that content on dab pages should come from articles, because in the articles, the content can be referenced.)

It has been repeatedly suggested that I am being too rigid in my interpretation of the guidelines; I find that accusation dubious when the introduction of both guidelines specifically defines the purpose of disambiguation as disambiguating content that is in Wikipedia articles. The fact that something can be interpreted as "disambiguating" does not mean that it is in compliance with the purpose of a disambiguation page or the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not see that the page violates any of these. I am open to suggestions on how to present and organize the page, but I reject the proposal to shuffle mentions of what are essentially the primary uses off to a separate page or to turn this page into a redirect. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume this primarily goes back to your apparent view that "an article that covers a topic" is the same as "an article that uses a word." How can you say that the article Dry goods covers the topic of "sundries" when you also say that that article would not be an appropriate location to provide even a definition of that topic? Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(My comment above was replying to an earlier version of User:Bkonrad's response, before he reiterated that he will oppose any instance of a disambiguation page linking to an article about the topic, which is what disambiguation pages are supposed to do, instead of just defining the topic on the dab page. Yeah. Now it's fair to say that discussion has stalled. I'm going to stop this for awhile.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I will qualify my response in that miracles are possible and perhaps someone can make Sundries (miscellaneous items) into a legitimate encyclopedic article beyond a dictionary definition or unreferenced list. I doubt it though as it is merely a pointy creation. In typical usage, the term sundry or sundries is a shorthand synonym for various types of things such as small dry goods or toiletries or any number of things (including accounting entries). An article reiterating a definition and a list is not helpful. Links to the term should either be to updated to link to wikitionary or directly to one of the types of items for which sundries is shorthand. Leaving the entries on the disambiguation page facilitates this. Removing them helps no one. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever actually look at the incoming links to this page (or, like the links you added back to the page, did you just assume you knew what they said)? There are two articles that link to this page, and one is talking about an album by that title (which I would have added to the dab page, except that I can't find evidence it exists). (Also, incidentally, I'll add that my creation of the article was not pointy. It was a sincere attempt to preserve the content I thought you wanted to preserve, in a place where it's not wholly inappropriate, as it is on the disambiguation page. It's useless here because it doesn't serve the purpose of disambiguating content found in Wikipedia articles. It's useless there because it's a dictionary definition and this is an encyclopedia.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I looked at the incoming links. I fixed nearly all of them from articles, except two (and none of the links were for the cricket sense). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're under the mistaken impression that I have some particular affinity for the cricket sense. For purposes of clarification: My initial redirect came after I found the article in the cleanup category, where it had been tagged as needing cleanup since August 2011 (which apparently didn't concern you), and when I went to clean it up, I found that the cricket sense was the only linked article that met the requirements for disambiguation, i.e., the only article that provided any meaningful information about something referred to as "sundries," so I naturally redirected it rather than leave a disambiguation page with only a single entry. (Also, on the subject of clarification, it probably would have been logical for you to mention, in your repeated discussion of incoming links, that you'd already changed most of the incoming links that were here before. It also would have made sense for you to mention here that you had posted at the WP:D talk page about this discussion.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did earlier imply, though perhaps not explicitly say what I had done with the incoming links. Redirecting as result of cleanup is perhaps understandable, though a rather extreme, option, and certainly not the only option. The editor who added the cleanup tag did not indicate any specific concerns, although there were numerous MOSDAB issues at the time which had been addressed short of redirection. I had meant to mention the posting at WP:D here, but I got distracted and you had already come across it on your own by then. older ≠ wiser 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case

I presume we can all agree on the following:

1. The point of disambiguation is to get people searching for a topic using a given term to the article about the topic they are seeking as quickly and directly as reasonably possible.
2. Anyone searching with the term "sundries" or "sundry" (Sundry redirects to Sundries) is likely to be looking for an article about the miscellaneous items meaning of the term, probably more likely than the cricket meaning of the term.
3. We don't have an article about the miscellaneous items meaning of the term that is titled "Sundries" or some derivative thereof.
4. We do have articles about topics very closely related to the miscellaneous items meaning of the term that are titled Dry goods and Toiletries respectively.
5. These topics are so closely related that if we did not have an article about the cricket use of the term, then Sundries would either be a redirect to Dry goods or Toiletries, or would be a dab page with links to each.
6. Because the miscellaneous item use of Sundries would have representation (as redirect or dab) in WP even without an article on the cricket use, this use must be considered in deciding whether there is a primary topic for "Sundries".
7. Giving due consideration to the miscellaneous item use per Point 6, the cricket use, Sundry (cricket), has no claim on being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Sundries". Therefore, Sundries should not be the article about the cricket use, nor should it redirect to it.

