Talk:Collect

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

It was quite confusing when I was looking up things on statistics and data, because when I clicked onto a link ("collect"), I was taken to a religious explanation of the word "collect".

File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gregorian chant.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Collect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830205711/http://www.zenit.org/article-35428?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-35428?l=english

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2019

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: No consensus — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collect → Collect (prayer)
Collect (disambiguation) → Collect

– WP:ASTONISH. DAB from Collecting and Collect call. The DAB can also include a link to the Collection DAB page. A Google main and image search doesn't return anything for the prayer but a Google Books search does return a few. This was previously mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 50#Dictionary words can impact PRIMARYTOPIC decisions. While people are used to seeing/searching for things in the noun form I'd still say that this term is used far too commonly for collecting for it to be primary. Target is consistent with Lorica (prayer). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NOUN. As the nom notes, we usually use nouns for titles. I don't see any evidence of confusion here on the part of readers or editors - I looked at the hundreds of articles linking to this page and only found one mislink intended for collecting (which I fixed). I may have missed one or two, but the point is, this is not a likely wikilink or search target for the collecting page. The hatnote seems to be taking care of the issue. Dohn joe (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hatnote seems fine to me._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even for this common word that we do cover at other locations such as Collecting and Collect call? This was originally a redirect to Collect call. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By the numbers, this certainly isn't the primary topic of the extremely common word "collect", in fact it comes in third behind collecting and collect call. There's a substantial likelihood of confusion. A dab page should be at the base name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the DAB, I've changed this to a mulit-move. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Collect, Collecting, and Collect call all are at their best titles, so there is no title conflict. A direct hatnote can take care of anyone landing here by mistake; no need for a dab page that creates an extra step for those seeking the prayer without helping anyone else. Station1 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PTM - these other uses are PTM's but they still get a fraction of the searches here Red Slash 19:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as the proposed move is a more sensible way to organize the pages. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Given that disambiguation pages have become a major part of Wikipedia's infrastructure, it is not unreasonable for an astute reader to expect to find one at an ambiguous title (e.g. AAA), and be astonished to find anything else there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:1993:827F:305D:E2E9 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Any rationale? — AjaxSmack 00:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per User:Dohn joe, User:Station1 and WP:SLOP, as well as the lack of evidence in the nomination that people typing "collect" are seeking another article. — AjaxSmack 00:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Google results are at least some evidence and just because other articles are at their best title doesn't mean this gets to be here (except possibly in borderline cases) per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, see Skye, Thames and Hitler for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But this proposal has nothing to do with WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. You're proposing to replace the title with a dab page, not to redirect it to a primary topic. Station1 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does, a topic can be a competitor for a title even if it has a different title even if its not primary for that title, compare Newcastle where Newcastle upon Tyne is a competitor for "Newcastle" even though its not primary, if the English city didn't exist the Australian city would likely be primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not what "collect" brings to mind. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Astonishing to arrive at the prayer when you think you are following a link to a simple word. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe - that might be true if that ever happened. But there is zero evidence of such a link, whether a mislink created by an editor (I fixed the one out of hundreds of correct links), or an ambiguous link in some other article. Dohn joe (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It happened to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Who is being astonished by the current state of affairs? If I were looking for information about collect calls, I would search "collect call". If I were looking for information about collecting/collections, I would search for "collecting", or "collection". Yes, those who accidentally land at this article will have a moment of astonishment, but the number of people in this situation will be very small. (And, thanks to the hatnotes, they'll still get to the article they were looking for with just one more click - no more than if we sent them to a dab page.) Colin M (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to hatnotes?!

This article is about the prayer. For hobbies, see Collecting. For reversing phone charges, see Collect call. For other uses, see Collect (disambiguation).

