Talk:Etruscan

Requested move 2 August 2018

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 Opposers argued that Etruscan refers more to Etruscan language and that a reader looking for Etruscan would be more likely to want Etruscan language, rather than Etruscan civilization, so there was no consensus that Etruscan civilization is the primary redirect for a move to occur (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Etruscan → Etruscan (disambiguation) – This is essentially the same as the recent successful move at Minoan. There is one key article that is primary - "Etruscan" should redirect to Etruscan civilization, and the content now here should go to a disam title. Here's an n-gram. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is the word "Etruscan" on its own used to refer to the civilization at all? I'd imagine that the language would be a more likely referent. – Uanfala (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the n-gram suggests otherwise. Obviously it is mainly used as an adjective in this sense, but these are by far the most common uses of all. Same as with Minoan. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The "n-grams" (= article views) only tell us that Etruscan civilization is the most viewed of the articles listed on the dab page. It doesn't tell us anything about the uses of the term "Etruscan", or about what readers are looking for. The analogy with "Minoan" isn't complete as the Minoan language is a rather more obscure topic than the Etruscan language. – Uanfala (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

As covered at the Minoan discussion, Linear A is the main article, far more viewed than Minoan language. This is the Minoan n-gram, which doesn't suggest our readers feel that "the Minoan language is a rather more obscure topic than the Etruscan language" - the Minoan views are actually higher. You are right that we don't know what readers are looking for - but in the great majority of cases, the best starting point will be Etruscan civilization. The last time I used the word (a week or so ago) was in the context of 18th-century Neoclassical "Etruscan Revival", on which we don't have an article - so EC is the link needed, as it generally will be. Johnbod (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Views for calendar 2017: Etruscan language, 163k; Linear A, 177k; Minoan language 33K. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your edit just now (& why it even shows up in the history). What was the idea? Nb that Etruscans already redirects to EC. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Inca - redirects to Inca Empire - and Inca (disambiguation) are another example of what we should be doing here. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled by this discussion, so I'll limit my comments at this moment to this: if Etruscan is converted to a redirect, then the contents of this page ought to be moved to Etruscan (disambiguation) -- which is currently a redirect to this page. -- llywrch (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the proposal says. Obviously it would then be its own page, & no longer redirect anywhere. Not sure I see your point. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If we're talking about ordinary usage in English, what this page asserts is not true. "Etruscan" (without a following noun) nearly always refers to the Etruscan language, not to all those other things. "Etruscans" practically always refers to the people whose culture is described at Etruscan civilization. Those two terms are not really ambiguous at all.

So I'd redirect Etruscan to Etruscan language and Etruscans to Etruscan civilization (the latter is already the case). To help all those people who begin to type "Etruscan ..." without being sure what noun to type next, both those articles should have a headnote linking to a disambiguation page, which could helpfully list all the pages that this page currently lists. It should be titled Etruscan (disambiguation) (as is proposed above) and why not give it a redirect at Etruscans (disambiguation)? That's my view, anyway. Andrew Dalby 15:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure "what this page asserts" refers to. What about "Etruscan" with a following noun? A hatnote to the disam won't "help all those people who begin to type "Etruscan ..." without being sure what noun to type next" much, as they have to go to one page or the other before seeing the hatnote. They would already see ten or so choices in the search box, if they are searching WP, which include Etruscan language. If that isn't enough for them, then surely Etruscan civilization is the best place to continue a search for information on Etruscan plumbing? There would of course be a hatnote to the disam page at EC if the proposal were adopted. I'd certainly oppose redirecting Etruscan to Etruscan language, and given the n-gram views I don't think this has any chance of being adopted. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I fear the n-gram test that my comment has no chance of passing is an unknown unknown to me. It doesn't matter, I'm happy to leave this to others. Andrew Dalby 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A sensible proposal. "Etruscan", an adjective, is not really ambiguous at all. Srnec (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Etruscan" is ambiguous as an adjective, otherwise, only one of the following two phrases would be possible: "an Etruscan vase", "an Etruscan word". – Uanfala (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• And page titles refer to noun usage, per WP:NOUN, so while "Etruscan" is sometimes an adjective, the noun usage is what's under consideration here. Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Andrew Dalby. "Etruscan" (unadorned) is just as likely to refer to the Etruscan language. —  AjaxSmack  01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support, possible alternative. Originally I said that the language was named for the people, so the proposal was more logical than having it go to the language. But reconsidering as I read back what I'd typed, I think it could perhaps direct to the language, if (as I think reasonable) "Etruscan civilization", a very clunkily-titled article, were moved to "Etruscans", plural. I really dislike the title "Etruscan civilization" when most links are probably called "Etruscans". Would having them with such similar titles be potentially confusing? That's a natural thought, but I'm not sure if people would really confuse them, given how we naturally use the singular and plural differently. Either way, I agree with moving this article to one of them, and moving the contents of this to "Etruscan (disambiguation)". P Aculeius (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The word "Etruscan", when used on its own rather than as part of a phrase, most commonly refers to the language, so Andrew Dalby's counterproposal for redirecting Etruscan to Etruscan language makes the most sense. I would have supported it if primary topics were judged solely on real world use, but we also need to take into account what wikipedia users are looking for when they search for "Etruscan". To find out, I edited the dab entries for the two prime contenders (Etruscan language and Etruscan civilization), piping the links via implausible redirects (these redirects differ from the article titles by the presence of a non-printing character after the space: this makes them visually identical to those titles, but makes it extremely unlikely that a reader would chance upon them in any way other than the dab page). The pageviews for those redirects [1] reveal that of the 347 users who viewed the dab page in this period, 98 clicked through to the language article, and 71 opted for the article about the civilisation. Yes, the language is more likely to be chosen by readers, but the difference isn't big enough to support making it the primary topic. Overall, readers seem to best served by keeping the status quo with the dab page at the base title. – Uanfala (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Etruscan civilization as the Primary Topic for Etruscan and Etruscan redirecting to Etruscan civilization. All other Etruscan topics derive from Etruscan civilization. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The word "Etruscan" when used on its own is jargon, used within an established context. It usually means Etruscan people, language, culture or artifacts. All derive from the Etruscan civilization. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is jargon, this is the way English normally works (and I hope that no-one would content that in this sentence my use of the word "English" was an instance of jargon). – Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Etruscan civilization as the primary topic for Etruscan, and oppose Etruscan redirecting to Etruscan civilization per Andrew Dalby's post above. All other Etruscan topics derive from Etruscan language. Indeed, language is a universal prerequisite for all civilizations everywhere, and it's not often that you get to say "universal" so categorically and really mean it. Furthermore, the "ngram" quoted above is not an ngram at all, it's a page view listing for one website (this one), and there is nothing in the disambiguation guideline that bases primary topic on usage at one website. However more importantly, when used as a noun, as in the case of French or Spanish, Etruscan means the language or the people; it does not mean the civilization by itself. We can say, French is an important Romance language, or The French are known for their culinary taste, but not, *French is one of the greatest civilizations of western Europe. French is never a stand-in for "French civilization", nor is Etruscan, to my knowledge, ever a stand-in for "Etruscan civilization". Therefore, it cannot be the primary topic as proposed. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I don’t think French is analogous. But maybe Akkadia & Akkadian. Do we know more about the language than the civilisation? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, Akkadian redirects to the article about the language, not the civilization. – Uanfala (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

---

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.