Talk:Turkish bath (disambiguation)

Tentatively edited page to reflect modern usage

Since the Victorian Turkish baths page was split from the hammam page almost two years ago, specifically because of the confusion between the two types of bath, it now seems appropriate to make these two terms the major disambiguation point.

I am no banya specialist but I have never heard the Russian banya referred to as a sauna, and Professor Ethan Pollock's 2019 history of the Russian bathhouse Without the banya we would perish has no index entry for the word. Admittedly there are a couple of entries for 'Finnish saunas', but these are merely throwaway single line comparisons between the sauna and banya. However this may not be relevant on the present page. Ishpoloni (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Bath and Turkish Baths

Because of the generally random use of the singular or plural version of Turkish Bath(s) (usually with absolute justification), I propose that this page be duplicated as Turkish Baths (disambiguation) so that the two alternative terms provided will not be missed by those searching under the plural version.

Is there someone out there who can do this?Ishpoloni (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be necessary. If someone is searching Turkish baths, it will currently lead them to Hammam, the assumed primary topic, and then at the top of that article there is a hatnote which directs readers here if they're looking for other uses. (Average reader won't type in "(disambiguation)" specifically in a search, so that add-on only exists here for the purpose of differentiating this particular page from other redirect titles.) R Prazeres (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. It's very unusual for me to take ten days to reply to something, but in this case I've had to think through my problem carefully and learn a bit more about Wikipedia, and I've finally realised that I asked the wrong question before. So let me start over by stating the problem.

Anyone familiar with hammams will tend to look up hammam(s) in any dictionary or encyclopaedia, so they have no problem.

Similarly, anyone familiar with Victorian Turkish baths will also have no problem.

The ones with problems are those unfamiliar with these terms who wish to find out about one or other of them. Currently, if a searcher enters Turkish bath(s) s/he is willy-nilly redirected to Hammam. Fine if that is what is wanted, but not if it's Vtb that's wanted because s/he is still directed only to Hammam, without even a 'See also:' reference. But what is needed is a reference to both options so either one (or even both) can be chosen.

You write " If someone is searching Turkish baths, it will currently lead them to Hammam, the assumed primary topic…" But while this might be so for the Islamic world, it is not necessarily so for those in the so-called Western world. Most of those wanting information about hammams will easily find it, those searching for the western or Victorian type will get nowhere. There is not even a 'See also:' reference to it at the end of the Hammam page, only a Main article link reached after reading more than half the Hammam page. (There is one to Hammam at the bottom of the VTb page!)

Given the comprehensive revision of the VTb page, I see only two choices, not a primary one alone. Otherwise there seems little point in providing a VTb page which few are directed to. This seems to be borne out by a wiki guidance note which says "If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated)."

So to conclude (you will be pleased to see!) I suggest that the redirect from Turkish bath(s) to Hammam be removed and replaced by (the guidance note's second option), a redirect page straight to "a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated", ie, to Turkish bath (Disambiguation). This should enable searchers easily to make a choice of either of the two main general articles (plus all the smaller more specific ones) or both.

Hammam (disambiguation) seems to serve its purpose perfectly. However, I wonder whether it might be clearer if one changed:

"A hammam, or Turkish bath, is a type of steam bath…"

into:

"A hammam (often known in the West as a Turkish bath) is a type of steam bath…"

though if I wasn't afraid of pushing my beginner's luck, I'd much prefer:

"A hammam (often inaccurately known in the West as a Turkish bath) is a type of steam bath…"

All the bestIshpoloni (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any real harm in directing Turkish baths to Hammam, especially as the latter page is wide in scope, touching on related topics that have their own main articles (like Victorian Turkish baths, which is linked in the first paragraph), whereas Victorian Turkish baths is arguably narrower in scope. It's also reasonable to believe that some, perhaps many, English speakers are not familiar with the word Hammam but are familiar with terms like Turkish baths for the same topic (which was the subject of debate during this move discussion). Those are arguments for why the current situation could still be best, but there is no definite right-or-wrong of course.

I think the best thing to do might be to list the question at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (RfD), which invites many editors to look specifically at this issue and arrive at a consensus. If I understood you, then the basic question is whether most readers searching "Turkish baths" are better served by arriving at Hammam or by arriving elsewhere (the most likely alternative being this disambiguation page, which would then likely be renamed without the "disambiguation"). Just keep it brief and clarify your preferred outcome, e.g.: "Turkish baths currently redirects to Hammam, but it's unclear if this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I propose retargeting it to Turkish Bath (disambiguation)." Let me know if you need help with this option; at worst, I'm happy to list it on your behalf. R Prazeres (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken time to reply to your views because I want to try to explain simply and logically why I so disagree with the current situation and take comfort from your view that "there is no definite right-or-wrong". My apologies for the length of what follows.