Hatnotes are a ugly patch, messing the prime real estate between title and lede sentence, fixing the problem of inadequate titling. A title should tell you, without reference to anything below, what the topic of the page is. The current title fails, thus there is a hatnote. The hatnote is far more negative than having "(prayer)" in what is currently title whitespace. The proposal means the ability to remove the hatnote entirely, which is a very good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No primary topic seems like the best decision here. The prayer is not prominent enough to be primary for this term of many meanings. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primary topic by historical significance. The other things have natural disambiguations which makes this move unnecessary. I also agree with Colin M's points. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does historical significance play such an important part? Should "Google" be redirected straight to the number? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because policy says it is something we can take into account A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The collect is the most visible changing part of Christian liturgical celebrations, and there are places where the daily/weekly collect does have even secular implications in some parts of the world: see Stir-up Sunday. To compare Google to the number is a false equivalence: obviously Google will have more lasting historical significance than the number that no one can even really fathom. That's very different than saying a prayer that a significant part of the world's population heres on a weekly basis isn't the topic with the most lasting significance. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that the prayer has more long-term significance than the action of collecting items? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that for the noun collect the prayer is the primary topic with the most long-term significance as it is something that is supposed to be heard at least once weekly by participants in the world's largest religious group. We have nouns as titles per WP:NOUN. Collecting , the noun form of the verb "to collect" is its own page and is appropriate at that title. The hat note works fine, and hell, I'd even remove collect call from it as unneeded. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly I asked someone I know about a prayer called "collect" and I was asked how I'd heard of it. There was a similar RM at Talk:Boring#Requested move 20 April 2019 where it was noted that although the term "boring" in everyday speech usually means boredom, Boring (earth) is more likely in an encyclopedia. Maybe we should follow that precedent here an have no PT. I would hovever agree that collect call is likely a PTM though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true about us being an encyclopedia, let's face it — we are a lot more than just an encyclopedia. We have information about almost everything, at least anything important to a fairly large number of people. If you take a look at "Collect" visits and "Collecting" visits, the numbers speak for themselves. "Collecting" wins over the last 30 days. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that people typing "collect" are seeking the collecting article. — AjaxSmack 02:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they could we be doing just that. We don't know one way or the other, but considering the visits to "collecting," we can infer that there are quite a few people who are looking for the term. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Not what I expected to be at this title when I came here. DAB would be far more useful to readers and ensure that editors are linking to the correct page titles. Wug·a·po·des 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving a lazy comment for a (unsurprisingly) lazy nomination. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy nomination? I provided evidence based on Google that this isn't primary. Indeed the only test that gives many results for the prayer is the is/was test on Google Books. That test arguably gives evidence that in an encyclopedia the term "collect" is more likely to mean the prayer but other searches return nothing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say this is quite an active discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's divide this by fragments: "I provided evidence based on Google that this isn't primary" Good, but Google tests are merely a fraction on how determining primary topics, not how mandatory pages are to be named. "Indeed the only test that gives many results for the prayer is the is was test on GBooks", which immediately contradicts your previous statement. "That test arguably gives evidence that in an encyclopedia the term "collect" is more likely to mean the prayer but other searches return nothing." Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and thanks for proving, once again, this is not Wiktionary, but Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Trust me, you'd have a point if Collect (album), Collect (film), Collect (psychology), Collect (asteroid) (I'm inventing these links. I don't know if any other topic exists with such name) existed, but they do not exist as of August 2019. The only topics are prayers, collecting (grammatically, "to collect", "collect" and "collecting" do not mean the same thing) and collect call which is a WP:PTM that should be removed from the disambiguation page or at least be moved to the see also section, per WP:MOSDAB. So no, I don't see anything to discuss beyond a disambiguation page that will function as a dictionary entry. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The GBooks is/was test I did later (which I agreed is good evidence that in an encyclopedia "Collect" is more likely to refer to the prayer) but even a general search on GBooks doesn't return much, indeed general Google searches are often used to determine primary topics, the is/was test is from User:In ictu oculi. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support clearly WP:NOPRIMARY so move. btw WP:NOTADICTIONARY.... WP:DOESNTSAYTHAT. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:DOESNTSAYTHAT", a red link? Oh I had already forgotten you tend to invent policies. BTW, don't you hate when your methods backfire? Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather strong, is it not? He gave a link that did work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dohn joe, ZXCV, Ajax, TonyB and others. Calidum 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.