Talk:The Hut

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 and/or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 

Redirect vs. disambiguation[edit]

This page has been the subject of a small scale edit war over who should "own" it, Pizza Hut or the Hut Group. In order to balance the needs of both groups I have converted this back to a disambiguation page so neither has preference. If you disagree with this please note it here. I will be requesting protection for this page in order to keep the peace. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. According to Wikipedia guidelines, if there is a dispute like this then this is often an indication that there is no primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
1. This "compromise" is analogous to splitting the baby; it merely ensures that all readers (instead of some readers) must click on an additional link. Redirects to Pizza Hut or The Hut Group are both reasonable (and while I selected the former, I would not have reverted Rubiscous's change to the latter), while a two-article disambiguation page helps no one.
2. Your addition of Hut Group is inappropriate, as the political party is not known as "the Hut." A disambiguation pages is intended to list articles that someone arriving at the page realistically seeks, not articles that merely have similar titles. —David Levy 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I also added the Hut Group in case some one types in forgets the the when searching. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? This disambiguation page is located at The Hut. It's reached by searching for "the hut." The political party is not referred to in that manner. Someone might type "The Hut Group" when seeking Hut Group or "Hut Group" when seeking The Hut Group, so those are the pages on which pointers are needed.
And why did you reinsert this link before giving me a reasonable opportunity to reply on this talk page? I was courteous enough to leave the disambiguation page in place (instead of reverting back to a redirect). —David Levy 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is called a compromise, since one party wants it one way and the other party wants it another a third way is necessary to prevent the fight from continuing. You may not like it, but this is the best solution. I included the political group to account for typos, which can and do happen as I also stated. Please don't get so overworked over a simple work around, I am just trying to avoid the problems that have been occurring with this page. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 20:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. A suitable compromise is one in which the involved parties meet somewhere in the middle (to the partial satisfaction of both/all). Yours is one in which no one benefits. (Instead of some users needing to follow an additional link, all users must follow an additional link.)
As I said, I favor redirecting to Pizza Hut, but I would gladly agree to redirect to The Hut Group instead. Either redirect is far more practical than a disambiguation page is.
2. You stated that you added Hut Group "in case some one types in forgets the the when searching." This makes no sense, as one arrives at this page by typing "the hut."
3. I'm not "overworked." I'm merely disappointed that you decided to revert on-sight after I respected your request to not revert to a redirect. The accepted cycle is "bold, revert, discuss," not "bold, revert, bold, discuss." —David Levy 20:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, David Levy, but your reasoning is at variance with Wikipedia guidelines. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." So it's perfectly legitimate to make this page a disambiguation, without choosing a primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There has not yet been any discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, let alone extended discussion. And yet, Jerem43 is declaring the disagreement intractable and requesting that the page be protected in his/her preferred version (designed to ensure that neither side "wins," without regard for what benefits readers). —David Levy 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not yet have a firm view about what the solution is, I was arguing against your view that making this a disambiguation page is not one legitimate solution. PatGallacher (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my position. I'm not arguing that such a disambiguation page is inherently invalid. I'm expressing my opinion that it doesn't make sense in this particular instance. —David Levy 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the change because people keep changing the redirect, if you read the history you will see that people keep saying the other article is the correct one. In order to stop the bickering (via the edit summaries) I made it a disambiguation page in order to alleviate the argument, yes I did it unilaterally but for a good cause. It left the message on this page describing my reasoning and to give others a chance discuss the issue.

Can I ask for you to provide a policy based reason for your belief that the disambiguation page is improper? Pat has provided a reason based in WP policy as to why this is a proper move, and I would like to have you provide a policy based counter to it. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 23:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. To be clear, I have no doubt that you've acted in good faith.
2. The only relevant concern is what will benefit the most readers, not what will satisfy interested editors (or ensure that all interested editors are dissatisfied).
3. On that note, I again point out that there has been zero discussion regarding which meaning predominates. I'm attempting to initiate such discussion now. In case you share PatGallacher's misunderstanding of my position, I'm not asserting that the current setup is inherently improper. I'm opining that there are better solutions in this particular instance (which we should work toward instead of giving up without even attempting to discuss the matter).
In most (not all, but most) cases, a two-article disambiguation page can reasonably be avoided. There usually are superior alternatives, and we should at least try to agree on one first. —David Levy 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)