Talk:Hunted

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 7 May 2020

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: rough consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hunted → Hunted (disambiguation) – Hunting is the clear primary topic – cf. Hunter. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a clear primary topic and needs a discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, to clarify my initial contesting of the technical request. The simple past/past participle is a much less likely search term and would require yet another hatnote at the main article. Whereas someone searching for "hunted" specifically is much more likely to be looking for the name of a work rather than the activity of hunting itself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure about that? I can find many examples on Wikipedia where hunted refers to the activity itself, for instance:
They were hunted for these plumes and this reduced the population of the species to dangerously low levels. (Snowy egret)
Historically, they were hunted by coastal people, and in the case of aboriginal whaling, still are. (Marine mammals as food)
The hare has been hunted across Europe for centuries, with more than five million being shot each year. (European hare)
Historically, it has been hunted for its highly valued dark brown or black fur, which remains a luxury good to this day. (Sable)
The indigenous Ainu people of Hokkaido have hunted them for centuries and relied on them as a major food source. (Yezo sika deer)
There are hundreds more similar examples. {{Redirect-multi}} and {{Redirect-several}} can handle up to 10 redirected terms; there's no need for a separate hatnote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And in none of those examples is the word "hunted" linked (nor should it be). And if there's an occasional case where it does need to be linked from "hunted" instead of from "hunting", then a piped link works just fine. Even if an actual separate hatnote isn't required, the existing hatnote gets longer and more cluttered, which is still a downside. The point is that a reader isn't going to be searching on hunted to look for information about hunting. So the reader doing that would now have to click through the hatnote to get to the dab page, making navigation more difficult. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we know readers won't be searching using the past participle? Farmed currently redirects to Agriculture. Should it just be deleted? While it's possible to use a piped link, it's preferable not to if possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"How do we know readers won't be searching using the past participle?" We don't, but we can use a little common sense and give the reader just a little credit. It's an unlikely search term for the activity, and on that slim chance, it can be listed on the dab page (along with a wiktionary link, which is probably more likely to be useful for someone who's searching on that term because they don't know what the word means). The comparison with "farmed" doesn't work because there's no disambiguation page for that, so there's no reason not to have a basic redirect in place otherwise. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unlikely search term for the activity – this is just the same argument in different words. Based on the usage I've demonstrated, I think it's common sense to assume that some readers will find a redirect to Hunting useful, either via the search bar or links from other articles. We can also give the reader just a little credit in expecting them to be able to click through to the DAB page without much difficulty if they're really looking for one of the other topics. I don't see a significant barrier to navigation here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: are we sure hunted shouldn't be linked in any of the above examples? The activity of hunting seems very relevant to the subject of, say, Marine mammals as food, where it appears in the second sentence of the lead paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter. Ease of making links for editors is wholly secondary to ease of navigation for readers. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you stated, there is no link to Hunted or Hunting in the second sentence of Marine mammals as food, either piped or un-piped. Yet the activity of hunting seems entirely relevant. Why shouldn't hunted in that case link to the article on hunting? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DV. The primary meaning of a word in English (as found in a dictionary) is not alwasy the same as the primary topic in an encyclopedia. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can't imagine many people would type in "hunted" to look for "hunting". Farmed as a redirect has little reason to exist, for what it's worth, but WP:Redirects are cheap so no one has deleted it. Red Slash 20:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.