Talk:Debut

Disambiguation

I'm about to start disambiguating all the links to this page. I expect to find most of them link to the dictionary definitions meaning 'first appearance' but the dicdef is unlikely ever to be an article and it wouldn't be helpful to link them to debutante, so I suspect they may need to be unlinked in most cases. I'll report back if I turn out to be wrong. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am delinking most of them. — Randall Bart Talk 04:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What could I do but delink? It's sometimes attributive (debut album, debut single, debut performance), but even when it's the main noun, the other word dominates (stage debut, Broadway debut, baseball debut, cricket debut). The exception that proves the rule is [[test debut]], which is a redirect to [[test cricket]], wherein "debut" is mentioned once, and it refers to a team debut not an individual debut. I can't imagine an article on debuts in general or any class of debuts specifically. There are some categories (eg Category:Debut albums), and those make sense. — Randall Bart Talk 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find very it quite strange when linking the word debut to end up on this page where not a word is mentioned about the usual meaning of the word. Adding it now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made to this page while this discussion has been disregarded completely. "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." - that's in our guideline, and so is WP:Common sense. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, ok with the short definition in opening sentence, but there is no value in an entry linking to article that makes no mention of the term or that is not actually ambiguous.older ≠ wiser 02:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How yould you like to solve the problem, constructively? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? older ≠ wiser 18:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." That's the problem. Please help solve it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is given in the opening line, or did you have some other common general meaning besides that one? Dab pages are not a substitute for wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thank you for asking! Please don't get me wrong about how I appreciate all the work you do on pages such as this one!

I'm 69 years old and have spoken and written English for 67 of those years. It may be because I've been involved in entertainment and publishing (but I don't really think so) that I feel that a stage debut by far is the most commonly used meaning of the word debut. It's at the top of he list in every dictionary (i.e. "the common general meaning").That's why I think WP-readers should find that "short description of the common general meaning", i.e. stage and literary debut, and I', concerned that it's absence there is bound to be quite confusing to most people. Can you help solve that problem somehow? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your reinstatement of "The first performance of an entertainer or first publication of a literary work". DAB pages are to be used to help readers locate and link to Wikipedia articles; this text contains no link. DAB entries are not intended to replace a dictionary. There is already a link to the various forms of 'debut' in Wiktionary for those who want a definition of the word. Also going to remove the derivation text from the lede; that too, belongs in a dictionary.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." is in our guideline. I will keep reverting this until we try to cooperate and come up with a solution that adheres to (1) your ideas and (2) that important part of the guideline. Please cooperate! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just Trappist's ideas -- it is the very purpose of disambiguation on wikipedia to help readers navigate and locate existing articles. Disambiguation pages are not a substitute for wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 10:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When linking the word debut in an article about a first time pertformance or publication, one arrived at this page without a short description of the common general meaning of a word [which] can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context (quoting our guideline again). Very surprising lack of information. I've only tried to improve the page according to that guideline. Nobody else can see the problem, and nobody else is really interested in solving it? I cannot understand why, re: both of those questions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is part of your statement. "When linking the word debut". This means that editors are wikilinking a word which does not have an associated article, so they should not be doing this. As you'll notice, there's an article on "debut novel", so that can be linked without a problem. But there is no article on "debut performance". Mind you, "debut" could also refer to a debut album, a debut film, etcetera. There are no articles for those items (nor do I think it would make sense to have them). The interpretation of debut you are referring to is the dictionary explanation of debut, which has its place on Wikipedia's sister Wiktionary. --Midas02 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My attitude, and that of our guideline as I read it (though everyone so far has ignored it no matter how many times I quoite it) is to help our readers find things easily, including the meaning of words they may be unsure of. Why complicate things when the guideline clearly says that "a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context"? Are we supposed to create obstacles, or clear them? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are we not supposed to link words like this in articles?Revised - see below!

