Talk:Ivan Milat

Which is the better redirect?

Another editor and I disagree on the way to phrase a DAB link in this article. Ivan Milat is a serial killer known for the backpacker murders. The other editor wants the DAB entry to be Ivan Milat (serial killer), which is itself a redirect page that takes the reader to Backpacker murders#Ivan Milat. My preference is for the DAB link to be [[Backpacker murders#Ivan Milat|Ivan Milat]] which obviates the need to take the reader through the redirect page.

I am interested in the opinion of other editors on this topic, and whether a particular link is preferred under policy or guideline. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It's surprising you didn't tag the other editor to comment WWGB :) Did you even look at MOS:DABREDIR? It's really clear that your kind of piping is incorrect. Additinoally, dabs are there to help readers find info - by letting them know a title they can reach the info by (instead of piping so the title just shows, incorrectly, as 'Ivan Milat', they can easily find the title next time too. Did you look at MOS:DABREDIR at all? Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• The entry should be the redirect, Ivan Milat (serial killer), in accordance with WP:DABREDIR, which says, A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. The ambiguous term is "Ivan Milat", and that section of Backpacker murders is about a person named Ivan Milat. It's a textbook case of the guideline. As for avoiding "tak[ing] the reader through the redirect page", there is no cost and much benefit to the reader to go through the redirect, which is completely invisible. They click once on the link and then poof! they're exactly where they wanted to be. — Gorthian (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• • Oppose any move. The article should remain at Ivan Milat, as it is now a separate article. There is no need for a disambiguation qualifier enclosed in parenthesis because the personal name is unambiguous and is consistent with the subject's common name. Also this renders a neutral point of view article title that is not judgmental. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, actually, this name is ambiguous with Ivan Milat-Luketa. I'm not sure we should be giving a criminal more prominence over the term 'Ivan Milat' compared to an artist, seems WP:UNDUE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, if when searching the artists name it didn't bring up books for the (much more) notable criminal instead. [1], ignoring the 3k extra results if just "Ivan Milat" - or if the criminal [2] didnt beat out the artist [3] in pageviews (in every language but the Croatian wiki, which this artist only has 1.5k views in, hardly impressive.). There's a clear primary page here and we're not here to right great wrongs on if a household name criminal (in his country) beats a seemingly obscure artist in importance (1.5k pageviews in home wiki). The Australian media are still writing articles on him monthly for easy clicks [4], the artist gets no where near the attention. With only ONE result in google news, compared to the criminals 10k (as it shows now, google news is notoriously flaky). [5] GuzzyG (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually to go more in, the documentary series based on the criminal does 5x the views of the artists [6] and the movie based on the crime (also regarded as one of Australia's most notable recent films) has 3.5 mil views [7], suffice to say having seemingly more impact on the arts than the obscure artist. The other TV show does a mil too [8]. Is the artist really the primary topic here? GuzzyG (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Who ever said the artist is the primary topic here?! The current article at "Ivan Milat" literally doesn't even link the other eponymous person! This whole argument seems to boil down to WP:NOT#NEWS. There was a notable crime in the early 90s, it has an article as it should, and the perpetrator was in court 25 years ago, but otherwise seems to be covered by WP:1E. How much more long-term significance can this whole story get? Is it the job of the general encyclopedia to help navigate more people to its description, and effectively steer people away from an eponymous person in another field? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sentence question

In the first paragraph of the "Additional investigations" is the sentence, "This indicates that Milat likely killed before in his life." I am not familiar with before in his life at the end of a sentence so maybe someone could clarify this? -- Otr500 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)