Talk:Juno

Placing a "primary meaning" at the top

From WP:PRIMARYUSAGE:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic.

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

From WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic, in the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages:

Since it is unlikely that this [primary topic] is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top.

Since Juno (mythology) has not been shown, per the first excerpt, to be the primary meaning of the term "Juno" (since it is not located at the title Juno), it should not be treated as the primary topic on the disambiguation page by separating it from the other links. The assertion that ALL the other meanings are derived from that one does not make it the primary meaning. If you want that article to be established as the primary article, you should propose on this Talk page that it be moved to the Juno title; I would, however, strongly oppose the move, as I don't think there's evidence that most people who search for "Juno" are looking for the goddess (if anything, I'm sure the majority of people are looking for the film). Propaniac (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Diana similarly has the original mythological meaning at the top. It is a little odd that the original meaning is buried near the bottom of this page. I would bet that Diana, Princess of Wales gets comparable hits to the goddess's, but the goddess is still at the top. It shouldn't be any less primary just because a film recently came out with the same name that's currently more popular. It's more encyclopedic to list as primary the definition that's been most common for a few thousand years than those that popped up last Oscar season.129.79.117.62 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Same for Apollo, Saturn, Vesta, Minerva. For a self described "fan of bureaucracy and rules and order", you don't seem to notice that the WP:D page says "When..." and not "When and only when..." a primary meaning is demonstrated, should it be a first link. Juno (mythology) is probably no more a "well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other", but "the original thing all other subjects are named after", and I believe this list here should state so and place it at the top in bold, instead of having it somewhere near the bottom. The WP:D page does not legislate about original names in disamb pages, and four editors have already stated their disagreement with your reverts. --5ko (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your responses. A couple of things:

• • Diana does list the goddess at the top, but NOT as "Diana is the goddess of blah blah blah." The goddess is in a mythology category placed at the top. There's a definite difference. I would probably have no objection to arranging the Juno page in the same way as the Diana page.
  • Of the four other examples that 5ko posted, three of them prove my point: these are disambiguation pages located at keyword (disambiguation) and the primary link is the one at keyword. This page is at Juno, not Juno (disambiguation), because there has been no survey taken to show a consensus that the goddess is the primary meaning, in which case the goddess article would be located at Juno. I'm NOT saying "I don't want to put the goddess at the top because I think the movie is the primary meaning," I'm saying that the organization of the disambiguation page is supposed to REFLECT what primary meaning has already been established by the Wikipedia community, if one has been established. Oh, and the fourth of those links (Vesta) does have the mythology link at the top, but it's not a categorized list; again, there's a difference between just putting it at the top of a list, and separating it from all the other items by putting it outside a category.
  • Well, yeah, it's true that when I read a policy or guideline that doesn't specifically say "When and only when blah blah," I don't assume that it means "But in any other case, do whatever." (That bit about "the thing all others are named after" isn't in the guideline, is it? Because if it is and I've somehow missed it in the several times I've scanned the guidelines, I apologize, although I would still consider it quite a stretch to say that all of the other meanings are related to the goddess.)
  • I don't give a fig if fifty editors disagree with my opinion, if none of them are willing to respond to my reasoning on the Talk page, and I'll happily keep reverting in that case. I mean, if I say why I think I'm right, and nobody says "this is why you're wrong," I have to keep assuming that I'm right and feel justified in maintaining things the way I think they should be. Since you two have actually considered what I had to say and responded, although I still disagree, I won't revert again immediately. As I said above, I think an acceptable compromise in this case would be to list the goddess under a "Mythology" heading at the top. (Or propose that the goddess article be moved to Juno and if there's consensus to do so, I'm fine with that. If you're so sure that it's the most important meaning, I don't know why you wouldn't want to make such a proposal.) Propaniac (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that "there has been no survey taken to show a consensus that the goddess is the primary meaning". You may stop repeating yourself about PRIMARY MEANING. I do not claim that goddess is the "primary meaning", so there is no urgent need to rename the articles. I also never claimed that everything on the list is "related to" a non-existant, imaginary entity, but I am sure most of the entries are named after it, or possibly after another entry named after the original one.
• Wikipedia should be informative to readers, even in disambiguation pages, even if there is no official policy about, in our case, many objects named after something else. The reason I changed it is that I felt most of the readers coming here will want to know (or wouldn't mind to learn) what is the origin of this name. The page is more informative if the Juno (mythology) entry is on top than if it is hidden somewhere near the bottom. But, I am willing to try to find a solution that is acceptable to all editors of this article. --5ko (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If user Propaniac remembers, in the movie, the character Juno says she is named after the goddess, "the wife of Zeus or something". Most people who have seen the movie then would want to learn about the character's namesake. In any other encyclopedia, even 2008 issue ones, the goddess is the primary meaning. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would consider being named after something (which is what you did assert) being "related to" it; my point in saying that was that there's no evidence that most of these things, or their names, have anything whatsoever to do with the goddess.

Most of the mess on disambiguation pages comes from people thinking they should be "informative", so you get junk like whole paragraphs describing every linked article, and long lists of things that will never have an article, like random local stores, instead of the page just serving its purpose of disambiguating. A dab page is not an article, any more than a redirect is an article; it's just a quick stop for the user to figure out what article he's actually looking for. There's no reason to try to squeeze in additional information about a topic the user may not be looking for; if, for example, Juno Records IS named after the goddess, that can be mentioned in the Juno Records article (although for all I, or presumably either of you, know, the owner of Juno Records could have named it after his mom Juno Smith).

Similarly, if the title character of the film Juno is named after the goddess, that can and should be (and probably already is) mentioned in the article about the film or the character.

I just realized that the main page has been revised since my previous comment here. I can live with it as-is, despite my personal preference for section headers (but "See also" is ALWAYS a section header, not simply a bold heading). Propaniac (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "mess" or "junk", or "whole paragraphs", or "lists" of "things that will never have an article" in the current version. When (if) that happens, we will deal with it. --5ko (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I had written most of my comments before realizing that the page had already been revised, and was attempting to pre-empt a potentially messy attempt to make the disambiguation page more "informative." I agree that this particular page, in its current version, is acceptable. Propaniac (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Juno (mythology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)