Misplaced Pages

Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:00, 20 December 2019 editUbcule (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,049 edits The response given here was started before you reverted the page, and is how I would have responded otherwise. (I disagree that you have the right to revert the page like that. )← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:22, 4 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,074,890 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(28 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{DisambigProject|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Disambiguation|importance=}}
}}
==Two disambiguation pages==
⚫ The reason I broke ] away from ] is because there are two articles with the title ''Holmes and Watson'' ( '']'' and '']'') whereas there are two articles with ''Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson'' in the names ('']'' and '']''). As ] says "Disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." Nobody would confuse the latter two with the former two as the titles are completely different. ] (]) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
: I disagree with your repeated assertion on this for reasons we've already discussed ad nauseam. See below. ] (]) 18:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
::I removed the insults and bolded comments (], ]) and I have asked you reaptedly to stop reposting the exact same conversation in multiple areas (] ]). It is harassment for you to continually post the same insults everywhere. Article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, NOT other editors. ] (]) 18:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
:::(Note; at time of writing, this dispute is still under discussion at ]. Further responses by myself on this matter have been posted there). ] (]) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
:A literal interpretation of ] suggests separate disambiguation pages, with no wikilinks on the introductory line because there is no primary topic. However, invoking ], I consider ] the most helpful to the reader. One title could easily be mistaken for the other and, for readers who did know whether to include more than the surnames, I don't think ploughing through two other options is too onerous. Although it's only a ], we might even list '']'' as a "See also". Other opinions might be available via ]. ] (]) 21:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
⚫ ::Your suggested addition is similar to how I laid out ]. If the consensus is that one disambiguation works better than two, then my vote would be that ] makes more sense as the more complete title but I will defer to consensus. ] (]) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
:::I think either title works. Is a page like ] at the full title ] a good compromise? ] (]) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
::::I would probably not have the wikilinks in the introductory line as you noted per ] because I'm positive there will be links to those characters on every single article linked from the disambiguation. Otherwise I think that is a very good middle ground. ] (]) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


:::{{reply|Certes}} Hi there, thank you for your contribution.
== Changes to ] ==
:::I'm glad you liked one of my earlier versions which- as you note- was an attempt to compromise between the guidelines and a situation where ]. I'm not sure how you feel about ] I created which uses ] as a subsection redirect link.
:::My argument was always in favour of combining them as per ] for precisely the reason you give- dab pages are aimed at inexperienced users who ''don't'' know what they're looking for.
:::Personally, I'm not much bothered whether ] or ] is the default, so long as one directs to the other.
⚫ :::] (]) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


::::] doesn't belong on the disambiguation because it isn't even an article. It is just a redirect you created to point to a subsection of ] which would already be linked in your version. Nobody would look up "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (duo)" because that isn't a thing. They aren't a "duo". ] (]) 01:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
: ''(This discussion started as a comment left . It has been moved here- the talk page of the article it relates to- by ] in order to provide a more neutral venue for discussion).'' ] (]) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::] (in preference to piping) on dab pages. If "duo" maybe isn't the best choice of qualifier (and I don't claim that it is), you or anyone else are welcome to suggest differently.
:::::Anyway, that version was a suggestion; the earlier one might be better.
:::::A lot of article names with qualifiers that appear on dab pages wouldn't necessarily be looked up directly either; this isn't an argument to exclude them. They're typically there precisely ''because'' the obvious "type in look up article title" is likely to have more than one use and there isn't necessarily a primary article (or if there is, it isn't guaranteed to be the one people are looking up). ] (]) 01:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::Incidentally, ] as "''Two people who work or collaborate together as partners; especially '''' those who perform music together''".
::::::I'm not sure why you claim so strongly that "''that isn't a thing. They aren't a "duo".''" It's technically correct AFAICT, whether or not it's the best-sounding choice of words here. ] (]) 02:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::I agree that using a redirect is fine here. Compare dab ], where ] correctly redirects to a section of a joint biography. The qualifier "duo" doesn't sound quite right but I can't think of a better alternative at the moment. ] (]) 02:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


