TechnoSquirrel69

Closure of discussion on Turkish baths disambiguation

Hi, thank you for your interest in this discussion, even though I disagree strongly with your closure. I had thought, as an editing newbie, of instantly reverting it. However, after more mature consideration, it seemed that it might be more productive (and certainly more polite) to discuss the matter with you first.

My initial reaction was that closure was inappropriate because I could see not see that any consensus (by any definition of the term) had been reached. And although 'consensus' has specifically been distinguished from 'majority', it is interesting to note that four contributors approved the idea of change, while only three preferred to keep.

Much more important, however, is that the use of the term 'primary topic' in the discussion by the "keepers", and by yourself in your closure, seems to indicate that a different problem was being discussed from that discussed by those calling for a change. Could I explain what I mean because, to me, this is not a contest, but an attempt to ensure that seekers of information on Wikipedia, especially those who are not experienced editors or administrators, find what they are seeking in the easiest, quickest way. There are actually two discrete issues here, which seem to have been confused:

1. The name of a subject has several different names or several different forms.

aubergine, eggplant

hammam, حمّام, ḥammām, hamam, hmam)

poisonous substance, poison

In these examples, each term is either a synonymous variant name, or a different grammatical form of a name of the same subject. We therefore choose the one most frequently used (where, perhaps, the number of searches made is a useful guide) and redirect the searcher from unused terms to the preferred term. This saves the searcher time by avoiding an intermediate ‘See:’ reference.

2. Two completely different subjects are members of a group, or have (historically or currently) been referred to by the same name, in addition to their currently preferred name.

strawberry, loganberry (different types of berry)

Hammam, Victorian Turkish baths (different types of hot-air baths)

In these examples, the terms are not synonyms, but individually separate and distinct subjects, so comparing the number of searches made for each is entirely irrelevant. Instead, we need to disambiguate them (ie, identify which meaning of a term is used in context) by leading searchers immediately to a page (such as Turkish Bath (disambiguation)—but preferably without the here unnecessary word ‘disambiguation’—which page perfectly defines the alternatives available, and enables them to reach the page they want.

As Wikipedia says in its guidance, disambiguation is for “Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." (My emphasis, though I would prefer the word 'subject' to 'topic'.)

When, instead of giving searchers an opportunity to find which of the alternative subjects they want, we redirect one of the subjects to a completely different subject, we are at the same time actively redirecting them away from the other subject. This is not a Wikipedia favoured neutral approach; it can even be seen as the beginning of a form of censorship.

Referring to the case specifically being discussed here, at present, all searches for “Turkish baths” are automatically redirected to Hammam. If this situation continues unchanged, then for Wikipedia to be consistent, searches for the film Steam: The Turkish Bath, and the painting The Turkish Bath by Ingres (and subjects like Trollope’s short story which does not yet have a Wikipedia article) should also be automatically redirected to Hammam. But we don’t do this because although, like Victorian Turkish baths, they may have been inspired by the hammam, they are different subjects.

I must apologise for the length of this posting, but I do hope that it will encourage you to revert your closure so that I may make a final attempt to explain the difference between these two issues and ask again for the redirect to be changed to a DAB. Best wishes, Ishpoloni (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 23 § Turkish bath, mostly for my reference later. Ishpoloni, thanks for your message; I'm currently traveling and can't get back to you at the moment. I'll get a response to you sometime tomorrow. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"::" Thank you so much for letting me know. There's no instant hurry. Ishpoloni (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ishpoloni: I appreciate you for starting a conversation here before taking other action. I want to start by clarifying my role as the closer of the discussion. Closers try not to bring their personal opinions into their decisions when considering discussions; if I had an opinion to share, I would probably just participate in the discussion myself. As such, there isn't much use trying to convince me of your viewpoint here, as whether or not my opinion changes, my decision will remain the same as it pertains strictly to the weighing of arguments as they relate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, presented by other editors within the discussion. I also want to note that deletion discussions are not a vote, so even though there were more editors who !voted to retarget, two of those were simple "per nominator" comments which did not substantially contribute to the discussion. Getting to the substance of your message, you are correct in saying that the two issues you have identified are quite distinct and require different solutions, but I have no reason to believe any of the other editors confused one for the other here. We're clearly within the scope of the second point you identified: the term Turkish bath is ambiguous, and could refer to one of several subjects. However, a disambiguation page is not always the best solution in these situations; in fact, reading a bit further from the section of the disambiguation guideline you quoted reveals a note about exactly that, which is expanded later in the page. Taking from the relevant section: "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead ..." Discussion participants presented solid arguments about the amount and nature of traffic that the relevant articles receive as well as how the term is used in scholarship which, to me, indicated firm consensus to regard hammams as the primary topic. I thus made the decision to keep Turkish bath pointed at that article, serving as a "primary redirect". If you feel that my summary of the discussion was not accurate, feel free to open a deletion review, which will allow the community to reconsider my decision and overturn it if necessary. If you have any other questions about this, please let me know; I'm happy to help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"::""::" @TechnoSquirrel69: Thank you for taking the time to reply so fully to my request, though I am, of course, extremely disappointed. In fact I was not trying to convince you of my view, but trying to provide a logical reason for you to reopen the discussion, and I did mention my understanding of the difference between consensus and majority.

