Jump to content

Talk:Right (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 June 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Right (disambiguation) → Right – User:Some Gadget Geek originally posted this to WP:RFD, but since it is a move request, I am taking it here instead. The rationale provided was: "The term "right" most of the time does not automatically mean "rights" - there are many other considerations and none of them have primary importance the way "rights" is. With that, I ask that we move Right (disambiguation) to the base name. (Note that all of the other relative direction articles: left, up, and down are all dab pages, as should be "right".)" -- Tavix (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging users who commented at the Rfd: Pfhorrest Some Gadget Geek Sonic678 Ivanvector (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as noted in the closed Rfd, for consistency with the other directional dabs, and because rights can't be said to be the primary topic for "right". Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just repeating my comment from the RFD for posterity: Almost all of the links to the page are using it as the singular for "rights", so rights seems to be the article people usually mean to link to when they link right. I don't have very strong feelings about this one way or another, just thought that's worthy of note. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the correct guideline is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (PT), and the RfD can be disregarded. Widefox; talk 01:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No compelling case has (currently) been made for removing the PT. See PT for (a) usage = rights seemingly has higher link usage in WP for instance (b) long-term significance = no compelling argument to change. The desire to have a full set of directions is an irrelevant consideration for disambiguation as readers will not search for all four at once and get confused i.e. PT selection should be made solely in comparison with the other ambiguous term articles. For example, apple (fruit) vs apple (co.) not apple (fruit + co.) vs orange (fruit + whatever) vs (). It logically isn't possible to set out WP with all sets being PTs. I've fixed the dab in the meantime. Widefox; talk 01:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that before any removing this PT, all the incoming links [1] will have to be changed to avoid the dab. That nom has not addressed that (yet). Widefox; talk 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it is a list of many rights which does not give specific information on a single right as the proposed title suggests. The current title appropriately disambiguates the content from all the various topics as presented in its own list. GregKaye 04:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. After I used AWB to convert the many [[right]]s links to [[rights]], we are still left with over 120 links to the singular form [[right]]. Arguably many of these are WP:OVERLINKs and in some cases editors should link to a more WP:SPECIFICLINK, but there is no reason to pull the singular form from primary topic status. How would you disambiguate these if we did? Don't tell me to pipe them as [[rights|right]], that's a copout. What would be the valid parenthetical dab? The current article is a WP:BROADCONCEPT, so don't restrict its broadness. Oh, and our opposite article is titled wrong, not wrongs. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Neutral, but lean to support. By all rights, rights should be the primary topic for right. But after fixing about 80 over- and mis-links, from editors who think they need to link "right" to tell you what a "right midfielder" or "right wing" in soccer is, or what it means that someone is on the "right" side of a picture, or assume that linking "right" is sufficient to mean "right-wing politics", I'm left with just under forty remaining links that might best just be bypassed to [[rights|right]] with AWB, and be done with this. Forcing this to the disambiguation will at least provide a mechanism for policing these links. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm wondering how everyone here has determined that rights is the primary topic for right; it seems extremely far-fetched to me to make that assumption. Possible matching concepts I can think of are of course right as in a fundamental entitlement; right as in the moral principle (the opposite of wrong); right as in truth or correctness (which itself is a disambiguated topic); right the direction (the opposite of left), right the mathematical property, right in terms of politics; and so on. If someone types "right" into the search box, how do we determine the likelihood that they are looking for any one of these articles? We often use ghits to roughly gauge this, but I don't even know where to begin with such a broad topic. Showing them a disambiguation page is better. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be a historical artifact that right redirects to rights, because there was some recurring dispute a while back about whether rights was in violation of the singular-noun policy for article titles, and someone had (repeatedly IIRC) moved the article to right. After much debate it was settled that "rights" was the more natural title for the article about legal or moral permissions or entitlements, enough to override the usual singular policy (a la "scissors" or "trousers", not "scissor" or "trouser"). Right was thus redirected to rights automatically when it was moved back to the latter title.
That said, I do think that if anything is the primary topic for right simpliciter, it is rights, just given the usage across wikipedia of people linking to right most often when they mean the singular of "rights", and rarely anything else. I'm open the the possibility that there is no primary topic and a dab would be better, though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous moves
Move logs
Discussion
Things moved more slowly back then. The move was 21⁄2 years in the making. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
So, we have:
How would you disambiguate the topic which is currently sitting at the title "right(s)", keeping the singular form synchronized with the plural form? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're on about here... Moral rights and civil rights are both rights in the sense discussed at the article currently titled rights. The rest of those (the opposite of left, the opposite of wrong, orthogonal, and the political position) would not normally be pluralized in the article title. It's very clear that the article about legal or moral permissions or entitlements is the primary topic for the plural title. The only question is whether that's also the primary topic for the singular title, or whether that singular title should be the home of a disambiguation page instead. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis, and you're right correct about moral rights, but that wasn't the usage I intended. A "moral right" is a fundamental entitlement (right) guaranteed by a code of morality; such a code would dictate what is right (moral, conforming with the code) or wrong (immoral, against the code). Similarly, ethical vs. unethical, legal vs. illegal, civil vs. uncivil, all variations on right vs. wrong. And true vs. false, but that is again another meaning.
As for the plural, I think it's clear that rights is the primary topic (when written plural), and I can't think of a good parenthetical disambiguator anyway. That does put us into a situation of needing to use piped links like [[rights|right]] to make a link like "right of free speech", but I think this is a minor consideration. We're supposed to be reader-focused, not editor-focused. And besides, you would link to right of free expression anyway, per WP:SPECIFICLINK. (There actually is no right of free speech page) Ivanvector (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that links to the same place as Right to free speech. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to right of free expression, that should just be another redirect to freedom of speech. From the move log,
  • 17:08, 8 November 2012 Rancalred moved page Freedom of speech to Freedom of The Press (Freedom Of speech Refers To The Freedom to Openly Criticize The State Freedom OF The Press Refers To The Freedom to Broadcast Publicly Any View's Or Opinion's No Matter How Un-PC They Are )
This was reverted as page-move vandalism, however the double-redirect fixing bots replicating this vandalism weren't all reverted. I'm going to fix that now. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My oppose is weakening, and as I look at the remaining links, I'm seeing WP:OVERLINKs and a need for more WP:SPECIFICLINKs, so am coming around to the support POV. I think if we mostly just remove links, or convert them to more specific links, there will be very few left that need to be awkwardly piped from plural to singular form. Another observation: Right (legal) is a redirect which works for disambiguation in some cases. But beware of the not-quite analogous privilege (legal ethics); I think I see some unrelated articles mislinking to that. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Right (principle) -> Rights? The article covers more than just legal rights. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a broad topic, which makes it difficult to disambiguate. Right-wing politicians have principles, too. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a suggested redirect, not a suggested move, right correct? Suggesting that there should be a redirect from Right (principle) (currently nonexistent) to Rights (as it is now), so that people can write about the "[[right (principle)|right]] to chew gum in public" or whatever? I'm not sure why that's more elegant than "[[rights|right]] to chew gum", but if there is need for a Right (something) redirect, I think "principle" is probably the best 'something'; because though there's lots of back-and-forth about whether rights are legal or moral in character, permissive or entitling in character, etc, in every case they are still held to be principles. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a proposed redirect, mostly to satisfy editors who don't want to type "[[rights|right]]", even though using this would be more characters. I'm not proposing moving the Rights article, unless it is necessary for technical reasons, and I'm pretty sure that it is not. Ivanvector (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to be an underlying case of the plural title confusing. Splitting the singular and plural justifies a high bar. Until a very strong case is made (currently absent), suggest closing this. Widefox; talk 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a good discussion. I maintain that there is no primary topic, but clearly there is no consensus here to move, so I agree with closing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How much belongs at a dab page like this?

