Talk:Collect

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Amakuru in topic Requested move 10 July 2019

Untitled

edit

It was quite confusing when I was looking up things on statistics and data, because when I clicked onto a link ("collect"), I was taken to a religious explanation of the word "collect".

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

edit
  An image used in this article, File:Gregorian chant.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 10 July 2019

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: No consensus  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply


WP:ASTONISH. DAB from Collecting and Collect call. The DAB can also include a link to the Collection DAB page. A Google main and image search doesn't return anything for the prayer but a Google Books search does return a few. This was previously mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 50#Dictionary words can impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. While people are used to seeing/searching for things in the noun form I'd still say that this term is used far too commonly for collecting for it to be primary. Target is consistent with Lorica (prayer). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 18:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • Support. Given that disambiguation pages have become a major part of Wikipedia's infrastructure, it is not unreasonable for an astute reader to expect to find one at an ambiguous title (e.g. AAA), and be astonished to find anything else there. -- King of 00:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
SmokeyJoe - that might be true if that ever happened. But there is zero evidence of such a link, whether a mislink created by an editor (I fixed the one out of hundreds of correct links), or an ambiguous link in some other article. Dohn joe (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
It happened to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Who is being astonished by the current state of affairs? If I were looking for information about collect calls, I would search "collect call". If I were looking for information about collecting/collections, I would search for "collecting", or "collection". Yes, those who accidentally land at this article will have a moment of astonishment, but the number of people in this situation will be very small. (And, thanks to the hatnotes, they'll still get to the article they were looking for with just one more click - no more than if we sent them to a dab page.) Colin M (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to hatnotes?!

This article is about the prayer. For hobbies, see Collecting. For reversing phone charges, see Collect call. For other uses, see Collect (disambiguation).

Hatnotes are a ugly patch, messing the prime real estate between title and lede sentence, fixing the problem of inadequate titling. A title should tell you, without reference to anything below, what the topic of the page is. The current title fails, thus there is a hatnote. The hatnote is far more negative than having "(prayer)" in what is currently title whitespace. The proposal means the ability to remove the hatnote entirely, which is a very good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why does historical significance play such an important part? Should "Google" be redirected straight to the number? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Because policy says it is something we can take into account A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The collect is the most visible changing part of Christian liturgical celebrations, and there are places where the daily/weekly collect does have even secular implications in some parts of the world: see Stir-up Sunday. To compare Google to the number is a false equivalence: obviously Google will have more lasting historical significance than the number that no one can even really fathom. That's very different than saying a prayer that a significant part of the world's population heres on a weekly basis isn't the topic with the most lasting significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
So what you're saying is that the prayer has more long-term significance than the action of collecting items? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm saying that for the noun collect the prayer is the primary topic with the most long-term significance as it is something that is supposed to be heard at least once weekly by participants in the world's largest religious group. We have nouns as titles per WP:NOUN. Collecting , the noun form of the verb "to collect" is its own page and is appropriate at that title. The hat note works fine, and hell, I'd even remove collect call from it as unneeded. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Interestingly I asked someone I know about a prayer called "collect" and I was asked how I'd heard of it. There was a similar RM at Talk:Boring#Requested move 20 April 2019 where it was noted that although the term "boring" in everyday speech usually means boredom, Boring (earth) is more likely in an encyclopedia. Maybe we should follow that precedent here an have no PT. I would hovever agree that collect call is likely a PTM though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
While it's true about us being an encyclopedia, let's face it — we are a lot more than just an encyclopedia. We have information about almost everything, at least anything important to a fairly large number of people. If you take a look at "Collect" visits and "Collecting" visits, the numbers speak for themselves. "Collecting" wins over the last 30 days. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
That doesn't mean that people typing "collect" are seeking the collecting article.  AjaxSmack  02:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
But they could we be doing just that. We don't know one way or the other, but considering the visits to "collecting," we can infer that there are quite a few people who are looking for the term. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
So? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm giving a lazy comment for a (unsurprisingly) lazy nomination. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Lazy nomination? I provided evidence based on Google that this isn't primary. Indeed the only test that gives many results for the prayer is the is/was test on Google Books. That test arguably gives evidence that in an encyclopedia the term "collect" is more likely to mean the prayer but other searches return nothing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I would say this is quite an active discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Let's divide this by fragments: "I provided evidence based on Google that this isn't primary" Good, but Google tests are merely a fraction on how determining primary topics, not how mandatory pages are to be named. "Indeed the only test that gives many results for the prayer is the is was test on GBooks", which immediately contradicts your previous statement. "That test arguably gives evidence that in an encyclopedia the term "collect" is more likely to mean the prayer but other searches return nothing." Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and thanks for proving, once again, this is not Wiktionary, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Trust me, you'd have a point if Collect (album), Collect (film), Collect (psychology), Collect (asteroid) (I'm inventing these links. I don't know if any other topic exists with such name) existed, but they do not exist as of August 2019. The only topics are prayers, collecting (grammatically, "to collect", "collect" and "collecting" do not mean the same thing) and collect call which is a WP:PTM that should be removed from the disambiguation page or at least be moved to the see also section, per WP:MOSDAB. So no, I don't see anything to discuss beyond a disambiguation page that will function as a dictionary entry. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
The GBooks is/was test I did later (which I agreed is good evidence that in an encyclopedia "Collect" is more likely to refer to the prayer) but even a general search on GBooks doesn't return much, indeed general Google searches are often used to determine primary topics, the is/was test is from User:In ictu oculi. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
That's rather strong, is it not? He gave a link that did work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:29, 10 August 2019 (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.