Combining points 5 and 7 indicates that Sundries should be dab page with links to Dry goods, Toiletries and Sundry (cricket).

This is an interesting case because it involves impure synonyms, if you will, and I don't think the disambiguation policies and guidelines fully consider such cases, but I stand by my reasoning as being supported by the underlying goals of naming and disambiguation supported by broad consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your weighing in. It wasn't clear to me whether you had seen the page I created at Sundries (miscellaneous items) as a hoped-for compromise, so I wanted to point out that, technically, we do at the moment have an article about that meaning. I don't agree that either dry goods or toiletries would be a reasonable redirect target if the cricket usage didn't exist, but I'm willing to accept the outside opinion I asked for.

Bkonrad and I have a secondary dispute, about the phrasing of the cricket entry, that I don't think you addressed, and I would appreciate it if you could do so. As I quoted above, WP:MOSDAB says:

The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.

I do not remotely think that the below description meets the spirit or the letter of that guideline:

• Sundry (cricket), an alternate name for an extra, a run scored by a means other than a batsman hitting the ball

There's one cricket usage. Someone looking for the cricket term is going to be able to figure out that the article titled Sundry (cricket) is the article they're seeking about the cricket term. If the guidelines meant, "The description associated with a link should be lengthy enough to provide a full and complete definition of the topic," I think that's what the guidelines would say. I think the title is, indeed, sufficient, although I would be okay with something like "a sports term", but I do not see how the wording of the guideline can be construed to support using the definition currently in use. But, as with the other matter, I'd be willing to accept your outside opinion, in this case. (Although perhaps I should disclose that regardless of how this page turns out, I may start a general discussion about that guideline on the MOS talk page.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the Sundry (cricket) title alone is a sufficient description for the dab page entry and consistent with what we generally do on dab pages.

Sorry, but I do think Sundries (miscellaneous items) is obviously contrived and is a good candidate for AfD. Its entire content belongs on the Sundries dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that was your opinion, but did want to verify. Since it appears the page won't be used, I'll request speedy-delete. Make no mistake, I do not think it's a good article and I only suggested it because I would have rather seen the content placed in article space, even in a dumb article, than on a dab page. On the other hand, it does seem to me to be on the same par with a lot of really shit dictionary-definition articles that I've tried to get deleted in the past but haven't been able to (and admittedly there's a part of me that kinda wants to see it go to AFD just to see if the same people show up to say "How dare you nominate such a clearly notable topic! It can be expanded! Surely if we let this completely worthless piece of crap sit around for five or ten years, someone will eventually come along and turn it into something amazing!" But I'll suppress that urge).

Anyway, I genuinely appreciate your providing input so that a consensus could be reached, and I'll respect it. I hope Bkonrad will accept the consensus on the cricket entry's phrasing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave the description alone, although I find the compulsion to only use an absolute minimalist description rather misguided. It's been my experience that where a term is a redirect, the description usually contains some indication of that. Consider the example given in WP:MOSDAB: James Carrey or Jim Carrey (born 1962), Canadian actor. Surely the redundant "or Jim Carrey" is excessive by minimalist standards, no? Or the similarly excessive example of School (discipline) or school of thought, a number of individuals with shared styles, approaches or aims, in which the redundant "or school of thought" merely indicates the actual title of the linked article. older ≠ wiser 19:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The point, I think, is to have enough distinction in the title + description so that the person looking for the given use will be able to easily and quickly identify it. If the others are over-encumbered with unnecessary description, this adds noise that makes it hard to find the right one.

In this case, the person looking for the cricket use will know it's a cricket use, and not a miscellaneous item. The cricket disambiguator is more than enough to confirm that that is the sought use for such a person.

Coincidentally, I just added some descriptive information to the Las Vegas dab page. But there, I put myself into the shoes of someone unfamiliar with the different related uses of the name, and thought there wasn't enough distinction/clarification -- especially with respect to which uses included/excluded the city proper and the strip -- for such a user to determine which is the article he seeks. Now, hopefully, that's clarified better.

But in this case the cricket use is completely distinct, the disambiguator alone more than adequately conveys this already, and so there is no need for additional description information. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)