Talk:Danna: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Born2cycle (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*:@[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] we have observed numerous cases where readers use people's given names and surnames to navigate to their biographies, cf. [[WT:D]], these are not all mere partial title matches. |
*:@[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] we have observed numerous cases where readers use people's given names and surnames to navigate to their biographies, cf. [[WT:D]], these are not all mere partial title matches. |
||
*:On the more general topic of [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topics]], even if it looks like we might have a primary topic by usage, we don't necessarily have one by long-term significance. The question of what is "Danna" isn't generally answered by the sum of reliable sources as "this one person also called Danna Paola". Short-circuiting unsuspecting readers there might [[WP:ASTONISH|astonish]] them. Fans who know who they're looking for probably won't be astonished to have to pick their favorite item out of a short list. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
*:On the more general topic of [[WP:PTOPIC|primary topics]], even if it looks like we might have a primary topic by usage, we don't necessarily have one by long-term significance. The question of what is "Danna" isn't generally answered by the sum of reliable sources as "this one person also called Danna Paola". Short-circuiting unsuspecting readers there might [[WP:ASTONISH|astonish]] them. Fans who know who they're looking for probably won't be astonished to have to pick their favorite item out of a short list. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::Just because people search for topics by a part of the title doesn’t mean it’s not a PTM. Not sure what your point is. |
|||
*::There is absolutely no requirement to meet both PT criteria to be the PT. Usage used to be the only criteria, then HS (historical significance) was added, but that’s to address unusual cases where there is an obvious primary topic by HS. It’s an irrelevant consideration in most cases, including this one. I’ve never heard of a case where one topic is clearly PT by usage as we have here, but rejected because it’s not PT by HS, ''and no other topic is either''. ASTONISH is not policy. It’s useful in some marginal cases. Not here. To reject an overwhelming PT because of ASTONISH is laughable. —[[User:Born2cycle|В²C]] [[User_talk:Born2cycle#top|☎]] 09:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:03, 1 October 2024
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 29 September 2024
 | The request to rename this article to Danna has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Danna (disambiguation) → Danna – The singer still known as "Danna Paola", despite her stage name change,[1] is hardly the primary topic. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's no edit summary in the edits that caused this in March [2] so it's perfectly fine to just revert that.
- Does the average English reader strongly associate this term with this topic? Seems doubtful, as well as influenced by WP:Recentism. (Support) --Joy (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Danna Paola page views dwarf all the other uses listed at Danna (disambiguation), including Danna (name) and Danna (disambiguation), which are the only ones that are not PTMs. We have a very clear case of obvious primary redirect here. —В²C ☎ 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Born2cycle we have observed numerous cases where readers use people's given names and surnames to navigate to their biographies, cf. WT:D, these are not all mere partial title matches.
- On the more general topic of primary topics, even if it looks like we might have a primary topic by usage, we don't necessarily have one by long-term significance. The question of what is "Danna" isn't generally answered by the sum of reliable sources as "this one person also called Danna Paola". Short-circuiting unsuspecting readers there might astonish them. Fans who know who they're looking for probably won't be astonished to have to pick their favorite item out of a short list. --Joy (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just because people search for topics by a part of the title doesn’t mean it’s not a PTM. Not sure what your point is.
- There is absolutely no requirement to meet both PT criteria to be the PT. Usage used to be the only criteria, then HS (historical significance) was added, but that’s to address unusual cases where there is an obvious primary topic by HS. It’s an irrelevant consideration in most cases, including this one. I’ve never heard of a case where one topic is clearly PT by usage as we have here, but rejected because it’s not PT by HS, and no other topic is either. ASTONISH is not policy. It’s useful in some marginal cases. Not here. To reject an overwhelming PT because of ASTONISH is laughable. —В²C ☎ 09:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)