Talk:Bab.
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
When is a disambiguation page not a disambiguation page?
[edit]A wiki riddle, right Uanfala? No, just kidding around. The Talmud article makes no mention of "Bab.", which I checked before making the change. I also checked to see if, perhaps, the term "Bab." existed in the Talmud article on any of the dates that this "Bab." page was created and subsequently edited:
- 10 January 2007 (nope)
- 20 February 2007 (no)
- 20 October 2008 (nothing)
- 24 December 2009 (nothing}
- 12 January 2012 (no)
- 2 August 2012 (nope)
- 15 April 2013 (no)
- 27 December 2019 (still no)
Thus, absolutely uncalled for to pretend that this was serving as a disambiguation page when there were no conflicting articles to disambiguate. If it was true that "the Talmud abbreviation appears to be commonly used", then it would have been added in the Talmud article on any of those dates 1, or 7, or 8, or 11, or 12, or 13 years ago. No need to add it now - that would clearly be less than candid more than 13 full years after the fact.
The next step was to repurpose this "Bab." article as a way to reach the only existing en.wiki article that it legitimately applied to, the Cardale Babington article, where "Bab." is the standard author abbreviation used to indicate Babington as the author when citing a botanical name. This is confirmed at the International Plant Names Index, which shows that Bab. is the credited author on 22 botanical names, including:
- Anacharis alsinastrum, a synonym in botanical nomenclature for, and shown at the article of, Elodea canadensis
- Habenaria chlorantha, a synonym in botanical nomenclature for, and shown at the article of, Platanthera chlorantha
- Cuscuta approximata, as the only definitive binomial name
- Badimia dimidiata, the type species for the genus Badimia
- Isothea rhytismoides , the type species for the genus Isothea
- Phyllodoce caerulea, as the definitive binomial name
- Rubus tuberculatus, as the definitive binomial name
I would like to put this "Bab." article back to this legitimate use, as a redirect to Cardale Babington, but will wait a couple of days for your thoughts. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there is the general expectation that the disambiguated term should be mentioned in the linked articles, but it is also the case that articles do not always (need to) mention obvious alternative spellings or abbreviations. There are uses of the abbreviation on Wikipedia among these search results. Maybe you could argue for a primary topic, but I'm not sure there is one, and even if there were, this would entail having to place a hatnote at the primary topic article, and that's not desirable as the term is quite obscure and the resultant hatnote will probably appear confusing to some readers. – Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response, Uanfala. As you stated, it simply does not meet the expectation of being mentioned in the linked article. Also, as confirmed via the search results you created, not one of those results show that particular usage of "Bab." as being linked to this "Bab." article. I notice that, in the list you included, the abbreviation is often part of "Ag. Bab. Amor.", but Ag. and Amor. are not linked to anything, let alone a standalone article, disambiguation or otherwise, titled "Ag." nor "Amor." Not sure why "Bab." has been singled out as needing this pseudo-Wiktionary treatment. Thus, "Bab." as a redirect to Cardale Babington serves a purpose of actually connecting every single example of a linked "Bab." to the one and only article those links are connected to - Cardale Babington - without having to stop and visit a disambiguation page that has been turned into a pseudo-Wiktionary page. Jmg38 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- But redirects don't just exist for editors' ease of linking, their primary function is to help with reader searches. The string Bab. apparently is used in context where its meaning isn't immediately explicable and it's likely that readers might come here to look it up. Instances of the abbreviation where the botanist is intended could be linked using a pipe:
[[Cardale Babington|Bab.]](as at Platanthera chlorantha), the way this is done with other botanist abbreviations, and other non-botanist abbreviations as well (like the Babylonian Talmud one in the article Rabbi Akiva). – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- But redirects don't just exist for editors' ease of linking, their primary function is to help with reader searches. The string Bab. apparently is used in context where its meaning isn't immediately explicable and it's likely that readers might come here to look it up. Instances of the abbreviation where the botanist is intended could be linked using a pipe:
- Thank you for the response, Uanfala. As you stated, it simply does not meet the expectation of being mentioned in the linked article. Also, as confirmed via the search results you created, not one of those results show that particular usage of "Bab." as being linked to this "Bab." article. I notice that, in the list you included, the abbreviation is often part of "Ag. Bab. Amor.", but Ag. and Amor. are not linked to anything, let alone a standalone article, disambiguation or otherwise, titled "Ag." nor "Amor." Not sure why "Bab." has been singled out as needing this pseudo-Wiktionary treatment. Thus, "Bab." as a redirect to Cardale Babington serves a purpose of actually connecting every single example of a linked "Bab." to the one and only article those links are connected to - Cardale Babington - without having to stop and visit a disambiguation page that has been turned into a pseudo-Wiktionary page. Jmg38 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)