Talk:Confessions

Requested moves

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move Contemplations, Distractions, Incarnations, and Intentions; consensus not to move Confessions and Explorations; no consensus to move Collaborations (maybe an individual discussion is in order for that one). Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Abstractions for which WP:PLURALPT applies. The clear primary topic in terms of historical importance for each of these is the abstract topic for which it is named. bd2412 T 01:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I want to agree. I really do. But I am afraid I can't. There are too many notable topics which use the plural form, e.g. Confessions of St. Augustine, Confessions of Rousseau, the Age of Explorations, etc. which sending them to the "abstract" concept might cause confusion that the implied meaning is actually abstract. ("Oh, so Augustine confessed to somebody"). The need for plurals to go to the abstract can be done by adding the "s" at the end of singular link, e.g. ((confession))s, works well enough. confessions vs. confessions. Walrasiad (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrasiad, is your opposition only to the proposed move for Confessions, then? bd2412 T 11:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the Augustine article arguably should be under The Confessions (St. Augustine), but it's clear in all other cases that the plural is usually the natural plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about the article title, but internal article links. It is quite easy for editors to carelessly link "Confessions" in reference to, say, St. Augustine's work in another article, and instead of being taken to disambiguation, will send people to the concept page, and mislead readers to assume that that is what is meant.

@bd2412: I have some unease about Collaborations and Explorations, but "Confessions" is my main concern, as it is very often used as a book title, some quite notable. I understand the eagerness to make plural conform to singular, but I'd at least pause the trigger on that one. Walrasiad (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even putting aside the really "pop" pop culture topics like songs and albums, the two books cited for "Confessions" are still just books; each is titled "Confessions" because the author intends to invoke the concept of "Confession" through that title. Authors are, and have always been, free to come up with distinct and original titles that are free of this shortcoming. bd2412 T 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true. But the titles have since taken a notable life of their own. Allowing me a bit of cheek, authors come up with titles that usually are composed of words, and words often have prior conceptual definitions in language. "Gone with the Wind" is referring to the meteorological concept of "wind". But it is also a title of a book. In this case, it may be unfortunate that the authors used only one word (in plural, but one word). Use of plural may not be sufficient to disambiguate the title from the abstract concept. But that's what disambiguation pages are for, no? Walrasiad (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages serve that function just as well whether they are at the "Foo" title (where there is no primary topic), or at the "Foo (disambiguation)" title. In the case of these topics, there is a primary topic, and that primary topic is an abstraction so massively important to human history that all other topics are dwarfed by it. bd2412 T 15:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. As mentioned before, my concern is editors creating misdirected links because they believe "Confessions" will link "obviously" to the well-known book(s) and misleading readers to thinking the article is referring to an act (which it isn't; it is a book title). There are too many titles using the term "Confessions" to put them all in a hatnote. And the "confession" article itself is not expansive or particularly well-written, e.g. it asserts "confessions" in religious contexts mean confession of sin; not always; the term "confession" is also used to mean a sect or a document articulating the articles of faith (e.g. Augsburg confession, Westminster confession, Baptist confession, etc.). A "confessor" is also not always someone who confesses, as the article asserts, but also means a personal religious adviser, presumably someone who is confessed to ("the queen's confessor", etc.). Walrasiad (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are shortcomings in the Confession article, you (or anyone) can fix them. Furthermore, the issue here is not how many meanings the word has, but whether there is a primary meaning. bd2412 T 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Obvious that the primary topic in every case is the singular and that the plural without qualifier should be redirected there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support some, oppose some. These really should all be considered separately, as each situation is different. WP:PLURALPT tells us that a plural can and should be considered separately from the singular - it's not an automatic coupling of the two. It's also explicitly ok for a plural to be either a separate WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or a separate disambiguation page. So:
- Oppose Confessions. As Walrasiad said, "Confessions" is a title of several well-known works, as well as all the other entries on the dab page. It cannot be said that with so many separate uses of "Confessions" that the singular concept is primary over all of those uses combined.
- Oppose Collaborations. None of these uses are especially earth-shattering, but, as WP:PLURALPT says, people can be expected to search for topics using the singular, so the fact that someone adds an "s" to their search makes it likely that they are seeking something with an "s" in the title. The dab page contains a link to the singular dab (and should have a link to the singular abstract concept article as well - as should all these dab pages).
- Support Contemplations. These are all redlinks or partial title matches. Not enough material for a standalone dab. Can be revisited if those articles are ever written.
- Weak Support Distractions. These uses are probably minor enough for the concept to take primacy.
- Oppose Explorations. A couple of notable titles, the Evans album in particular. And again, it is unlikely that a reader interested in the concept of "exploration" will search for the concept using the plural "explorations." It's not WP:NATURAL.
- Support Incarnations. Same rationale as "Distractions."
- Support Intentions. Not even partial title matches here. This one probably shouldn't even be a standalone dab page.

Dohn joe (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I didn't break down each in my original reply, let me say here for the record that I exactly agree with Dohn Joe's breakdown above. Walrasiad (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ditto Dohn joe, supporting and opposing the same ones as him. I hate disambiguation pages--I really do--but some of the topics with s's really do stand up well against the common nouns. Red Slash 06:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Concessions, no opinion on the others for now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.