::::Maybe we should take a step back. What is the primary topic of the term ]? Is it really the TV series to which that link leads? If not then we might move the article back to ] and usurp its title for the dab. The new ] should certainly be an entry in the dab's list, and probably the first. I doubt that most readers searching for ] have the Soviet film in mind; we might move that too and redirect its old title to the dab. ] currently redirects to ], a 2018 American film, but we can avoid bad links like the one from ] by retargeting ] to the dab too. That's a radical change; is it a step too far? ] (]) 02:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,


This whole dispute "is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles." (]) ] (]) 05:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice you removed the links to the individual character names as the primary subject. I appreciate that this doesn't quite fit into the standard dab page format, but the pairing of Holmes and Watson- or the characters- *is* likely to be the "primary" use most people are looking for, even if there's not a specific article for it. IMHO this is one of those cases where (knowingly) overriding a guideline because it's likely to be useful is warranted.


:My take, a disambig should be where people come when they are not sure. "MMMMM, bugger what was that soviet TV series, Holmes and Watson?". This is just the sort of thing we should include.] (]) 16:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
If you can suggest a more appropriate solution, I'd definitely welcome it.

All the best, ] (]) 20:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

⚫ :{{ping|Ubcule}} I don't understand why you felt the need to make ]. There is only one article with that title, '']''. Technically '']'' has that phrase in it but that isn't the title. As ] says "Disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." This disabugation has one article with that title and three vaguely similar titles that would never be confused for "Holmes and Watson". To add such a long header that refers to something that is not the title of the disambugation page doesn't clear up confusion. It creates it. ] (]) 21:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
::Disambiguation ("dab") pages aren't solely for literal, exactly-the-same names or terms.
::As ] notes, "''a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of '''similar''' terms.''" . It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "''variant forms of names. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith.''"
::Sorry, but I'm not trying to Wikilawyer the wording of the guidelines here, quite the opposite- they say that for good reason, which I agree with. '''Dab pages are navigation aids intended to help people''' who don't necessarily know exactly what they're looking for.
::There's a good chance that someone looking for (e.g.) that forty year old television series may probably remember it had Holmes and Watson in the title, but not necessarily which variant (e.g. full names or not) it included, and spreading the dab across multiple pages for minor variations (or not providing it at all) would be less useful.
⚫ ::] (]) 21:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Ubcule}} It is a navigation page to help people find the ''specific'' article they were looking for with that term. It is not a directory page for people to use to find every single possible iteration of two terms. ] (]) 21:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
::::That wasn't what it claimed to be.
::::Please re-read what I said above, assuming you read it in the first place:-
:::::As noted in the disambiguation guidelines notes, "'''a single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms.'''" . It goes on to mention that (relevant here) this includes "'''variant forms of names'''. For example, Fred Smith also includes persons named Frederick Smith."
::::As I said, this wasn't originally intended as Wikilawyering, but if you want to argue (your own idea of) what dab pages are for, this is what they (not I) say. ] (]) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::You don't appear to be paying attention to what I am saying or you just like fighting. Disambiguation pages aren't for listing every single possible iteration of two terms but are to alleviate confusion or ambiguity over similar terms. Putting a note that says "'''Holmes and Watson''', '''Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson''' and similar combinations of the characters' names may also refer to:" doesn't achieve this as the disambiguation page is titled '''Holmes and Watson''' not '''Holmes, Watson, and other possible combinations'''. There are already links to this disambiguation page from similar articles such as '']'' so if someone erroneously went there looking for '']'' they will still find it. ] (]) 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::Variants of the same characters' names ''are'' similar- note "similar" and not "identical"- phrases and should- as per the guidelines I quoted- be more usefully grouped together in a single place rather than relying on a rat's nest of links.
::::::If you think this is "fighting"- when I've tried to clearly explain my reasoning in good faith- this may say more about your feelings and approach than it does mine.
::::::However, it's clear that continuing this discussion between the two of us alone is unlikely to be productive, and as I don't intend getting into a revert war, I will seek third party input. ] (]) 21:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

