Talk:Pilferage

Primary meaning

Sangdeboeuf, I'm really struggling to see the sense behind your insistence on removing the primary meaning from the dab page. Pilferage, before everything else, refers to a type of theft – it's just a subtopic of the article at Theft. I really don't understand why you would move 1/3rd of the dab page off to the sister project at wiktionary. Yes, we're not a dictionary, but we already have an article at Theft – encyclopedic or not – and as long as we have that article we should provide navigation to its subtopics. – Uanfala (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We did have navigation to Theft via the "See also" section, but no matter. The "subtopic" in this case isn't mentioned at Theft, so there's no point in having a bulleted entry pointing there. Doing so would only confuse readers. If anything, a brief note could be placed at the top per WP:DABDIC. I'll do that now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for having it is a bulleted point, but if that works for you, that's fine. The subtopic isn't currently mentioned in the target article, but the entry gives a clear enough definition that will give readers what they need. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, having at look at it again, I think singling out the common meaning in a line at the top is not optimal – it separates the two very closely related meanings to do with theft in humans. – Uanfala (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's far more optimal than having a DAB entry that points to a page that doesn't mention the ambiguous term. The whole point of DAB pages is helping readers find information on Wikipedia related to a specific title, not to list synonyms or related concepts. This is likewise the reason for ordering entries by similarity to the ambiguous term. People looking for Package pilferage are not going to have difficulty locating it on a page with exactly three linked articles. My hunch is that most will find it through a related article such as Package theft anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:DABORDER suggests that entries are typically ordered first by similarity to the ambiguous title (emphasis mine), but before suggesting that it states that entries should be ordered to best assist the reader in finding their intended article. When following specific, partially applicable recommendations we should take care that in the process we don't go against the general principles. Yes, there are only three items on the page, so readers shouldn't find particular trouble finding them either way, but if we're going to have a discussion about the issue at all, then we might as well do it right. Basing the order solely on the contingencies of what the article's titles happen to be leads in this case to the two closely related meanings set apart, with the progression from one to the other interrupted by an unrelated topic. I don't see how that helps readers. Sure, it helps DAB editors, because it makes the dab page look just like they're expecting typical dab pages to look, but it doesn't help readers. And it doesn't help readers when one of the meanings is typographically separated out in an un-bulleted line. Having the first line of a dab page give the dictionary meaning makes sense if that meaning is common to all the remaining entries, but it's different in kind (say, an everyday expression vs. a list of songs that have it as their tile). It does not make as much sense in situations where this "dictionary meaning" is one aspect of a topic that is closely related to, but not overlapping, with the aspect represented by the next entry. By stretching and pressing the page into the Procrustean bed of one among many possible layouts we're erasing the underlying logic that gives the page its clarity. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Typographically separating the general meaning at the top avoids giving the misleading impression that Theft has information related to the term pilferage. Which it doesn't. In fact we could remove the link to Theft from the intro as well. See MOS:DABMENTION: "If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic." If you don't agree, then feel free to propose a change to the guideline rather than trying to force a local consensus.

I see no reason why going by MOS makes the page any less helpful for readers; quite the opposite in fact. Consistent formatting is for the benefit of readers, who also have expectations for "typical dab pages". Similarity to the ambiguous term isn't a "contingency"; it's the whole purpose of a DAB page. Fixating on the "meanings" of the terms is a red herring, since a DAB page isn't a dictionary or a list of synonyms. It's the reason Aqua (disambiguation) doesn't have an entry for Water, and vice versa. I really don't know how many other ways to say it. Furthermore, "petty theft" on Wikipedia refers to a specific legal concept that doesn't capture the full meaning of "pilfer", so that's a misleading description. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I've just added a brief mention of "pilfering" to Theft (how difficult was that?), though I don't see what difference this should make. Regardless of what content that article happens to have, "pilfering" is a type of theft, and a dab entry could easily define it in a way that will give readers precisely what they're looking for. If you believe it will be an improvement to remove to unlink "theft" then go ahead – the article doesn't have much content and dab entry is enough by itself. This is the intended meaning in about half of the incoming links, and leaving out the entry will obviously mislead readers. As for Aqua, of course the dab page has an entry for water, it's just for the special type of water that's meant in the contexts where that term is used. Yes, consistency does matter, and there's nothing more consistent than displaying all three entries the same way. Readers do not have the kind of expectations based on arcane style rules that die-hard dab editors have. – Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

