Talk:Faux

Faux entries

Bkonrad I think that the entries you deleted are relevant because their title is "Faux".--Cassius Fury (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The removed entries failed WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL. You version also had many, many extra links completely irrelevant for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad can you address specifically each of the items that fail WP:DABMENTION and how do they? Because I don't see it. If an entry has an article in another language's wiki, the sensible choice is to keep the entry. I shall notice that there are no rules set for this article, so why removing red links/entries without link? Also, can you explain why you removed "... a teacher of Ernest Maes" from Jean-Baptiste Faulx's entry but kept "... triathlete who was 10th at the 2013 Ironman World Championship" in Catherine Faux's entry? Thanks--Cassius Fury (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the relevant guidelines at WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL? If there is no English language content, my take is there is nothing to mention for disambiguation. Content guidelines in other language Wikipedias with respect to referencing and notablity may not be same as in English wiki. In that respect, there is little difference between an inter-language link and an external link — just because content exists about a subject somewhere does not necessarily mean disambiguation is needed in English. If these other language topics are notable in English, suggestion is to create the article for them.

As for Ernest Maes vs ironman -- I suppose the latter description could also be trimmed -- but that was not anything new in the edits you had made so I hadn't considered it. older ≠ wiser 16:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad as for Maes vs. ironman I agree with deleting both (or keeping both). I shall notice that you removed for the third time Faux (river) from the list, can you explain why? I again kindly ask you to address each entry, because I don't see where they fail WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL.

Have you any knowledge of French language and history? The difference between Faux and Faulx is the same between "speare" ans "spear" in English. They have same origin, meaning and pronunciation, same word, simply one of them was modernized, the other not. Thus the entries you removed do not belong to another DAB, which is why the French version has the both Faulx and Faux in the same article. Creating another article for "Faulx" would be absurd.--Cassius Fury (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the river entry. Separate dab might be absurd in French, but not so much in English. older ≠ wiser 16:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad I think maybe you deleted the river Faux because you didn't think it through or examined the matter carefully. I saw the page you created (Faulx (disambiguation)). If you didn't know about the etimologies, it's fine, we all make mistakes. But I gotta tell you that the page you created is useless because the words are one and the same: one is descended from the other: one is "colour" and the other "color". At most, this fact should be mentioned in the lead.--Cassius Fury (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had deleted entry for the review because you only very recently created the article for it. When I had first checked it did not exist. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed it three times. Anyway, please, address the other points. The chief of which being that making a list for "faulx" is stupid, because the two words are the same. "Faulx" will hardly have a separate entry in a French dictionary.--Cassius Fury (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You restored badly edited additions multiple times and removed other valid edits. While you might see these are the same, I don't. The word faux has essentially been anglicized -- although as an adjective there is nothing to write about it as a subject. Faulx remains as a distinctly French unnaturalized variant. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(BEFORE EDIT CONFLICT)You absolutely have a right to have your opinion. But why reverting the article instead of using the talk page? Again, the words are the same, I firmly believe that another article/disambiguation for "faulx" is unnecessary. Even if one wanted to create another article for "faulx", that "faulx" in simply the archaic of "faux" should be mentioned in this article and the other, and those entries could still be included with the proper note here, especially for villages and other dwelling places. If one village is called "Faux" and the other "Faulx" is just because one kept the original name and the other was adapted into modern French. But you didn't do this, you just attempted to create a dichotomy between the two spellings of the same word, between "colour" and "color".

(AFTER) What you are saying is a little absurd, and it is said from an English perspective: you might create an article for "Faux (English) surname/word", but you can't upset French language , history and common sense just because you see the spelling "Faux" as English. As I explained, in French, faulx and faux are one and the same: one (with a letter more) is the archaic spelling of the other. In France/Belgium, "Faux" is not an anglicization, it's a more modern variant of the same word. This is a fact. Then it is your opinion that England's faux derives from an anglicization.

Now I don't agree with your opinion, but still notice that all my addition were about French/French -speaking subjects, none of the addition was about English/English speaking "Faulx's".

Now we either keep all in this article, or you create a separate "Faux (English word/surname)" (though I don't advise it). My concern is to keep the "French" "faux" and "faulx" in one article, because they are the same.

And again, please explain why my additions are " badly edited ", and address each addition separately, thanks.--Cassius Fury (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why your edits were badly edited. 1) entries that fail WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL; 2) excessive links irrelevant for disambiguation; 3) piped links not in accord with WP:DABPIPE.

Seems I shouldn't have to mention this, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the French one. We very often have separate disambiguation pages for what might appear similar terms. Sometimes even to the point of separating plural from singular forms (Eagles (disambiguation) vs Eagle (disambiguation)) or terms that have a definite article from those that do not (The Dancers vs The Dancers vs Dancer (disambiguation).

