Talk:Kura (saddle)

Naming and moving

Hi, just a note that the guidelines at WP:DISAMBIGUATION under heading WP:NCDAB are as follows: "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)..." Hence, "Kura (saddle) is the way this article needs to be named. Kura would have been ideal per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but it's already a disambiguation page, and given the number of things there, not worth a fight to make the saddle the primary article. (sigh) I also, however, will create a page named Japanese saddle that will also redirect here to help people find this article. I'm in agreement that it is a good thing to help people find the article, and with the various renaming, I think we have enough redirects to get people here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do not agree with you, there are always exceptions, and you seem to like to quote guidelines when you want your way but you do not follow guidelines on many of the article you participate in, especially when it comes to REFERENCES, so if you insist lets take this to arbitration and get a decision from an impartial third party rather than have an edit war. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please cease your highly personal attacks. I only seek to follow wikipedia naming standards. Montanabw^(talk) 19:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• And I am pointing out that when it comes to other Wikipedia standards you seem to not mind ignoring them, take for instance English saddle, you know all about the Wikipedia guidelines for references and yet this article which you avidly participate in has almost no references. It is possible that you are upset at past confrontations with me and are now trying to use "guidelines" as some sort of revenge. This is frowned upon I believe.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Focus on this article on this page, please. You can discuss other articles on their pages, in the above case, you mention an older article I watchlist but have only edited twice in the past year, and then mostly to revert vandals. I have no motive for revenge against you and your attacks are unnecessarily personal, but given that you raised the topic, you may want to take a close look at yourself. Why do you feel the need to assume bad faith and be so horribly mean? As you see, I put in a move request below and others can discuss as you and I are clearly deadlocked on the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. As explained below, we tend to use the most simple disambiguator available to distinguish the topic from similarly named terms, and in this case "saddle" is enough to make that distinction. I've histmerged Kura Japanese (saddle) and Kura (saddle) here, so the article history should now be in order. Jafeluv (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Kura (Japanese saddle) → Kura (saddle) – Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:NCDAB as noted in section above "A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)...". Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion. as per:Requesting a single page move Wikipedia:Requested movesSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Kura (saddle) already redirects to article, so the current title is unnecessary precision. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: "Japanese" is unnecessary as "saddle" distinguishes this article from all other uses of "Kura" in Wikipedia. Brevity in descriptors is good. PamD 07:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It looks as if illegal cut-and-paste moves have left the history of this article stranded at Kura Japanese (saddle), so an admin will need to put it all back together again when the dust settles on whichever title is to be used in future. PamD 07:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would have tagged the article with {{db-histmerge}}, but there is also some history left at Kura (saddle). All three articles need to be histmerged together. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Unnecessary disambiguation. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as seems to be the consensus from other commenters here. Pinut (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE For reasons outlined below I would rather have this article named "Japanese saddle" than "Kura (saddle) if it comes to that.

"Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Wikipedia:Consensus

• • "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment. Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
  • A little history on this article. Before creating this article I first uploaded images and created categories that relate to this article on Wiki commons under this category "Category:Kura (Japanese saddle)" [Kura_(Japanese_saddle)], this was over one year ago. There has been no objections to the title on Wiki commons. When I originally named this article I did read the article naming guidelines contained in Wikipedia:Article titles, here are a few quotes from the naming guidelines:(it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in brackets after the name.), I did this, (The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.) It seems to me that only a "specialist" would understand what type of saddle a "kura" was, so when I named this article I looked at the list of saddle articles which are now in the category "Saddles by type" and here were saddle articles with titles such as English saddle, Western saddle and Australian Stock Saddle. Looking at these other saddle article titles I decided that Kura (Japanese saddle) would be the best title for this article as anyone who looked at the other articles on saddles could easily and instantly identify what type of saddle the article was about, if I had named the article Kura (saddle) it would not be a descriptive as the other saddle articles and someone with no knowledge of the subject would have to actually click on the title to see what a "Kura" was, with the word "Japanese" added a reader could instantly identify what type of saddle a "Kura" was, much like a reader who saw Australian Stock Saddle, Western saddle or English saddle would have a good idea what that article was about.
  • I have seen "precision" mentioned, I do not understand how having the title as Kura (Japanese saddle) compared to Kura (saddle) goes against any of the guidelines in the section labeled "Precision and disambiguation", WP:PRECISION, if I had named the article "Kura (the saddle of Japan) I would understand but how does Kura (Japanese saddle) go against any naming guidelines, how different is Kura (Japanese saddle) than Australian Stock Saddle? The only difference is some brackets. Here is a quote "Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the title "Kura (saddle) not "precise" as it does not actually identify what type of saddle this is to the "general reader", I would rather have the article named "Japanese saddle" than "Kura (saddle) so that anyone will know instantly what type of saddle this article is about if it is necessary to change the articles title, at least the "general reader" would be able to know what the article is about without having to click on the title as they would with Kura (saddle). Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The title of the article does not need to "identify what type of saddle this is to the general reader". It needs to distinguish this article from other articles with the title "Kura". If the various other entities called "Kura" - places, film, etc - did not have articles so that this was the only article called "Kura", it would be called just that (which would mean absolutely nothing to most general readers, as is true of many, many WP articles). If there was a Venezuelan saddle called a "Kura", then it might be at Kura (Venezuelan saddle) and this article at Kura (Japanese saddle). If the samurai saddle was most commonly known as a "Japanese Saddle", analogous with the saddles like "Australian Stock Saddle" which have no other name, then it should be so named. But I cannot see anything in the WP:TLDR above which makes any valid claim to use the two-word disambiguator. PamD 09:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• It was not TL for me. What you're saying is that "Japanese saddle" is a reasonable alternative title for this topic. But alternate titles are not what we typically put in parentheses of titles - we put information in there that distinguishes this use of that name from other uses of that name. The current title does more than that - resulting in a title that is unnecessarily precise.

  It's true that we sometimes put aside policy and guidelines for a good reason per IAR - but I see no good reason to do so in this case.

  Since I contribute to WP:TITLE, I'm disappointed that reading it did not make all this clear to you. If you have any suggestions on how to make this clearer, please make your suggestions at WT:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The current article Kura is a disambiguation page and probably can stay that way. The article is clear in the lead what it is about. I believe that WP MOS governs this title, pretty slam dunk, not a consensus discussion or any deference to the article's creator, hence my nomination. I would be grateful if one of the other editors who understands {{tl|db-histmerge}} could do the proper tagging, as this has had three different titles and I have no idea how to straighten that out. Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the histmerge, I'd prefer not to use the template in this case because you can't convey that three articles need to be histmerged with it. I think the closing admin will read this discussion and perform the histmerge, but if they don't ping Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) and he should be able to sort it out. Jenks24 (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.