Talk:Curves (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why I reverted

as I've stated in my edit summaries, if you Google Curves, more entries come up about the Fitness Franchise then about a math equation. Just the the Curve disamb. has a header about the mathematics concept, I made this one have a header about the fitness franchise. This is not spam, so do not revert it because of POV. --Maniwar (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page was a duplicate of content at curve (disambiguation). There's no need for a separate dab page with identical content. --Muchness 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
On review of articles that link here, nearly all of the incoming wikilinks refer to the mathematical meaning, so a redirect to the primary topic curve may be preferable. --Muchness 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Curve and Curves are two separate things. I disagree that we should link them to one disamb page. We can remove the redundancy, however I protest and again, state that when someone searches for Curves, they are not looking for a Mathematical equation. The what links here can be fixed so that they do not, which is the preference, go to the disamb page. I do not want an edit war, let's discuss this and come up with a solution. --Maniwar (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective, this is a duplicate article and as such it should redirect to the singular dab page. I can't see any benefit from a usability or navigational standpoint to having separate dab pages, because I can't see how the two pages could evolve into distinct entities - the two pages are intrinsically redundant as far as I can see. Also, it's highly debatable that "Curves International" is the primary topic for "curves": out of 58 million hits for "curves", 1,280,000 at the most refer to the fitness franchise - contrast with over 13 million for geometry usage. --Muchness
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge into Curve (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 15:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the point of two different disambigs. One disambig with the mathematical meaning, curve may also refere to ... and curves may also refer to ... should satisfy everyones needs and make it easier for navigation. --Salix alba (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Different dabs for different "number" in nouns have been done (Smith, Smiths); if these are kept separate, each should "See also" the other and restrict its own entries to those that match the title number (no Curve on Curves, no Curves on Curve). These lists appear to be short enough to be merged, though. -- JHunterJ 11:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The move of 'Curves' to 'Curves (disambiguation)' by Maniwar on the grounds that it is a dab page and to make space for the placement of Curves International was wrong on both counts:
  • Adding (disambiguation) to the title is unnecessary, per MOSDAB
  • JHunterJ established that Curves International is not the main usage of 'Curves'
So, at least this move should reverted. But I support the merge of both dabs because:
  • The main usage of both terms is the mathematical term placed at Curve
  • Except for three terms used only in the singular (a magazine, a brand, and a band), all other dabs of 'curve' could also be dabs of 'curves'
  • Each page is a short dab, and it would still be a short combined dab
  • Separate, both dab pages would have necessarily to reference each other
  • I can't think of any argument to support keeping the dabs separate
If the dabs are merged, I am neutral on redirecting Curves to either Curve (disambiguation) or Curve.
--maf (talk-cont) 13:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The inconsistency insults my thinking. So 1) It is not O.K. to create 'Curves (disambiguation)' per MOSDAB, but it is ok to create 'Curve (disambiguation)', and that does offend MOSDAB? 2) It's OK to have two different dabs for Smith and Smiths, but it's not OK here (see JHunterJ's comment). Come on Folks, Google Curves and of the top 20, not even a third is about Math (6 - Math; 7 - Curves Franchise; 7 - other (Magazine, movie, woman shape, etc)). OK, the numbers are slim, but Math is still not a third. Clearly, 2/3's refers to other things outside of the Math world. Additionally, 3) Muchness feels it's OK, to separate Curve (the mathematics definition) on the disamb page and give it the lead header, yet he doesn't feel it OK to do the same on the Curves disamb page for the fitness franchise. There are too many inconsistencies here. Whatever the outcome, which I think there should be two separate disambs, I think they both or singular should be neutral with no one article being given the top billing. Just for fun, here are the top 20 for Yahoo results (1 - Math; 4 - other; 15 - Fitness Franchise). MSN (0 - Math; 3- other; 17 - Fitness Franchise). Ask (0 - math; 1 - other; 19 - FF). AOL (8 - Math; 4 - other; 8 - FF). Excite (0 - math; 9 - other; 11 - FF). Anyway, you get my point. Additionally, the franchise was consistently the top five. **Disclaimer, I did not count any Wikipedia entry. --Maniwar (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
How would two disambigs help, would they make it easier to find any one topic? With one short disambig the time to find one item is short. Two disambigs may require a mouse click to find the term.
The google test is not the litmus test of a term. Curves International as a single well know website is likely to get a higher page rank than any particular page on mathematical curves. However if you google for "curves international"[1] you get 47 thousand results. Google for curves -international gives 49 million. By that reconing "Curves International" accounts for 0.1% of use of the term. Then to consider it historically mathematical curves have been known for 2000 years and the fitness franchise for 15 years. Whilst the franchise has 4 million customers, every school child in the western world has been taught about the mathematical variety say about a billion people. --Salix alba (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If they do remain separate disambigs, there is no compelling reason to force them both to have (or not have) primary topics. It is perfectly alright for Stadium to have a primary meaning, but for Stadia to go straight to disambiguation. -- JHunterJ 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Changes

