Talk:Lakes (disambiguation)

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

Lakes

Lakes (disambiguation) is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles

Primary topic

Seriously? Do we really think that a substantial number of the readers who search for "Lakes" on Wikipedia are looking for a restaurant, such that the Lake article is not the primary topic? I find that hard to believe. What evidence supports the contention? Certainly neither the incoming links nor a Google search leads me to believe that the restaurant is searched for more than a very small fraction of the time. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least the restaurant has the name "Lakes". That watery entity has another name: "lake", without the s. The Banner talk 23:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, and a state and a band also have the name "Lakes". The Banner talk 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The restaurant apparently doesn't even exist any more!----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granting all of the above, I've read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over again, and I don't see anything in there that says that the primary topic has to have exactly the same spelling as the title of the disambiguation page. It identifies two criteria, which I'll summarize as (1) predominant target of searches, and (2) long-term significance. I've already noted that Lake seems to be the predominant target when users search for "lakes" (presumably because they are not interested in a single, particular lake); and I doubt there is much of a case that the (ex-)restaurant, the band, or even a political subdivision of South Sudan has the same historical or educational importance as a geographic concept that is widely used world-wide. Given this, I'll convert this to a WP:RM discussion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, with Lakes redirected to the singular form. Xoloz (talk) 11:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes → Lakes (disambiguation) – To allow the base title to be a redirect to Lake, because "Lake" is the primary topic of the title. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. I just fixed over 150 incoming links to this title, and every single one was a reference to "lakes and rivers" or kinds of fish "living in lakes" or other uses meaning a body of water. bd2412 T 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add that Lake has been viewed 87949 times in the last 90 days, whereas Lakes (state) has been viewed 3105 times in the last 90 days; Lakes, Alaska has been viewed 1692 times in the last 90 days; Lakes (band) has been viewed 997 times in the last 90 days; and Lakes (restaurant) has been viewed 204 times in the last 90 days. In short, all other uses combined add up to about 6% of the number of views for the primary topic. bd2412 T 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest also merging with the disambiguation page The Lakes.----Ehrenkater (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support after the rename, I also suggest that the disambiguation page "Lakes" and "The Lakes" be merged to Lake (disambiguation) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe The Lakes could be merged with this, but Lake (disambiguation) should stay separate as it's already long (it requires scrolling twice to see the full page) and there would only be two or three duplicates after removal of the "Lakes"-only entries that remain from when Lakes redirected to Lake. Peter James (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Object There are now four subject with the name "Lakes" with an article. That makes it a valid disambiguation page. There is no need to move a valid disambiguation page away because of a massively made mistake in creating the right link to a lake. The Banner talk 10:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My proposal does not question whether there is a "valid disambiguation page." What we are discussing is what title that disambiguation page should have. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point is in fact that you call a mistake the primary topic. With most of the mistakes corrected now, the numbers will fall quickly. The Banner talk 11:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; compare Obama, which has multiple meanings. Do you think Obama (disambiguation) should be moved there? bd2412 T 12:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just fixing the wrong links works good enough. Don't put a bonus on incorrect linking. The Banner talk 14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you (The Banner) call a "mistake", I call commonly-accepted use of standard English. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I call it incorrect linking. And with the redirect in place, nobody will notice that they are doing it wrong! The Banner talk 14:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        How is that doing it "wrong"? The primary meaning of "lakes" is bodies of water (do a Google search for the term and that becomes immediately apparent). A reader searching for "lakes" or an editor linking to "lakes" is almost certainly looking for bodies of water, which is why we take them there. If you have any evidence that this is not the primary meaning of the term, by all means present it. bd2412 T 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You seem to miss my point: in my opinion the link "lakes" should point directly to "lake" (in case of a waterbody) instead of redirecting. It is easy enough to correct those links, just like links to rivers, waterfalls etc. The Banner talk 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No thanks, this would only end up being a link magnet for our already overburdened disambiguators to add to an ever-growing pile. In any case, when a reader types "lakes" into the search window, they should be taken to the primary meaning, bodies of water, no matter where the links point or should point. bd2412 T 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Speaking only for myself, I don't miss your point, I just don't agree with it; and so far (although we have had very limited participation in this discussion) I don't see anyone else who agrees with it either. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh, and since you mentioned rivers and waterfalls, have you looked at where those links go? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I already started bypassing the redirects on rivers. Manually, so reading (parts of) the articles and fixing other redirects too. The Banner talk 16:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please review WP:NOTBROKEN. Your "fixes" are going against policy. bd2412 T 16:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You would have a point when I was piping them, but that is not the case. The Banner talk 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy is not limited to pipes. It clearly says: "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects to articles". That is what these are, and it is unhelpful to "fix" them. bd2412 T 17:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - exactly as BD2412 says. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It is commonplace to redirect the plural form to the singular, and likelyhood is far greater that people searching for "lakes" want the water body rather than any of these. older ≠ wiser 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edit history for this page and lakes (disambiguation) also need to be sorted out. There appears to have been a cut and paste move at some point. older ≠ wiser 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a moot point, as it is likely that the current content will end up merged into Lake (disambiguation). bd2412 T 03:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - and delete this page and merge all content into Lake (disambiguation). Red Slash 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lake is the primary topic, and the word occurs in plural in many places. Having this page redirect to lake would save the trouble of cleaning links to disambig pages in the future. JIP | Talk 06:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Of course Lake is the primary topic for its plural. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2014 (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.

Redirect or not

There are a number of articles where the title contains Lakes rather than Lake. Some of these articles have no relationship to lakes except for the same spelling. I agree with the move discussion above, but for the disambiguation pages - similar to Mirrors (disambiguation) - I think that there is a good reason to maintain separate articles. Inwind (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are just creating a content fork of Lake (disambiguation), completely superfluous what you are doing and I object strongly. The Banner talk 15:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]