Perhaps rather facetiously I am tempted to ask why we do not redirect 'Loganberry' to 'Apple' since, although they are both different fruits, more people look up apple than loganberry so it must be the "primary topic". 'Topic', as opposed to 'subject', is a word used confusedly throughout Wikipedia's guidance notes, and especially in the section you refer to.

I will take some time to decide what to do about this, though I suspect I will just bow out. When one reaches one's ninetieth year one tends to assess very carefully how one spends one's remaining time. I have spent three months of this period writing the first three-quarters of an article, after waiting two years in case anyone else wrote it; at the moment I cannot see the point of spending any more time on completing an article which prople are actively being turned away from reading, in favour of an article on a totally different subject.

I don't, by the way, take this personally but—as a retired librarian—as a blow to those seeking the simplest access from those who seem to prefer an arcane mystical code of rules.

I must end, however, with genuinely grateful thanks to you for having spent your own time on the issue. Best wishes. Ishpoloni (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"::""::" @TechnoSquirrel69: I thought I'd let you know that after considering the matter carefully for a while, I've decided to call it a day. In case anyone else wishes to finish the article I've added my intended headings for other sections to the Victorian Turkish baths talk page which may be of some help although there are, of course, other aspects which could also be covered. Thanking you again for your interest. Ishpoloni (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ishpoloni: I appreciate you for your work on that article. I hope this episode has not overly discouranged you from the project, and that you come back to work on it sometime later. I forgot to mention it earlier, but if you feel that this discussion could do with a round 2, you can reminate the Turkish bath at RfD after some time has passed (at least a few months). Besides, there are other ways to being reader attention towards your work. For example, if the article meets the criteria, you may nominate it to be a good article, which would make it eligible to be featured in the Did you know? section on the Main Page. I wish you the best whichever you decide; let me know if I can be of any other help! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, again, Buster7! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Administrator changes

Isabelle Belato

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

Interface administrator changes

Izno

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today foryour share of Worlds (Porter Robinson album), introduced: "After becoming popular as an electronic dance music artist, Porter Robinson eventually grew weary of the style, writing his debut album Worlds in an attempt to break the conventions of the culture. The album used a novel blend of influences to evoke a sense of grandeur and nostalgia over the pounding bass music of Robinson's discography prior." — I have a FAC open, different kind of music ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, Gerda! I've been in a mood to do some reviewing lately, so I'll give your FAC a read through and likely leave some comments in the process. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's lovely, thank you! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Precious

castle in the sky

Thank you for quality articles such as Worlds (Porter Robinson album), Castle in the Sky, List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron, Nurture (album) and The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel), for writing in collaboration, for quality reviewing, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2949 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Gerda; I'm honored! On the point of "quality reviewing", I hadn't originally planned to keep you waiting for this long — the source review is on its way, I promise! :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

14 August 2023

Hi, many thanks for getting in touch about Draft:Adam Supyk. I have created the draft but did not move it to main space, in fact I was totally unaware that it had been, so it might be worth you checking the history and contacting whoever did that. Best wishes. G Hildreth gazzard (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Hildreth gazzard! I have indeed reached out to the editor who made the move, but I thought you would benefit from a notification as the draft creator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yeah no problem makes sense, I just realised in fact that happened multiple times today with drafts that are borderline-ready at best. I’m sure they were just being helpful (but I hope I don’t get pinged for every one). Hildreth gazzard (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I figured the template spam might be bothersome for you, so I only sent you a notification for the first one I reviewed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Opawa

Hello TechnoSquirrel69, You have been paired at good article review circles to review Opawa. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#Circle #8.

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"Keep On"

Techno, in that article title where you downcased "on" as a preposition, it's actually part of the phrasal verb "keep on", and per numerous precedents, we capitalize those (you can find a bunch of precedents using a search like this). You should fix. Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done; good catch, Dicklyon! Thanks for letting me know about this, and I learned a new grammar concept because of it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Snow Queen (Kernaghan novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rollinginhisgrave -- Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)