JHunterJ just made some changes to this disambigs page, and I can live with it. It is more descriptive off what Curves may mean. --Maniwar (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Next step needs to be one of:
  1. Point Curves to Curve, merge Curves (disambiguation) into Curve (disambiguation)
  2. Point Curves to Curve, remove the "curves" meanings from Curve (disambiguation)
  3. Point Curves to Curves International, merge Curves (disambiguation) into Curve (disambiguation)
  4. Point Curves to Curves International, update Curves (disambiguation) to reflect that primary topic, remove the "curves" meanings from Curve (disambiguation)
  5. Move Curves (disambiguation) to the base name Curves, remove the "curves" meanings from Curve (disambiguation)
(and possibly update hatnotes on Curve and Curves International based on whichever is selected). The order above reflects my preferences, but any of them would be preferable to having Curves redirect to Curves (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 is also my preference. --Muchness 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1 for me, with suitable diasabmig notice on Curve. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they are not all the options we could do, but Option 4 is my preference at this point. --Maniwar (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Reverting 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am temporarily reverting the move/redirect because proper proceedures were not followed for a true consensus call...the above was done after the editor made a unanimous decision. Had proper procedures been done, there would be no need to revert. It was done after the fact. An RFC is being requested, and then we can move forward with a solution given by the community. --Maniwar (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, waste of time, waste of resources, waste of good faith, all in the name of bureaucracy. --maf (talk-cont) 18:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My action was not taken unilaterally (nor unanimously). Proper procedures as outlined at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger were followed, and there was no need to revert. An RFC is not needed for a merger. Please read Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. -- JHunterJ 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Curves Move

This is a dispute about whether Curves should be moved to Curve.

Um, why is this RFC listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies? -- JHunterJ 19:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've shifted it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. --Muchness 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Comments

  • Curve and Curves are two totally different things and I feel the editors who support the moves are more math oriented than anything else, thus wanting that outcome. Yes I'm biased, but I also feel I am a bit more neutral. I've posted examples from several search engines that the word Curves is by far not mostly not affiliated with Math but with other things. Curve and Curves should be two toally different topics and both should not point to the math concept. I am calling for unbiased feedback to come up with a solution and to end the stale mate. I would like to propose that a) Curves points to the Curves International article or b) Curves be it's own, rather than go to the lesser article Curve. --Maniwar (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, JHunterJ was acting in accordance with the letter and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS in closing the previous discussion and merging the dabs. --Muchness 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not math-oriented. I'm disambiguation-oriented; I came here when the problem was mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Curve vs. Curves. As far as Googlefighting, curves geometry outstrips curves fitness 13,800,000 results to 1,610,000 results[2]. Not that I like to rely on Googlefighting, but it doesn't seem to support the claim you're making. -- JHunterJ 13:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the discussion, and it appears to me that JHunterJ was following WP:CONSENSUS appropriately when closing the discussion and merging the disambig pages. And to offer my opinion, I think it is preferable, in terms of navigability and simplicity to have curve and curves on the same disambig page. Curves should not point to Curves International because that is not the primary meaning of curves; I will not bother to repeat the arguments that JHunterJ and others have already made cogently.--Paul Erik 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Of sourse they should be merged. The only purpose for a dab page is to get someone who has gotten to the wrong article where she wants to go. Is there a reasonable chance that someone looking for an article on "curves" will have found an article on "curve"? Yes. We should not have two dabs on the same word, singular and plural. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Maniwar does not appear to understand PageRank or how to properly interpret the Google results. By Maniwar's arguments, apple should be about Apple Inc since the pages with the highest PageRank for the search term "apple" are about Apple Inc. Ridiculous! --C S (Talk) 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Google was but only one example. I've also posted results from Yahoo, AOL, MSN, etc. I would much rather see Curves go to the Disambig page because the majority of people are not searching for the math concept. I would challenge you all if there is a way to parse out these searches or to find out on Wiki to do so, but in spirit of the community I will go along with what the consensus is whether I agree or not. --Maniwar (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, I created the article Curves and it did not point to the math concept. Maybe if I directed it directly to Curves International/Curves Fitness rather than the disambig page, we would not be here. --Maniwar (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I see I made a mistake in how I chose to explain your misconception to you. My example using Google was merely meant to be a strong indicator that you need to go back and rethink your position; it was not meant to indicate that there is something wrong with only Google's PageRank in this case. For example, the first 20 hits for "apple" on Yahoo are all Apple Inc related. As I said before, this does not indicate we should do the redirect apple --> apple inc. If you go through all your search engines you listed and perform your exercise, you will find that Apple Inc related webpages trump those about the fruit. This does not prove your case. Far from it. As you say, there is no way to see what the majority is searching for, so I"m puzzled how you are so confident that people are searching for Curves International. "What links here" is the best we got, and it doesn't support your arguments. If you had done the redirect differently, it would only have been a matter of time before the same issue arose. --C S (Talk) 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curve the mathematics definition?

What is this strange idea of talking about "curve, the mathematics definition" as opposed to some other notion? Mathematics simply provides one way to make precise the intuitive notion of a curve. But so what? Everyone knows what a curve is, and "curves" is the plural. The use of the term "curves" for body shape or any similar usage is directly derived from this common meaning. There should therefore be a common disambiguation. And why are search engines relevant? This is an encyclopedia, not a list of the "top 10 meanings for the word curves"! I agree that there is no particular reason for the disambiguation page to lead with the mathematical point of view, but this is far preferable to a dab that leads with an advertisement for a fitness program: we might as well lead with the use of the word in baseball! I'm completely baffled as to why time is being spent on this issue. Geometry guy 00:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. "Curve" and "curves" leading to a common disambiguation is something I would not object to. --C S (Talk) 12:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I too would support that! --Maniwar (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)