⚫ :::::::{{Ping|Ubcule}} The simple and obvious solution was that I took one of your many redirects, ], and made it a stand alone disamb page. Now ] links to that to alleviate any confusion. Two disambiguation pages for two different sets of titles. ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::That appears to be organising things the way ''you'' wanted in the first place (i.e. *not* having similar but non-identical versions of the names grouped together).
::::::::I'm not sure why you think I'd consider it a "solution" (quite the opposite) as our disagreement on that was essentially the main basis of the entire dispute...!
::::::::FWIW, I've requested further input ]. ] (]) 22:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::{{Ping|Ubcule}} It is a solution in that two disamb pages for two different sets of terms will actually aid in helping people find the article they were wanting. You seem to have a personal issue with correcting confusion that nobody except for you would ever have (examples and .) '''Holmes and Watson'' refers to two articles and ''Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson'' to two different articles. There would never be confusion requiring one disamb page when two more specific ones are clearer. ] (]) 22:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Under other circumstances, I'd be happy to explain why I feel other people *might* confuse "Peter Hewitt" (an English film director) with "Peter Howitt" (an English film director). Or why "It's the way you make me feel" is likely to be confused with the other song's title.
::::::::::But the truth is you aren't interested in that and this isn't relevant. You weren't going through my post history in good faith- you did so in an attempt to find something to use against me and bolster your own argument in this case, rather than addressing the guidelines I'd used to explain my side. In short, you're trying to make it personal.
::::::::::As for the rest, you don't say anything above that you haven't said already.
:::::::::::"'''Holmes and Watson'' refers to two articles and ''Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson'' to two different articles."
::::::::::Means nothing beyond that being the way ''you'' want them organised (and have done so).
::::::::::Anyway, as I already said, I think it would be more productive if we wait until there is some third party input into this matter. ] (]) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{Ping|Ubcule}} ] is good policy. Please don't presume to tell me what my intentions are. You have that isn't needed. You seem to believe that since ''you'' might be confused about something then we should put hatnotes all over the place. If you are going to attack me then please don't use this talk page anymore. ] (]) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::Criticism does not constitute an "attack", regardless of how much you wish to paint me as the aggressor. However I agree entirely that we need a more neutral venue for this discussion, and have moved it to ]. ] (]) 19:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::'' '''Note:''' Discussion was transferred to ] by myself at this point.'' ] (]) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{ping|ThaddeusSholto}}
::::::::::::*Yes, ] is widely considered to be a "good policy" here, but that usually goes without saying. Citing one of the most basic tenets of Misplaced Pages in a context such as this- i.e. a dispute between fairly experienced users- might be seen as a passive-aggressive attack. However, I'll ].
::::::::::::*You're certainly welcome to clarify what your intentions were by linking those other (unrelated) disambiguation edits from my edit history if they weren't intended as a personal criticism of my approach to disambiguation.
::::::::::::*Reverting a single edit is not an example of "]", no matter how much you may wish this were the case. (''"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page '''repeatedly override''' each other's contributions."'' (Emphasis mine.)) But while we're on the subject, I'll point out that:
:::::::::::::*I attempted to precisely *because* I had no desire to get involved in an edit war with you or anyone else discussion had reached an unproductive point with, and
:::::::::::::*Following this, you can confirm via my posting history that '''I explicitly refrained from making any immediate reversions or changes to your edits'''- despite strongly disagreeing with them- in favour of waiting for the matter to be resolved before doing so. Odd for someone who you accuse of "edit warring".
::::::::::::*If you have an problems with my conduct (e.g. my criticism that you considered an "attack"), please address them through the usual channels for complaints. Thank you.
::::::::::::] (]) 21:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:22, 4 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Two disambiguation pages

