Talk:Poker face

Primary topic

I'm not unpersuadable to the new setup. But if we are going to consider the poker term the primary topic, shouldn't we do it the right way? That is, get the dab page moved to Poker face (disambiguation) and redirect Poker face to Blank expression, probably leaving the capitalized version, Poker Face, as a redirect to the dab page. This will probably require a move discussion though, since an admin is needed for the move.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic is a bit ambiguous on that point. The first example, Cosmonaut, indicates we should do as you suggest, while the second, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, seems to say why bother? I don't see any pressing need to do the extra work. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mozart example is intended to illustrate a situation in which, because the ambiguous term (Mozart) and its primary topic (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) are very nearly the same, referring to both in the introductory sentence would be awkward and redundant. That is not the case here, where there are two distinct terms, as in the cosmonaut/astronaut example. And both of those examples refer to pages with (disambiguation) in the title, which is not true of this page. Either the page should be moved to the (disambiguation) title, or the "blank expression" entry should be made a regular entry again and not be placed in the introductory sentence.--ShelfSkewed Talk 14:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you say sounds plausible. I agree with you, but which way would you choose ? Krenakarore ^TK 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would move the disambiguation page to Poker Face (caps) and redirect Poker face to Blank expression with a hatnote to the title-capitalized dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the third possibility, and I'm totally fine with that. (I thought about redirecting Poker face to the poker glossary page, but then hatnote placement becomes a problem: If the redirect goes directly to the definition, then a hatnote at the top of the page would go unnoticed, and placing it near the definition is awkward.)--ShelfSkewed Talk 15:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no ambiguity in Linking to a primary topic. If it has a primary topic, then the base name leads there (possibly through a redirect). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems we agree that a move is needed, and despite ShelfSkewed's first suggestion, what you say sounds sensible to me ! Krenakarore ^TK 15:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the poker term, not blank expression, is the primary topic. That's where the phrase came from. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being the origin isn't the same as being the primary topic. What are readers looking for when they enter "poker face" in the Go box? a list of poker terms, or the blank expression (which is what this particular term refers to)? IMO, landing them on blank expression is more likely what they sought and more useful, since the only information given on the term at the list of poker terms is "A blank expression that does not reveal anything about the cards being held. Often used outside the world of poker." -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ! Krenakarore ^TK 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure shoehorning two disparate subjects (psychology & game playing) into one article is the best approach, but I didn't see an easy fix, so I copy edited Blank expression to try to make it fit together a bit better.Eaglizard (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Poker Face (Lady Gaga song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Poker Face (song) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]