Talk:Adiemus

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

Dabpage or redirect?[edit]

If the album series is the primary topic for "Adiemus," there's no reason to use parenthetical disambiguation in the title (as Adiemus (albums)). If we need to do so because there is no primary topic, we need a dabpage at the ambiguous title.

If we redirect an unambiguous primary topic to a parenthetically dabbed title… why? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a disambiguation page, so that should answer your question. Seems slightly debatable since the single is from the album (series) of the same name, produced by an ensemble often referred to by the same name. The album series contains five (?) albums all of which are also called Adiemus plus a roman numeral plus some sub-title. Take your pick. I'd have redirected it to the album (or the ensemble, except it is currently just a redirect) and left the rest up to the reader since they're getting relevant information and links to more depth if they want it. Lithopsian (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: The question was more pertaining to this revert back to a redirect, despite there being no primary topic. —67.14.236.193 (talk) (same user as above) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was just pointing out that the question is now moot, in case anyone comes along and tries to work out what you were referring to. Lithopsian (talk) 09:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the revert was against consensus, okay, cool. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking sides and can see the case for it being returned to a redirect. The revert you linked was actually a re-revert, so essentially an initial bold edit edging towards a war, consensus not yet established. My own interest was to review what is effectively a new article (previously only a redirect) and make some edits so that it is as effective a dab page as possible. Lithopsian (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I linked to the first revert. But it sounds like the question still stands, because then we’d once again have a redirect from a title with evidently no primary topic—if it had one, that article would and should be here. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly normal to redirect from an ambiguous term to a primary topic article which has a different name. Less common when the primary article title is a parenthetical clarification of the redirect page. Still, I don't think that is a decider here. Lithopsian (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standard guidelines for whether there is a primary topic fail somewhat here. The ensemble can be excluded for now since it is just a redirect to one (admittedly the main) member. Of the other two, neither is clearly of more lasting significance since they are closely related. The pageviews are interesting, but probably not decisive. The only person to express a strong view against a dab page is @Rosguill:, so it would be good to hear if that was a philosophical or technical objection. Lithopsian (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that since the album series encompasses the song of the same name it would be easier to redirect to the album first (and then the reader could determine whether they still wanted more information and go to the song). I don't have particularly strong opinions about this however and am ok with a dab page if others feel strongly about it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I don't object to making the albums the primary topic, but if we're going to do that, why redirect to it rather than making it the title? —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retitling seems like a better solution, yes. My earlier actions were a mistake. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links[edit]

This page has a number of incoming links from other Wikipedia articles. It was until recently a redirect to Adiemus (albums) following a move in 2017. The page curator tool sent my message to the original page creator (actually mover) from last year which may not be productive. As the "creator" of the redirect was a possibly-variable IP, here seems as good a place as any to raise this.

When a redirect is changed to a dab page, incoming links should be chanced. Usually they will be edited to point directly to the target page so that there are no remaining links to the dab page. In cases where this is not done, my normal practice is to revert the page back to a redirect to avoid breaking those links. However, in this case the incoming links are somewhat mixed with many (in my non-expert opinion) not expecting to reach Adiemus (albums) anyway. Still, these links should be addressed in the context of wherever this page ends up. Despite WP:NOTBROKEN, changing them to reach their expected targets would be useful whether this page ends up as dab or back to redirect. Lithopsian (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links are fixed, barring talk/user pages and Adiemus (disambiguation). I'm happy whichever way this page goes now. Lithopsian (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]