Talk:Hairy crab

Hairy crab

In order to explain the situation with Pilumnus hirtellus and Eriocheir sinensis, only one of these is routinely called "hairy crab". E. sinensis is almost always called "Chinese mitten crab", or occasionally "Shanghai hairy crab". P. hirtellus is called "hairy crab" much more often, which is why hairy crab should redirect there. Please also note that WP:DISAMBIG indicates that disambiguation pages should never have only two items. Instead, it should redirect to one article, with a hatnote to the second article. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I note your comments on my talk page. The only reliable source that I have accessed Here does not support your assertion. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find the word never at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call that a reliable source, and it only mentions "hairy crabs" once, in passing. The species may be discernible from the context, but it's not explicit. A simple Google war, without excluding instances of "Shanghai hairy crab" gives 3220 hits for "hairy crab" Pilumnus, compared to 2240 for "hairy crab" Eriocheir. Excluding "Shanghai hairy crab" reduces that total to 1160. So, about 75% of instances of "hairy crab" (as opposed to "Shanghai hairy crab", which rightly redirects to the mitten crab) refer to Pilumnus. On that basis, a disambiguation page is not recommended, since a large majority of the uses are for just one topic. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say, given the option of whether to rely on what the Rough Guide tells me or what Stemonitis tells me I choose the rough guide. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You state that WP:DISAMBIG indicates that disambiguation pages should never have only two items. Where has this interpretion come from? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, this should not be an ad personam judgement. I have provided evidence of substantial usage across a large number of writers writing in a wide range of contexts, not merely one person writing about oriental cuisine, and certainly not merely my personal opinion (I use scientific names wherever possible, to avoid precisely this confusion). Secondly, in answer to your specific query, the appropriate text is at WP:2DAB (part of WP:MOSDAB, not WP:DISAMBIG, an error for which I apologise) and, while it doesn't state "never", a good reason would have to be demonstrated why the regular practice should not be followed in this example, as it is in every other case I know of. I would be interested to hear about any similar situation, where a disambiguation page lists only two items, one of which is much more often the meaning of the title than the other, but I remain convinced that hairy crab should redirect to Pilumnus hirtellus, and I was hoping that you would be convinced, too, when provided with the evidence and the reasoning. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I noted this discussion on Stemonitis' talk page. You may want to have a look at what WORMS says (a reliable source IMO) for E. chinensis and for P. hirtellus. It quite corroborates Stemonitis' view (and mine BTW). Regards. Lycaon (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

@Lycaon this is not one person writing about oriental cuisine but dozens @Stemonitis, I am suprised that (having initially "sold me a pup", thus wasting my time trawling through a dry WP page, only to find that there was no substance to your comments) you should now question why i question you.CyrilThePig4 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are misrepesenting facts which your choice of search. This (168 hits for Pilumnus) and this (32 hits for Eriocheir) should settle this dispute for good. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the most simple of searches highlights my point. 14-2!! CyrilThePig4 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

PS The first "Random" disambig that I chose - 100 Suns has two entries. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also re "Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC" :3225 v 2 CyrilThePig4 (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

100 Suns is a *bad* disambiguation page. It refers to no article on Wikipedia at all, no pages link to it (except this one), and it is certainly not an example to be followed. I suspect that your mind is made up, and nothing I/we say will alter that. Given Lycaon's intervention and the substantial evidence presented, I think we must now conclude that the consensus is that "hairy crab" refers primarily to Pilumnus hirtellus, and only secondarily to Eriocheir sinensis. Please ensure that you demonstrate consensus for any contentious change you wish to make. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...er... no. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Which part are you refusing? Thus far, Lycaon and I have gone a long way out of our way to provide support for the situation that existed until your recent edits. Please read the various pages I have linked to during the discussion, even if they seem "dry". The various policies and guidelines at Wikipedia can be daunting, but it's worth getting to know the main parts, among which Wikipedia:Consensus ranks very highly. Thie gist of it is that you shouldn't do something contentious without gaining support for it first. This issue, since we're discussing it at such length, is clearly contentious, so you should not keep making your changes without demonstrating that there is consensus for them. Until that time, continued reversion is liable to contravene the so-called three revert rule, and you may end up being blocked from editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont "provide support", provide references. Where is the "Compromise "Wikipedia:Consensus" now requires off you? CyrilThePig4 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop reverting back and forth. A two item disambiguation page is clearly allowed -- from WP:2DAB: If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name. How about providing reliable sources indicating one term is primary? A google count is not very helpful as google indexes the whole internet, including many non-reliable sources. Gerardw (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I will gladly accept whatever rationale you suggest for determining primacy (or lack of it), and abide by the outcome, whatever it may be. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair question I don't currently have the answer for. I've never heard of a hairy crab before -- it's appears to perhaps be a regional thing? A quick (non-thorough, non-binding!) google search turned up a third "hairy crab" in Alaska [[1]]. In any event, if the consensus to to make the primary redirect to one of the particular crabs the article we end up linking to should contain a disambig reference to the other. Gerardw (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. I have also seen the term used for the whole family Pilumnidae (which we haven't currently got an article for), rather than just the species Pilumnus hirtellus. Your example is the first I've seen which isn't even a crab (see Hapalogastridae)! --Stemonitis (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically there is both a cuisine perspective and a Biology perspective to this. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting — kegani (as featured in that OTT menu) appears to be Erimacrus isenbeckii (unless it, too, is an ambiguous term). I think my former argument that the major usage is specifically P. hirtellus is starting to look untenable. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Shanghai's Rugby Club are known as the "Hairy Crabs" - Seeing as they won the Yellow Sea Cup - I'm guessing it wont be long before they get their own wikipage. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)