...a dab entry could easily define it in a way that will give readers precisely what they're looking for – How many times do I have to say it? DAB pages don't "define" anything, because a DAB page, like Wikipedia in general, is not a dictionary.

This is the intended meaning in about half of the incoming links – then those links should be disambiguated rather than pointing to a DAB page.

As for Aqua, of course the dab page has an entry for water – it does not contain a link to the page Water, or list the dictionary definition of aqua as a term for water the chemical compound, as you are trying to do here with pilferage and theft.

Yes, consistency does matter, and there's nothing more consistent than displaying all three entries the same way – I was referring to consistency between DAB pages, which I think you know perfectly well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I reverted your addition of the term to the lead section of Theft as a "synonym". It's not encyclopedic to just list synonyms of a given title. If pilferage is a genuine subtopic of theft, then feel free to cite published sources to that effect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinion on the content of Theft, but I suspect the list you've removed might have been there because of WP:R#ASTONISH. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In that case the terms could be mentioned in a hatnote rather than shoehorned into the text. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the "primary meaning" alluded to above, the usual way to handle a primary topic is to redirect the ambiguous term rather than create a separate DAB entry for it. In that case this page should redirect to Theft as before, with the DAB moved to Pilferage (disambiguation). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that redirecting to a generic articles like Theft won't be optimal. I see what I call a primary meaning, but I don't see a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know we had such an agreement? Where was it agreed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't we? Sorry, I guess I couldn't imagine you would expend so much energy fighting over the layout of a page that you believed shouldn't exist in the first place. If you think it should be converted back into a redirect, then feel free to take it to AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The remark redirecting to [...] generic articles like Theft won't be optimal implies a broader consensus beyond this one page. Like I said, I'm not aware of any such consensus to not redirect specific terms to more general ones. I haven't said the DAB page shouldn't exist; only that it might be a good idea to rename it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I see what I call a primary meaning, but I don't see a primary topic. We don't construct DAB pages based on what an individual user has idiosyncratically decided to call something. Once again, Uanfala, if you disagree with MOS guidance, then propose a change to the guideline and stop this petty edit-warring. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's up to you persuade me to change the status quo. Again, it's not a matter of the MOS vs something that's not the MOS, but of your interpretation of the MOS vs mine. Yes, this is petty edit warring on both sides, I'm really embarrassed with this situation. Frankly, I can't believe how you get the stamina to keep reverting here. – Uanfala (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: you're claiming that your single bold edit represents the "status quo"? In that case my own bold edit represents a new status quo which you should not be changing without consensus. Honestly, you can't make a bold edit and then claim any changes to it require "consensus". That goes against a range of guidelines from WP:BRD to WP:CONACHIEVE to WP:OWN.