[edit]

Today's addition of Civil and political rights to the "law" section makes me wonder how many of the many, many rights-related articles should be added to this disambiguation page. That civil and political article is part of a pair of articles, the other being Economic, social, and cultural rights. There are also Natural and legal rights, Negative and positive rights, Claim rights and liberty rights, Individual and group rights, and a huge bevy of Men's rights, Women's right, Children's rights, Student rights, and on and on... Template:Rights has most of them in it. But all of those (and the two other things in the "Law" section here) are a subset of the kind of Rights linked in the first line. Should all of them be here? Or none of them? If only some, which, and why? --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are valid entries per WP:BROADCONCEPT - they are all examples of the primary topic (PT). I've removed them, and reverted the wording of the PT to use the ambiguous term per WP:DABPRIMARY / WP:MOSDAB . Widefox; talk 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pfhorrest and Widefox: The trouble with using Template:Rights for disambiguation is that it really isn't a disambiguation page, so in a way you are taking every thing other than the broad article on rights off the table as a possible way to disambiguate a link to right. For example, children have a right to special protection. Wouldn't children's rights be a better, more WP:SPECIFICLINK there? But it's less likely to happen, because it's not even offered on the dab page. I would be inclined to remove the link entirely, as an WP:OVERLINK to an everyday word. In which case, the reader may remain unaware that we have a special article on the topic. Perhaps an option is to take the template and make a WP:Set index article version of it that sits at the primary topic title, Right. Otherwise, I may be leaning back towards the status quo, with the singluar redirecting to the plural, because at least you have the disambiguating template at the top of that article. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man argument as nobody is suggesting using a nav template for disambiguation, but seems reasonable for navigation.
This is just a run-of-the-mill WP:BROADCONCEPT "However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page....Where there are additional meanings that are not instances or examples of a "Foo" primary concept or type, those should be included on a "Foo (disambiguation)" page." Widefox; talk 01:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the comment Widefox made above, that none of those more specific rights topics should be included. Disambiguation is for separating articles with the same or very similar titles at a very high level. Rights is already covered on the first line, all of the subsequent entries should be concepts distinct from the meaning of rights, such as direction, correctness, works which are titled "right", and so on. However, creating a set index of rights articles isn't a terrible idea. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldy created a Right set index, to make more clear what I was proposing. This is for the benefit of purists who feel that disambiguation and set indices should always be distinct pages, and combining them into hybrid "dab sets" should never be done. Feel free to revert if you disagree; here is a permalink to my proposal for further discussion. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm one of those purists; I was about to suggest that your edits to Right be made into a List of rights (separate from the dab) but now I see you've already found Outline of rights which is basically the same thing. Off-topic: there's a Portal portal? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah given the existence of Outline of rights I don't think that Right needs to be a set index as it's just been made; I think Right should go back to being a redirect to Rights, and Outline of rights should be the set index. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice the outline until after I'd already created the set-index, so it should at least be given a higher profile. DAB-type pages shouldn't be that hard to find; that's why we use hatnotes in a prominent location at the top of the page. The outline includes a list of "notable people", which is clearly beyond the scope of disambiguating the term "right" (purity and all). I agree though there's overlap here; this is an interesting discussion. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a dab set index. I've reverted the unilateral change to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (from a redirect to an SIA). A list article yes, this dab yes, but there's no consensus here for the primary topic being a WP:SIA. Widefox; talk 20:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plural / singular

[edit]

Anything other than keeping both the plural and singular right rights going to the same article needs consensus here before another bold change. All those links that were the singular and now have been changed to the plural are WP:NOTBROKEN. Widefox; talk 08:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_(disambiguation)&oldid=1242587509"