NAC close. Arguments for including a one-line definition of the most common usage at the top of the DAB page outweigh arguments for including a definition entry. Whether other articles should be able to link to debut is best determined at specific articles, is out of scope for this talk page, and there is no consensus in this discussion. WP:OVERLINK, WP:FURTHERDAB, and WP:INTDAB suggest that linking to a DAB page is not a best practice. - Mr X 18:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I have tried to get help in resolving what I see as a very embarrassing WP problem. When linking the word debut in an article about a first time performance or publication, one has arrived at this page without a short description of the common general meaning of a word [which] can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context (quoting our guideline again). Very surprising lack of information. Can anything be done to keep the current short description of the common general meaning of a word which keeps getting removed? I have now been warned for edit warring in trying to keep it and/or trying to get help to solve the problem in some way. I apologize to anyone who feels I've been disruptive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current short description of the common general meaning of a word (till it gets removed again, I presume):

The first performance of an entertainer or first publication of a literary work

--SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove links - The word "debut" is not an encyclopaedic topic as far as I can see. There should be no wikilinks to it. It is improper to link to a disambiguation page. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context (quoting our guideline again). Please do not disregard! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's typical to include a "dictionary definition" for dab pages like this, but it's usually done as part of the first line, not as an entry. See pages like Daddy or Daisy chain for examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WhatamIdoing, that's not correct at all, that's what wiktionary is for and the wiktionary template should be added for that purpose. Introductory lines should remain neutral, see MOS:DABINT. If dab editors notice those introductions, they will be removed. --Midas02 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DABDIC describes this use (A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context). It is used occasionally, especially for words with a common non-encyclopedic meaning. However, I agree with WhatamIdoing that this is not what Serge is describing. older ≠ wiser 17:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not my interpretation of that line, as vague as it may be. I would use it for situations where all dab items are related to a single context (all entries are villages in Italy for instance). Then you could add that to the introductory line so you wouldn't have to repeat it for every entry. Any other use is pointless, as dab entries are usually of various origin and as such do not have a common 'context'. --Midas02 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's in a section titled "Dictionary definitions", so it would seem logical to infer that it applied to meanings. I recall several discussions of this where the assertion was that sometimes all a reader might need is a simple meaning to realize she doesn't need to pursue the links any further. older ≠ wiser 03:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, the point is to answer a reader's question, and often all the reader needs is a very brief, very simple "dictionary definition". And, as I say, it is very easy indeed to find such (highly incomplete) "dictionary definitions" on dab pages for common words, which means that this is actually the established practice of the community. What this page needs is to follow the example given right in the guideline:

A school is an institution for learning.

School may also refer to:

School of thought, a number of individuals with shared styles, approaches or aims
School (fish), a group of fish swimming in the same direction in a coordinated manner
. . .

...only saying "A debut is the first public appearance of a person or thing" instead of "A school is an institution of learning". I agree that things like etymology do not belong on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)j[reply]

The example you've given is one where there is a primary topic. Those dab pages will always begin with a line describing and linking to the primary topic, as they should per the MOS. "Debut" does not have a primary topic and I don't recall seeing any examples of a common term dab page that starts with a definition and no link. If you know of any, please share them. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should say though, that WP:DABDIC does really seem to suggest that adding a one-line definition at the top would be appropriate. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Wiktionary instead, thus: wikt:debut Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Elizium23 that debut, if it links anywhere, should link to Wiktionary. And to answer the question posed by the Rfc: No, we should not "link words like this" to a Wikipedia article unless the word requires an article to explain much more than a dictionary can. yoyo (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the guideline unclear? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is the RfC question that is unclear or not the right question. The stated question is:

RfC: Are we not supposed to link words like this in articles?

The second sentence of the accompanying post is:

When linking the word debut ...

WP:OVERLINK says:

...Specifically, unless they are particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

everyday words understood by most readers in context;

Given WP:OVERLINK, I would say no, debut should not be linked in articles.

But, if the question that you are really asking is:

Should this disambiguation page have a a short description of the common general meaning of a word?

Perhaps yes, but not in the place where it currently exists. Individual items listed in a dab page are to contain a link to an appropriate Wikipedia article. As it currently exists, the general meaning of the word is given as an unlinked item in the list which is the wrong place for it. If it is necessary (I think it's not) to have such text in the dab page, Editor WhatamIdoing has the right of it as introductory text.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should this disambiguation page (as per guideline) have a a short description of the common general meaning of a word? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2015 (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.

"Debut album" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Debut album and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 7#Debut album until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]