Another example somewhat more similar to this case, there are separate pages for Phoenix, Phenix, and Fenix, even though all are pronounced similarly and have same origin.

Although to be honest the vast majority of entries on both pages are actually unambiguous partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 18:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "this it the English Wikipedia, not the French one", but what does it mean to you? For me it simply means this encyclopedia is written in the English language. It's not something to be used to push one's pov or give undue weight and create unnecessary articles. I am well aware of Wikipedia's policies and approach. This is a different case from your examples. The word "faux" and "faulx" are one and the same, just like colour and color, or (more accurately) "noyse" and "noise", "whilst" and "while". They are not plural and singular, nor do their articles differ.

The example of phoenix/fenix is also unfit, not because their articles and plural forms differ, but more fundamentally because the term "phoenix" never existed in Spanish/Portuguese. Faux and faulx both exist(ed) in French, which is the language to which all my additions relate. Fenix is also a word still used in those language, faulx is an outdated spelling. Putting "Fenix" and "Phoenix" together would be ambiguous, but this is not the case here.

We are talking about the same word, same pronunciation, with one-letter, graphic difference. We don't have separate articles for Holmes and Holme, Schumacher and Schuhmacher, Haley and Heily, Hailey, Hayley, Healy, color and colour, while and whilst, and so forth.

I think that "faulx" must not have an article for these reason, but I also think that the article you made is undue because of the paucity of entries: even if we want to create an artificial dichotomy between "faux" and "faulx", the information you included in your newly created article can be easily included here.

Another matter is your personal opinion of the origins of the English word "faux". If you are sure about your pov and can support it with reliable sources, you may create the article "Faux (English word/surname/whatever)".--Cassius Fury (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these are the same word in French. However, only Faux has been adopted as naturalized term in English (I have never claimed any English origin for the word). The distinction in English is significant. Disambiguation pages are not surname pages. Thus we do have Holme and Holmes as separate pages. Similarly, we do have separate disambiguation pages for Haley, Hailey, Hayley (disambiguation), and Healy. And although not really relevant with regards to disambiguation pages since they deal with anthroponomy -- but in point of fact there is a separate page for Healy (surname) and even Healey (surname). Point is that disambiguation pages are not articles but navigational aides and small differences are frequently the basis for separate pages. older ≠ wiser 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said that "faux" was anglicized. Well, we don't have different articles for Trenholm (surname) and Trenholme (surname), McKeown and MacKeown, color and colour, while and whilst and so forth. We don't have an article for Alizon (surname), it is enough to mention it in Allison (surname). The distinction in English is not "significant". It doesn't exist, because "faulx" is not a word! (and very likely never was, though it possibly was an English surname) But about 80% of the entries included here are France-related and when they aren't they are English surnames that do not take different articles, are not conjugated nor declined, have the same meaning and sound of both French "faux" and "faulx", and still ultimately derive from "faulx" via French "faux".

I understand that disambiguation pages and surname articles are not the same. Still, e.g., Clandestine's Evilyn is included in Evelyn, and even Alessandro Del Piero is included in Alex, as they should be.

If think that if a disambiguation page for "faulx" is created to separate it from "faux", then another page must be created to separate "English faux" from "French faux".

I noticed that often pages for the names are created to separate them from the disambiguation. This should be done here, and if the English and French spellings are to be separated in those pages too, each language's form should be mentioned in each page. But even there, same applies, and "faux" and "faulx" must go together in the French page.

I am still convinced that, at least, the French places entries named "Faulx" which I added go in the same page as the French places "Faux", because otherwise it is funny, and also because the layman perceives a difference between the two if they are able to see the "disambiguation" link to faulx at all. I propose to add "French homophone" to "homophone" for those places.--Cassius Fury (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT= I got it that disambiguation pages are like an aggregator, not real articles, and I understand the technicalities and that Wikipedia wants to keep everything even and all disambiguations the same, but bottom line is I don't think that an article for the names where the relation of the words is mentioned can be properly created because while it is obvious to all that faux comes from faulx, I don't have sources for the statement of the relationship of the words, and it might be WP:OR if the surnames aren't mentioned in the source.

So I also think that it is important to state the relationship of the words in the disambiguation "faulx", but even there one'd need a source. So I thought it was better to group everything here, since the point is convey to the reader the relationship of these terms and all they need to know about them. As for the French/French-speaking places though, I really think it's just silly to separate French Faux's from Fauxl's. "French homophone" is enough.--Cassius Fury (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Edits restricted to admins until you two can find some neutral ground or do a Request for Comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]