The reason I broke Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) away from Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) is because there are two articles with the title Holmes and Watson ( Holmes & Watson and Holmes & Watson. Madrid Days) whereas there are two articles with Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in the names (Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson). As Help:Disambiguation says "Disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages are used as a process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article." Nobody would confuse the latter two with the former two as the titles are completely different. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your repeated assertion on this for reasons we've already discussed ad nauseam. See below. Ubcule (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I removed the insults and bolded comments (WP:TALKNO, WP:SHOUT) and I have asked you reaptedly to stop reposting the exact same conversation in multiple areas (WP:MULTI WP:TPYES). It is harassment for you to continually post the same insults everywhere. Article talk pages are for discussion of the article itself, NOT other editors. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
(Note; at time of writing, this dispute is still under discussion at WP:ANI. Further responses by myself on this matter have been posted there). Ubcule (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
A literal interpretation of WP:DABCOMBINE suggests separate disambiguation pages, with no wikilinks on the introductory line because there is no primary topic. However, invoking WP:IAR, I consider this combined version the most helpful to the reader. One title could easily be mistaken for the other and, for readers who did know whether to include more than the surnames, I don't think ploughing through two other options is too onerous. Although it's only a PTM, we might even list The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as a "See also". Other opinions might be available via WT:Disambiguation. Certes (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Your suggested addition is similar to how I laid out Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation). If the consensus is that one disambiguation works better than two, then my vote would be that Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) makes more sense as the more complete title but I will defer to consensus. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I think either title works. Is a page like this at the full title Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) a good compromise? Certes (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I would probably not have the wikilinks in the introductory line as you noted per WP:DABCOMBINE because I'm positive there will be links to those characters on every single article linked from the disambiguation. Otherwise I think that is a very good middle ground. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
@Certes: Hi there, thank you for your contribution.
I'm glad you liked one of my earlier versions which- as you note- was an attempt to compromise between the guidelines and a situation where bending them slightly could (arguably!) be justified in terms of helpfulness. I'm not sure how you feel about the later version I created which uses Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (duo) as a subsection redirect link.
My argument was always in favour of combining them as per "variant spellings of names" for precisely the reason you give- dab pages are aimed at inexperienced users who don't know what they're looking for.
Personally, I'm not much bothered whether Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation) or Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) is the default, so long as one directs to the other.
Ubcule (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (duo) doesn't belong on the disambiguation because it isn't even an article. It is just a redirect you created to point to a subsection of Sherlock Holmes which would already be linked in your version. Nobody would look up "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (duo)" because that isn't a thing. They aren't a "duo". ThaddeusSholto (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Linking via redirect is permissible and even encouraged (in preference to piping) on dab pages. If "duo" maybe isn't the best choice of qualifier (and I don't claim that it is), you or anyone else are welcome to suggest differently.
Anyway, that version was a suggestion; the earlier one might be better.
A lot of article names with qualifiers that appear on dab pages wouldn't necessarily be looked up directly either; this isn't an argument to exclude them. They're typically there precisely because the obvious "type in look up article title" is likely to have more than one use and there isn't necessarily a primary article (or if there is, it isn't guaranteed to be the one people are looking up). Ubcule (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, Wiktionary defines duo as "Two people who work or collaborate together as partners; especially those who perform music together".
I'm not sure why you claim so strongly that "that isn't a thing. They aren't a "duo"." It's technically correct AFAICT, whether or not it's the best-sounding choice of words here. Ubcule (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that using a redirect is fine here. Compare dab William Burke, where William Burke (Burke and Hare murders) correctly redirects to a section of a joint biography. The qualifier "duo" doesn't sound quite right but I can't think of a better alternative at the moment. Certes (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should take a step back. What is the primary topic of the term Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson? Is it really the TV series to which that link leads? If not then we might move the article back to Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (TV series) and usurp its title for the dab. The new Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (duo) should certainly be an entry in the dab's list, and probably the first. I doubt that most readers searching for Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson have the Soviet film in mind; we might move that too and redirect its old title to the dab. Holmes and Watson currently redirects to Holmes & Watson, a 2018 American film, but we can avoid bad links like the one from Marilyn Imrie by retargeting Holmes and Watson to the dab too. That's a radical change; is it a step too far? Certes (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This whole dispute "is, of course, a trifle, but there is nothing so important as trifles." (TWIS) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

My take, a disambig should be where people come when they are not sure. "MMMMM, bugger what was that soviet TV series, Holmes and Watson?". This is just the sort of thing we should include.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Category:
Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation): Difference between revisions Add topic