Per MOS:DABENTRY, "If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page." I don't see how one could interpret this to mean that we should have a link to an article, Theft, that doesn't mention the term "pilferage". Could you explain your interpretation please? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I boldly created a dab page, yes – if you had disagreed with it you could have reverted it back to a redirect and the burden would have been on me to demonstrate the dab page needs to exist. But you didn't do that. Instead, you came and made a bold edit to this page, which I reverted and which we are discussing now. It's up to you to demonstrate your bold edit was an improvement.
Now, the bit from the MOS you cite is elaborated at MOS:DABMENTION: If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. Now, Theft doesn't mention "pilferage" only because you went there and removed that mention. I'm not going to hold that against you because it's beside the point, the main part of the quoted passage is at the end: help readers find information about the sought topic – that's the whole point of dab pages. Some readers will come to this page looking for information neither about the animal behaviour nor about the specific crime involving packages, but about the general type of petty theft that's referred to as "pilferage". I suspect a major subgroup of those readers are simply looking up the meaning of a word they don't know, in which case the dab entry will give them all they need; others will want to read more about this type of petty crime specifically – Theft might be disappointing as an article, but it's the best we've got. My main concern is not to mislead readers – that's why I prefer to two very closely related concepts of theft ("pilferage" generally vs. package pilferage) are presented as clearly as possible – either in separate entries one after the other, or combined in a single entry. I don't like the idea of pulling them apart by having an unrelated concept placed in between, or by inserting one of them into the intro line of the page (which has the added disadvantage of implying, incorrectly, that this meaning is common to the other two entries). – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Theft didn't mention "pilferage" until you added it while this discussion was happening, apparently more to win an argument than to improve the page itself. I reverted it because the addition was nothing more than a dictionary definition that didn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic.

Some readers will come to this page looking for information neither about the animal behaviour nor about the specific crime involving packages, but about the general type of petty theft that's referred to as "pilferage". Well, they're not going to find it at the article you linked to. Once again, "petty theft" is a specific legal term that doesn't encompass the full meaning of pilferage, so that's a misleading link.

I suspect a major subgroup of those readers are simply looking up the meaning of a word they don't know – then they want a dictionary, not a disambiguation page. DAB pages are not dictionaries. What's wrong with a "See also" link to Theft for those readers who are genuinely looking for information about that topic?

Theft might be disappointing as an article, but it's the best we've got – once again, if you feel the article could be improved, then feel free to expand it with sources describing "pilferage" as a subtopic, not just a synonym.

My main concern is not to mislead readers – then you shouldn't be adding a link to a page that doesn't even mention the term "pilferage", because readers are not going to find what they're looking for that way.

Putting the common, general meaning (what you call the "primary meaning") in the intro line doesn't imply that meaning applies to all the entries on the page, because it's immediately followed by "X may also refer to:". That word also implies a distinction between the initial explanation and the topics that follow it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC) (Fixed typo 03:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC))

I've made most of these points already, especially the fact that defining the "meaning" of terms is not what a DAB page is for. If repeating what I've already said doesn't work, then we seem to have reached an impasse, and it may be time to get a third opinion. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for a third opinion at the WPDAB project page: I believe you stand a high chance of getting someone who would agree with your vision. – Uanfala (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If my "vision" stands a "high chance" of getting support at WPDAB, what exactly is your reasoning for continuing to insist that yours is the "consensus" version? Can I also assume that you agree with the points I made above? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I don't believe the population of editors who monitor the project page and have strong enough opinions to be ready to wade into a discussion that's almost 20 kB long, are representative of the community. Sorry for not continuing to engage here, I'd be happy to accept whatever others come up with. – Uanfala (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I've already referenced several guidelines that represent what "the community" has decided. You seem to be arguing based on your own personal feeling about what "intended article" or "sought topic" readers are looking for, without substantiating it in any way. If you are really going to disengage, then I'll take that as an assent to my most recent substantive edit. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: if you're unsure of the ability of WPDAB members to weigh in responsibly here (which seems like a definite aspersion, but whatever), how about a formal request for a third opinion from an uninvolved user, like I suggested earlier? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'd be happy to defer to whoever comes here to comment. – Uanfala (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Input requested from WPDAB

I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation asking for input to this discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf and Uanfala: I’d like to encourage your both to disengage for a bit and allow other editors to evaluate and respond. This has gone on too long without additional voices. Give folks a chance to review the history of the page, the discussions above, and to formulate an opinion on the question. Thank you. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. Should we say 48 hours? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Philoserf and Uanfala: given almost two weeks of no input, I've gone ahead and restored the MoS-compliant version of the page. If it's reverted, then my next move will be a formal third-opinion request. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)