Wikipedia is the modern SuperEncyclopaedia taking advantage of all today's media possibilities, and the way so many articles are effectively presented and maintained is a wonder to be proud of. But sometimes it is possible to get too close to something and we forget the person who only occasionally uses it to look things up, and this is confirmed when I see the use of such everyday words as Disambiguation—though it is not too difficult to work out its meaning.

If I go to a traditional printed encyclopedia and look up 'UnusedTerm' and find it is not included, I expect to find a simple 'See: UsedTerm', or 'See: Option1Term, or Option2Term, or . . .'.

I don't expect to see: 'Read the first paragraph of UnwantedTerm and you will find a link to TheTermYouWant.'

So I don't want to look for an article on loganberries and find I'm directed to an article on tomatoes just because (a) they are both fruit, and (b) because tomatoes are more important and numerous than loganberries.

This is the current problem with 'Hammam' and 'Victorian Turkish baths' (VTb). They are indeed both baths, but that is fundamentally all they have in common. Both are equally important to their respective communities, though hammams have a longer, and probably longer lasting, history. They have no more in common with each other than they have with sauna or sento.

Both Hammam and VTb have in the past been popularly mis-described as specifically Turkish baths. We have now separated them. All that is needed to ensure that the knowing and the unknowning can both find what they want are two Redirects (from 'Turkish bath' and 'Turkish baths') to the Turkish bath (Disambiguation) page which clearly indicates (a) the historic misuse of the sought term, and (b) provides two direct links to the two main articles.

This simple change takes care of all needs with no disadvantage to anyone while, at the same time, abides by Wikipedia's principle that there should be no bias or prejudice. It positively opens up the possibility of an enquirer discovering a new interest.

The existing redirect from Turkish bath to Hammam positively diverts readers away from one of the possibilities without their even being aware that there was a choice. I find this extremely unsatisfactory and hope you wil reconsider your view.

CONCLUSION: I propose that the Redirect from Turkish bath(s) be made to the current Turkish Bath (disambiguation page).

If you feel we need a consensus (which might take a considerable time), I am quite happy with that provided we change the Redirect first, so it makes logical and practical sense, and then see if there is a consensus to change it back.

Best wishes Ishpoloni (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but when the topic of Hammam's title was last brought up for discussion (here), a sizeable minority of editors were still in favour of keeping it as "Turkish bath" and the closing admin commented that a "Proposal to change the redirect target of "Turkish bath" should be done with a RfD discussion" (I missed this earlier). Based on that, I think an RfD is a safer option, otherwise an editor could reasonably revert the whole thing at a later time. RfD takes more time (though it can be closed after a week), but it doesn't require much work and the outcome is more secure. The closing admin can also take care of the technical aspect of moving the titles around (i.e. the title here would become "Turkish bath"), which I suspect might not be possible for us to do ourselves. R Prazeres (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm obviously extremely disappointed, and somewhat surprised given the guidance notes on Redirects, but I will, of course, do what you suggest. It may well have been discussed before, but I think you would agree that the VTb page, and the clear distinctions it makes between wet and dry baths, is very different from the original one. Do we have any idea whether these editors are subject experts or rather experts in Wikipedia practice.

Anyway I'm happy to take advantage, if I may, of your experience in these matters. Please could you set the process in motion. I wouldn't know where to start.Ishpoloni (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I wouldn't stress too much about other editors, even when you disagree; consensus-building is part of both the advantages and challenges of Wikipedia. On the whole it prevents a lot more trouble than it causes, and consensus can change.

Just a heads-up: I'll invite you to comment after I open the discussion, since it's coming out of your suggestions here. Given our discussion above, I do recommend you keep comments there as concise as you can (you can link to this discussion for those who want to read more). I'll try to do the same. R Prazeres (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Ishpoloni (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The revised DAB you put up to day is a model of simplicity and clarity.

Taking your advice to be brief in my responses, I have been completely silent on the redirect question of 'primary topic' to see if anyone else mentions it before replying as I don't think it is relevant. Ishpoloni (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was listed at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 19#Turkish bath. Jay 💬 14:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]