Talk:Thrush (bird)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Thrush (bird) is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Thrush (bird) is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Grammar corrections - comment at Talk:Old_World_warbler -MPF 02:02, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thrush (bird) → Thrush

Birds are the primary thrushes and should be at thrush. Thrush is now a redirect to Thrush (disambiguation), and should be deleted to make way for thrush (bird) to be moved. --Yath 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Big time object. This request (which was never discussed on the article discussion page) is a perfect example of a collective waste of our time. The disambiguation works and is necessary. Further the birds are not "primary" by any means. I hear the word "thrush," the first thing I think of is the infection. The little bird is an afterthought. Leave it as it is. —ExplorerCDT 01:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please note that there has been no suggestion to do away with the disambiguation page. --Yath 01:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, so. Thrush shouldn't be just for a simple little bird. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite. There can be a disambig for the other reasons. A google search on +thrush +bird shows more than twice as many hits as +thrush +candida and more than four times as +thrush +candidiasis. Put the bird at thrush and you're rewarding people for using sensible search terms and educating people who don't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If I type thrush I don't want disambig. It's a very common bird family against a relatively obscure disease and an obscure 1960s fictional entity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Obscure disease? Ever hear of "diaper rash?" or a "yeast infection?" It's one of the more common infections out there, and the reason pharmaceutical companies make billions marketing products as treatments. Get a disambiguation page. It's a delay of what, 10 seconds at most? Think of the other side, some kid looking through Wikipedia for information on the little yellow sores in his mouth, not being able to find what his mother called "thrush." I could care less about the 1960s TV-Land reference, that show sucked anyway. But it's there. So, Keep the disambiguation page. —ExplorerCDT 03:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. The disambiguation should stay, but thrush as a disease, while quite common, is almost always known by more colloquial names. Not so for the bird. ADH (t&m) 03:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is absurd to characterise the disease as 'obscure', given that nearly all women carry the cause. Icundell 10:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - as per ADH. - UtherSRG 03:26, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both uses are common. And ADH's point isn't really helpful, unless we want to pick one of the colloquial names for Thrush (disease) and house the article there. Rd232 14:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Thrush (disease) does not exist. The article is under its proper name, Candidiasis. ADH (t&m) 18:07, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - both uses may be common, but the bird wins probably 2:1 by any measure I have tried. -- Netoholic @ 16:18, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
I don't think 2:1 is high enough that the bird can be considered a strongly dominant usage. Rd232 19:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thrush Aircraft also exists, so Thrush needs to be a disambiguity page.
    Google give hits for Thrush as follows: Bird (260K), Disease (179K), Aircraft (52K), so disambiguity is in order. --Gunter 19:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    As noted above, nobody's suggesting that the disambiguation page be deleted. This is what's known as "primary topic" disambiguation per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Types of disambiguation. ADH (t&m) 23:38, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    I adopt this approach to disambig. If you put the disambig first you'll ensure that everybody has to go to two pages. If around half or more of users will probably go for one meaning, put that meaning as first choice and a link to disambig. Half the users get a hit first time, The other users get a well earned lesson in being more careful in their choice of search terms in future. Win-Win. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:57, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Thrush meaning candidiasis is too common. Thrush (disambiguation) should be moved to Thrush. violet/riga (t) 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If someone says 'thrush' I'll first think of the disease. (This may be because I am female!) Stay as the disambig; the fact that the article on thrush has a 'technical' name is irrelevant. --Vamp:Willow 20:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Keep as a disambig page at thrush. In the UK it is common to refer to the Mistle Thrush as just a 'Thrush' (or is it the Song Thrush). However, many users looking for the bird will go straight to one of the more specific species. Those who don't are probably the youngest users, but the disambig page doesn't mention anything too graphic and provides the bird as the first link. People looking for information on the infection are most likely to search for just 'thrush' - indeed all the top Google results relate to the infection. -- Solipsist 10:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Noisy | Talk 15:27, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)