Talk:Dune (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This 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.
 

Duna[edit]

Obviously Duna should simply redirect to Danube...

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


WP:naming conventions (films) uses "Dune" and "Dune (film)" as an example of primary topic, but this matter has been discussed in WT:NCF#A better example?. In Talk:Doctor Zhivago (novel), no primary topic is made, as "Doctor Zhivago" has the same numbers as the film. For "Dune", the sand has the rounded same numbers as both the novel and the film. For disambiguating dune, I could not find any guideline about disambiguating geological topics. I chose "(sands)" over any other, such as "(Earth)" or "(hill)", because people think "sand" when "dune" is mentioned. I chose "(sand)" over "(sands)" because it might be easier to be concise than to be precise. -- George Ho (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


  • Usage: Hard to determine, as numbers are the same. Nevertheless, if moved, novel and film will be more popular.
  • Long-term significance: Hard to determine. However, the sands existed for a long time, but film and novel are more important nowadays.

Any other criterion is not necessary. --George Ho (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose; it's difficult to believe anyone would expect anything but the simple definition of the word to be at the base title. Powers T 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Even if a definition is simple, who else wants to learn more about dunes than what dune is basically known as "hills of sand"? --George Ho (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; "Film and novel are more important nowadays", eh? I call [citation needed]. Assuming this was at least in part tongue in cheek, I remain unconvinced. Surely the clincher here is that Frank Herbert named his world "Dune" because it was covered in dunes? i.e., the pop culture usage is derived from the primary sedimentological usage? Also, I didn't quite follow your reply immediately above, George. You appear to be suggesting once you know a dune is a hill of sand, you're done. Seriously? I'd also dispute your assessment of both usage and long term significance above. The criterion on that page specifically notes "educational value" as a strong determinant of significance; to me, that puts preference implicitly on non-pop culture usage (though I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise). As regards usage, a straight up google comparative search for "dune sand" and "dune Herbert" gives 23.2M and 9.3M hits respectively. "Dune movie" is 1.7M. Just "Dune" is 90M. (I disallow "dune book" as it readily catches both usages, and, yes, I'm aware the other numbers aren't totally clean either). Finally, I note the original exemplar status of "Dune" in the original disambiguation advice page; I know you've queried it now, but this stood for a while. I'm just not convinced at all that the author's usage is dominant, nor should it be. DanHobley (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Google is not that reliable. Well, Herbert results were 10% of "Dune"; still, I don't know. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not Google (essay). Google results are not that reliable enough to determine popularity or primacy of either topic. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, "usage" and "long-term significance" are both vague, but I explained it the best way I can. I said that "film and novel will be more popular", but popularity does not equal to primary, and I never once said that either author or some "hill of sand" must be primary. Why does popularity imply primacy nowadays? Also, why does long-term significance with great education value imply primacy? They are not the same. For example, Firestarter has no primary topic because of three equally popular topics. When I said, "film and novel are more important", well, you saw the numbers. Film and novel are more popular, but I did not realize there will be the 2014 film, according to IMDB. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Since "usage" and "long-term" are not the only criteria, there are other criteria to consider. Unfortunately, I can't think about any other criterion stronger than usage or long-term. "Interest" or "familiarity" would be considerate, but statistics are too vague to make either more reliable criterion than usage and long-term. --George Ho (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – evidently not primary per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, acknowledging that this is about utilization of WP pages as opposed to conceptual primacy. Though I would suggest that natural disambiguation of sand dune is preferred per WP:PRECISION, and per MOS:DABORDER this title should get exceptional treatment at the head of the dab page. ENeville (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (For genuine discussion) Doesn't recognising that the putative Sand Dune page should get exceptional treatment at the head of the dab page implicitly imply its primacy? DanHobley (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say the conceptual primacy warrants listing at the top of the dab page, but if more people are coming to WP for the article on the book (or other meanings) then we're facilitating connecting readers with their desired topics by reflecting that use pattern in the page locations. Primacy of concept versus primacy of use, that's my take. ENeville (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A secondary problem - "Sand dune" is an overspecific term. Not all dunes are built of sand, in the strict definition of that term, e.g., silt can also build dunes. The whole point of sedimentological nomenclature is to avoid convoluting form with component parts (and again with interpretation of the processes making that form). "Dune" is the right title (though I now see the article says it is always sand. Hmmm. That's not strictly true.). DanHobley (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Since "(sand)" is not exactly precise, I added another rename request to "(geology)". What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how the scifi space opera of Dune can compete with the common term dune, since Dune is still a niche topic. Wikipedia is not the entire world, we should not think that it is. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dunes are forever; Dune (the film), or anything else bearing the name, is derivative and artificial and transitory. It is so-named exactly because the name is a stock-standard English word, belonging to an enduring feature of the natural environment that clearly merits a place as primary topic if anything does. If the title "Dune" is not used for this feature of the world, it should be used for the DAB page alone. NoeticaTea? 10:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the latter is exactly what George is suggesting. That said, I'm surprised you don't support this proposal, as the title dune (geology) would surely increase clarity and benefit our readers, wouldn't it? Powers T 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No Powers, "the latter" is not what George is suggesting. I oppose the RM as a whole. And I commented on some crucial detail: "If the title 'Dune' is not used for this feature of the world, it should be used for the DAB page alone." I might have added "as proposed", for clarity. But I think I explained: I am generally in favour of naming articles that deal with topics of enduring "natural" importance by their short natural English names, especially if they are nouns or noun phrases. If there is no exactly focused article for such a topic, as in the case of "big" for the concept of bigness as it is naturally applied, then I would often favour that word as the title for a DAB page. As opposed to the present absurd situation with Big (Jimbo help us all). The details in particular RMs differ, and are subtle. That's why we have RM discussions, to help the readers of this encyclopedia the best way we can. That involves many factors. I find that the "sand dune" topic trumps competitors as an encyclopedic topic, and therefore merits the title "Dune". I note that Britannica online has an article called "sand dune" (their choice under a very different titling scheme than Wikipedia's); but I cannot find one there for the film called "Dune". All that said, I am not strongly opposed to the proposal. I really wanted to forestall any alternative claim on the title "Dune", such as we sometimes see arising in these discussions. Naming conventions such as those for films would call for a title grab (strictly beyond their limited "authority", I would argue), if "Dune" were not taken by some better deserver of it. Dune (landform) is OK. NoeticaTea? 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "(Geology)" is also not really right, for me. "(Landform)" might be better, if this is going to be pursued (though I still favour leaving things like they are). To reiterate, there seems little need to clarify the main name, since even in the film/book usage, the root of the term is still the meaning of the landform. DanHobley (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Must I say something? The fact that the hill of sands exists for years may not make this topic primary. It has substantial educational value, but there are no conclusive judgments of what Wikipedia readers want to read more about. Any criterion does not overcome or is not surpassed by another criterion, as all criteria are not wrong about any topic. "Long-term" and "fanbase" do not overcome each other. "General sense" and "general knowledge" do not overcome each other. The "hills of sands" passes "'long-tem" and "general knowledge" criteria; the Herbert novel and film pass "fanbase" criterion; these topics might not pass "general sense" because these stat numbers are too vague to make either topic primary or interesting to read more about. There is no "general sense" that anybody must learn that 'dune' is more than just "hills of sand" or Herbert-related. --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Readers will hardly be surprised to find the current article (on a much more broadly known topic than the SF works) at this title. Kanguole 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose reluctantly. In a perfect world, the 1965 classic novel and its spinoffs would be the primary topic, and "dunes" would be the geographical feature. But it is an encyclopedia after all, and the arrangement works well enough for Cave. BTW, the U.S. Geological Survey considers dunes to be "Physiographic features". Not sure about "lands" and "forms", dunes are characterized by being composed of wind-blown granular material and by being capable of movement. Neotarf (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unencyclopedic solution to a nonexistant problem. bd2412 T 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If consensus says oppose, then how many months or years must I wait until another move request? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • 3 months is a good guideline with a significant position by many editors, but someone might trout you, considering the strength of the opposition at this time. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Realized that "reader's interests" is part of "usage", not "long-term significance". Must be careful about consensus next time. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.