Jump to content

Talk:Trestle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Trestles)

Requested move 31 October 2021

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trestle (disambiguation) → Trestle – No clear primary topic, the bridge has 3,996 views but the table has 3,786, ATLAS-I has 960[[1]], the mill has 30 and the heraldry has 15[[2]]. Most Google and Images results are for the table but the bridge has more in Books. There was a consensus at Talk:Trestles (surfing)#Requested move 12 October 2021 that the plural has no PT and it seems likely that there is no primary topic for the singular so the DAB should be at the singular base name per WP:DABNAME and WP:PLURALPT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 December 2021

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. We have essentially unanimous consensus here that the proposal is an improvement over the status quo, and the procedural concerns seem to have been resolved to the participants' satisfaction. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trestle (disambiguation) → Trestle – I believe the alternate proposal in the just-closed RM here obscured the consensus (though it seemed obvious to me) that there's no primary topic here (certainly there's no consensus as to what the primary topic is, if there is one!). So let's just move the disambig page to where it belongs, as proposed before. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my previous nom. While I agree the alternative proposal may have obscured consensus I don't think the close was incorrect as it can be argued the meanings are somewhat conceptual meaning it may be reasonable to select one as a broad-concept or primary topic. I think you should probably have discussed with the closer but now we're here let's get on with it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt it would be cleaner to start fresh. I don't expect BarrelProof with make the same alternative proposal again, since it's now clear that it will not gain consensus, so we should focus on a proposal that might. I liked yours and so did several others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and Crouch, Swale. As in my vote during the just-closed 31 October 2021 RM above, I continue to prefer this disambiguation page without a primary topic, rather than with trestle serving as WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to trestle bridge. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This identical proposal was closed just a few hours ago. It's usually considered inappropriate to open an identical RM so soon after a close. @Paine Ellsworth: is an experienced closer, who specifically said there was "no agreement...to rename the dab page to the base name". It would have been more appropriate to ask Paine Ellsworth on his talk page to reconsider or reopen, and if there was still disagreement, to go to move review. At the very least the participants in the previous discussion should have been pinged. Station1 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I explained clearly enough why I restarted the same proposal. Not taking issue with closer's finding of "no consensus", but looking to find a clearer consensus than what I might have hallucinated there. Feel free to oppose if you think this is not a good move. Yes, I could have asked him to re-open, but then there would still be all that baggage. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, maybe I should have asked closer to reconsider. The original proposal said "No clear primary topic", and that was very clearly borne out by all the comments. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BarrelProof, No such user, FOARP, HumanBodyPiloter5, and Colin M: I hope I got all the previous participants, per Station1's suggestion, to come back and say again what they think of the original proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: We weren't able to agree that there is a clear primary topic, so the term should be disambiguated as proposed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personally okay with this out-of-process reopening that should have waited a few weeks, because usually the longer the wait, the better chance of success. Since three editors in the previous RM, HBP5, FOARP and Nsu, suggested moving Trestle support to Trestle, those were assessed as opposed to the requested move. That, together with CM's oppose rationale, means the no-consensus outcome was a gift. Too many participants were unimpressed with Crouch, Swale's stats even after his hard work digging them up, so I expect this hurried RM will fail, but I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 07:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of those you count as opposed already now support (BarrelProof and No such user) (actually you didn't count BarrelProof, but it was his idea). As expected. It's hard to see why someone who thinks Trestle support should be primary would oppose fixing this, knowing that they're not going to get that result. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well, since we could not agree last time which topic is primary, that implies that there is not one. We should probably introduce that as a rule (there was a discussion to that effect a year or two ago, possibly with some of the editors involved here, but if I remember correctly it got stale). No such user (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are reasonable arguments for different topics to be primary that seems to suggest there isn't a primary topic. However WP:DABCONCEPT says if it can be described in an article then it should not go to a DAB. This may suggest having either a broader meaning like the support or a narrower one like the bridge. However it does look many editors didn't think this applied. In the case of Hearts the card game was moved away from the base name after a rough consensus at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 16 March 2019 that it wasn't primary but some editors suggested the organ (or suit) were primary so the closer put the DAB at the base name and started a new RM at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 25 March 2019 to determine if there was consensus to have the organ as primary which there was consensus against. While the different meanings of hearts were probably named after each other the meanings are quite distinct so a lack of consensus for which is primary seems to suggest there isn't one. Similar with Talk:Status Quo#Requested move 16 November 2021 where some argued the generic meaning and some the band was primary. In such cases (as perhaps with this one) the closer probably should move the DAB to the base name and allow a discussion on making a different topic primary to happen straight away, a kind of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was basically arguing (although I probably did not articulate it well), that Trestle support is the WP:DABCONCEPT here, or could be easily edited to be a proper one (and I'll try to rectify that right now). The problem with DABCONCEPTs is that they tend to be about basic things and of rather general exposition, so they do not attract many pageviews. Here, the simple concept of trestle was applied to bridges, tables and desks, and in common parlance "trestle bridge" got shortened to "trestle", obscuring the original meaning. So we have a tension between DABCONCEPT (favoring the simple structure) and PTOPIC (pageviews favoring the bridge), and a difference in views among editors how best to resolve it. So having a dab page seems like a compromise. No such user (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a result of the above move, there are a lot of incoming links here that now need to be disambiguated, mostly to Trestle bridge. Any assistance with that would be much appreciated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trestle&oldid=1241800849"