Talk:Lua'

iso 639-3

There has been a iso 639-3 request submitted to retire this language. This page should be merged with a different language group.Bluethailand (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge Lua and Lua’

User:Uanfala This is normal per Wikipedia:DPAGE Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks. For example, the terms Oe, Ōe, OE and O.E. are disambiguated on a single page (Oe). and/or WP:INCOMPDAB. Size is correct to merge. Unmerged, we have two small dabs where they only differ by "’". We can't expect readers/writers to input such characters, and as you had here [1] we agree they are ambiguous. There's many redirects that need changing to go back to unmerged, so can we please reach agreement here first now (it's currently part unmerged). The objection "readers typing Lua' (with the apostrophe) aren't looking for any of the Lua languages" isn't a strong argument, as we do that all the time per WP:INCOMPDAB (where we can direct to the section Austroasiatic). Widefox; talk 11:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:DPAGE explicitly calls for using editorial judgement when applying its guidelines. Of the entries that Lua’ (with apostrophe) can refer to, none actually contain the word Lua in their titles, so if a reader typing Lua’ (with apostrophe) is taken to the general dab page, they will have no way of knowing which of the entries listed there are relevant and might be misled into thinking that all are. We could try appending also known as Lua’ to each relevant entry, but that's easy to miss. An alternative would be to have a dedicated section containing Lua’ in bold at its top, and I have no strong objections against that. Or alternatively, we could leave things as they are and that was the easiest thing to do. Uanfala (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding that the page at Lua’ language could conceivably be expanded into an article about the language name, why it ended up being used (mistakenly) to refer to several languages, how ethnolog thought it was an actual language and how they finally found out it wasn't. And this potential for a new article is slightly easier to be achieved if the dab page is separate (as it contains in its page history quite a bit of relevant details), but (I admit) this isn't a particularly strong argument for having it separate at present. But neither is the opposite one – we do that all the time. Again, it all comes down to editorial judgement and using common sense. Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The entries for Lua’ at Lua language now do have Lua’ to help distinguish them, as well as a separate section. This is much better than two tiny split dabs. Putting [2] the dab link at the top of the other dab just isn't as good as merging. We agree they're ambiguous (with that edit), so isn't it easier to allowing readers to see them together?!

As for creating a dabconcept at Lua’ language, I have no opinion. The linked articles are small in themselves, but per dabconcept we shouldn't shy away from creating one if that fits best. All I know is, currently, the two dabs should be merged and arguably merged into Lua per WP:INCOMPDAB. "We do that all the time" while linking to guidelines and using my editorial judgement is the opposite - a strong policy/guideline based argument. Widefox; talk 13:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, if we apply a guideline, I think we should have a good reason to do so, or at the very least understand the reasons for the guideline being what it is. I'm not sure I completely see that in this case. If we wanted to serve readers best, we won't make them go through a list of entries that are irrelevant to what they searched for. This, in my opinion, means that a reader typing Lua’ language is best served by a separate dab page, and a reader typing Lua language is best served by one containing all relevant entries. So I agree with the upstream bit of the merge (just let me tidy that up, if I may), but I still see it best that Lua’ language should remain a dab page of itself. However, I'm not going to insist and I'll leave it for others to decide. Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well that's an inverted logic of guidelines/policy "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". The argument to not combine is an inversion of WP:INCOMPDAB "it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page". So no, you need a good reason not to follow guideline, do you have one? Widefox; talk 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Uanfala as another editor has merged, there's (rough) consensus for the merger. Please seek consensus here before making more controvercial edits and removing wikt links, and not following WP:MOSDAB and WP:D. Thank you Widefox; talk 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The other editor you mention was being absent-minded and they thanked me when I undid their edit. So far, in this discussion there's just you and me and the opinion of one of us isn't "consensus". Again, I don't mind the upstream side of the merge and the edit you take issue with was simply a post-merge tidying up. I've removed an irrelevant wiktionary link (see MOS:WTLINK), reordered per #1 of WP:DABORDER, removed one-entry sections per MOS:DABGROUPING and moved one entry that isn't referred to as "Lua language" to the "see also" section (can't remember the exact bit of the MOS). Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Think we're talking cross purposes, User:VarunFEB2003 redirected here [3]. That's two of us that agree with merging. They removed the merge tags, so I'm guessing they consider this non-controvercial. That's a rough consensus, and now, there's nothing to see here. Widefox; talk 23:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

They merged what was merged already and they didn't leave any appearance of being aware of this discussion at all. You don't build consensus by ignoring discussion. And at any rate, two people who won't listen to one another doesn't make for much of a discussion. This could do with more eyes, but there's no participation, despite that fact that this discussion happens to be advertised on the project page. And it's only fair that no-one is interested in this little teapot storm of ours. Uanfala (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I cannot speak for them, but I don't often come across such persistence in the face of MOS and other editors. As I'm strictly editing per the letter of WP:MOSDAB / WP:D. When two other editors disagree with you in whatever form, it really is time to WP:DROP. I suggest next time seeking a third opinion yourself, as this is a trivial waste of time wikilawyering when we already have a form of consensus in the MOS. Widefox; talk 00:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term. Everything else is secondary. Narky Blert (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)