Talk:Ash (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. 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 articles

Plants

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles

Requested move 4 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The primary topic and long-term significance arguments are more persuasive than the supports. A hatnote to the tree will be added. Anarchyte (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash (disambiguation) → Ash
Ash → Ash (fire)

– No clear primary topic, the fire meaning has 5,678 views but the upcoming film has 11,989, the band has 8,342, the analytical chemistry has 1,739, the name has 724, the deity has 622, the place in Surrey has 416, the comics has 370, the novel has 369, the Musbury one has 303, the North Carolina one has 196, the 2019 film has 196 the Dover one has 183, the album has 113, the artist has 79, the Braunton one has 73, the Sevenoaks one has 60, the South Somerset one has 33,, the Oregon one has 19, the Texas oner has 17, the Devon one has 14, the ballet has 13, the Derbyshire one has 12, the West Virginia one has 11, the one near Taunton has 9, the Missouri one has 7 and the one near Stourpaine has 7. Æ has 27,626, Fraxinus has 11,613, Volcanic ash has 4,952, Zanthoxylum has 1,950, Almquist shell has 1,884, Mountain ash has 364, Ash: A Secret History has 348, Āsh has 207 and A.s.h has 2[[1]][[2]]. This clearly shows that the fire meaning isn't primary by usage as even only counting qualified titles the fire meaning gets only around 25% of views and many of the others not qualified are commonly called "Ash". By long-term significance the tree, letter, language and name also have long-term significance so its clear that the 1st criteria isn't met and it doesn't appear that the 2nd criteria is met. Google is split with the shop coming up first then the Wikipedia article for the band, several other results are for the trees. Images mainly returns the Pokémon however Books appears to return things that relate to the fire meaning. When people hear the word "Ash" it could easily be understood to mean the fire meaning, trees, letter or name so I'd argue that even though the fire meaning may be the most common thing people would think of it doesn't seem to dominate. Ash (combustion) may be another target but I'm assuming not Ash (chemistry) as the volcanic meaning would also probably be chemistry and it may be seen as a sub topic of the fire meaning but its actually quite different due to coming from compressed rock in the earth as opposed to things being burnt on the Earth's surface or similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Search results are mainly for the band, film and various organisations called ASH. Incoming links from articles also suggest the residue is not a primary topic: Ash 165, Ash (band) 477, others not many. It's not clear that (fire) is the best qualifier, because ash is not a type or example of fire, but I failed to improve on it. My first thought was (residue), but that's ambiguous because it's also a term of art for the ash (analytical chemistry) from ashing. Ashes is a dab with many entries. I fix new incoming links to Ash which should lead elsewhere; the tool for counting them is down but so far this year I've intercepted a couple for Ash (band) and one Ash (tree). Certes (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?:

2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

While the band may be more of interest, the name more popular in quantity and there are places called ash – ash is more important than everything humans ever created, because when the earth is gone there will still be ashes. It is a fundamental element of natural science, a residue from energy conversion, a building block of the world and will therefore always remain the absolute primary topic. Killarnee (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per longterm significance. Ash has been around for longer than humans have, I'm not sure what we have wrought that takes precedence over it. Even if I did agree, the disambiguation is incorrect. Ash is not a form of fire; it's what material turns into when burnt. Ash (substance) would be more accurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per long-term significance, probably only Volcanic ash and Ash tree can compete, but those two articles are naturally disambiguated from Ash, no move necessary. Moving this article could hinder navigation as 80% of readers landing on this page either find what they're looking for or just close the tab, surprised like I was, that this article is so short [3]. Considering that most clicks leaving the DAB page go to Fraxinus, perhaps Ash tree should be added to the hatnote [4]. If this move does go forward, I agree with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ that Ash (substance) is an improvement on Ash (fire). ― Synpath 17:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The stuff left over after a fire may win in terms of long term significance, but there is no reason why that should carry so much more weight than the combined significance of all the other uses on the disambiguation page. In terms of usage, right now a majority of users are reaching an article they do not intend to reach; best to send them to the disambiguation page. We should consider long term significance and usage equally, and I don't think this rises to the level of Apple vs. Apple (company). Mdewman6 (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will be surprised why they get the article ash instead of the band or whatever, because even the most hardcore fan of the band or the name or whatever knows that the actual origin of ash means the fire thing and not something humans made.

And what's more, I can only really recommend this practice of only looking at the page views with much caution. Why would anyone read the article about ash? It has so much notability that everyone already knows what it is. And let's be honest, considering that the article is even a level-5 vital article, the article really has little content. Currently a stub only.

When things are unknown, it may have some significance. When it comes to everyday things like this, page views lose their meaningfulness. Killarnee (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Apple argument. We know that five out of six readers want to read about Apple, Inc., but instead we feed them fruit because it's good for them. Certes (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what the point of the apple example is, except that it probably speaks in favor of my oppose.

And by the way, the company's name is neither Apple (company) nor Apple, Inc. but Apple Inc. and has a natural disambiguation so that case is different from here. Killarnee (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Apple there is a reasonably clear primary topic by long-term significance (though the company still has some) but with Ash even though the fire meaning is probably the most important usage others like the tree, volcanic and letter seem to have enough to at least suggest the fire isn't more important than the others combined though the 2nd criteria doesn't appear to also have the requirement of more than the others combined even still I don't see a clear primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ignoring the WP:RECENTISM and fanboy issues with the film and the band, the tree is just as long-term significant. The fact it is naturally disambiguated is neither here nor there for title purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Necrothesp. The ash tree (Fraxinus) has twice the pageviews, and just as much long-term notability. 162 etc. (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment instead of ash (fire) wouldn't it be better if it were ash and ciner ? -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cinder is ambiguous but in the ash sense it would be a tautology. We don't have titles like Lift and elevator; we pick one, even if it needs to be qualified, and create a redirect or link from the other. Certes (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's the most commonly used meaning of this English-language word in dictionaries. Cfls (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ash being a common dictionary term rules out almost all films and bands etc. for the main topic per long-term significance. For the long-term significant terms, ash that remains after burning is more commonly described than ash tree or volcanic ash, making this page a reasonable main topic. NasssaNser 10:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, volcanic ash and ash trees seem to be naturally disambiguated, although I'm not that opposed either way.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is precisely what I'd expect to find at "Ash", but a broad-concept among this and volcanic ash may be an improvement. Red Slash 06:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll grant that, on paper, this seems like a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. However, I think retaining the current status quo is the most productive solution. Only Fraxinus plausibly rivals the long-term significance of ash as fire residue, in my opinion, and because both topics are so widely known I think the natural disambiguation of "ash tree" actually is pertinent here: even someone seeking the tree will not be significantly WP:ASTONISHed to end up here if they search "Ash". (That said, we may want to amend the hatnote to have a direct link to Fraxinus.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st, alternate target for 2nd I support the noprimary situation, but Ash (fire) seems to be not a great disambiguator. However, I feel like this term is almost always used in the plural (at least in the US where I am at, not sure about other ENGVARs), so perhaps a move to Ashes would be appropriate for a natural dismabiguator? We could move Ashes to Ashes (disambiguation) or perhaps merge Ashes and Ash (disambiguation) into one disambiguation page? Bensci54 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally naturally disambiguate by plural, see Oranges for example, anyway normally ash is uncountable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.