Talk:Real Life

Organization of page

Please help to decide between this version and this version. In my opinion, the first version is ideal because until recently this page was home to Real life (reality) which is arguably the most common usage for the term. It is a fairly common practice for the "main" term to serve as the lead-in sentence with a "may also refer to..." for the less common used terms. Below is the refactored discussion that led to this request for further input.

Previous discussion between Propaniac and Xeocidic

The guideline you mentioned doesn't really apply to this situation... See 100% for an example of why I change real life to the current design. –xenocidic (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify your edit summary comment "you've mis-read the guideline; its the other way around" in reference to MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic? Are you saying that you're only supposed to begin the page with a link to a primary topic if the page is not at Term (disambiguation)?

The guideline says that the well-known meaning at the main Term page should not be mixed-in with the other links at Term (disambiguation) and should be placed at the top. Since the move of the dab page to Real life signifies that Real life (reality) is not necessarily the primary meaning, there is no need to place Real life (reality) at the top apart from the other links. Propaniac (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the guideline you mentioned only applies to situations where (disambiguation) is there. In the case of a disambiguation page at without it, the most common usage (most desired target) should be the first line (at least as far as I understand), per Wikipedia:MOS/DAB#Order of entries, and common practice as with the example I linked above. –xenocidic (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that the move itself signifies that it's not the main term. In fact I still don't see as there was consensus for the move in the first place, past consensus was that Real life (reality) should remain at Real life. –xenocidic (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic says, "Add this introductory line if the dab page has (disambiguation) in the title." MOS:DP#Order of entries is a separate section, discussing how to order the entries in the list. "Place the most-used meaning at the top" does not mean that there should always be an introductory line with the most-used meaning separate from the other entries in the list. If that were the case, then any talk of whether (disambiguation) is in the title could be removed from the primary topic section. What is the point of including the discussion of "(disambiguation)" in titles, if the guide actually means, "Well, whatever user comes along should decide which is the primary meaning and stick it up there"?

The fact that many disambiguation pages, such as 100%, don't follow the Manual of Style doesn't mean that the MOS says anything different than what it does.

The determination of primary meaning, for the purposes of formatting disambig pages, is just a reflection of whether there is an article at the main title. Real life (reality) is no longer at the main title and should therefore no longer be considered the primary meaning. As to whether there was consensus for the move, I left the discussion on the Talk page for five days and nobody objected to moving it. The previous discussion on the Talk page was both confused and outdated. The admin who closed the AFD (in which the discussion of the move proposal was also quite confused) said that the move should be discussed on the Talk page. Waiting five days for objection is not exactly stretching the confines of WP:BOLD. Propaniac (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic applies only when the disambiguation page has a (disambiguation) after it. Since this is not the case, someone will stumble onto the real life disambiguation page by typing "Real life" into the search box, thus, the most common meaning should be at the top. I suppose since Wikipedia doesn't take quorum into account, two people can consensus make, but past discussions seemed to support keeping "real life" (the term) at "Real life" (a side issue though; it doesn't really matter to me - your bold move is fine with me). However, what you describe is not how you determine "primary meaning" - common usage is, and I contend that "real life" (the term) is far more common than any of those albums, films, etc. –xenocidic (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the relevant page which outlines the guideline about having the primary term as the first line of the DAB page is here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages. –xenocidic (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

We're in agreement that MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic is limited to dab pages with (disambiguation) in the title. These pages are cases where there is a primary topic located at the main title (referred to by the MOS as "the primary topic article"), and this primary topic article should have a link at the top, going to the disambig page. It goes on to say that this primary topic article should not be mixed in with the other links and should be placed at the top, above the list. If, by "primary topic article", they meant "the most common meaning of the phrase, regardless of whether it's at the main title or not," that wouldn't make sense, because you wouldn't need a link to the disambig page from any article not located at the main title.

Your argument, if I finally understand it, is that it would make more sense to put the most-common meaning at the top if the dab page IS located at the main title, because a user will thus be arriving at the dab page without already having gone through the most-common meaning. I don't entirely disagree with that logic. [The only qualm I have with it is that it would be entirely up to discretion which entry is the most common meaning.] If that's how you think dab pages should be organized, you're free to suggest a revision to the guidelines. However, what you're suggesting is absolutely not currently part of that section of the MOS, and the other section clearly means to put the most-common meaning at the top of the list of entries (as in the example given), not to separate it out as described in the former section. Propaniac (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the above (15:08 UTC comment) before you made your reply, but it seems to speak to the issue you brought up. Anyhow, perhaps the best thing to do would be to refactor this entire conversation to Talk:Real life and get some other eyes on it, I'll admit: disambiguation is not one of my areas of expertise. –xenocidic (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't seen your addendum/link when I left my last comment, but it doesn't change my impression of the situation. WP:Disambiguation says "primary topic" and links to the MOS for more detail, and I still don't believe the MOS can reasonably be interpreted as indicating anything other than "When the dab page is at Term (disambiguation), link to the primary topic, which is the article at Term, at the top of the page." Propaniac (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I started off agreeing with Xenocidic. That led me to say "Surely, Real life (reality) should then be at Real life and the dab page at Real life (disambiguation). Why is that not so?" and I read the various AfD and other discussions. Since there was some sort of consensus that Real life (reality) was the right place for that page, that implies to me that Real life (reality) is not clearly the main use of the term. So now I don't believe the primary topic doctrine is applicable here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't see within the list any other topics that could be considered primary. Furthermore, since no one saw fit in this moving to fix all the links to Real life, most people are going to land here looking for the reality version of Real life... –xenocidic (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

<--off the cuff: Only on Wikipedia will editors quabble about what, exactly, is real life. Seems none of us have mastered that yet :-) I'm looking at this issue as well...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, there might well be no primary topic here. As for the inbound links, that's unfortunate but it's a slightly different problem. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, Real life (reality) lived at Real life for over 5 years until 2 editors agreed it should be moved. Now I know we don't use quorum, but that's hardly consensus to downgrade the status it held for five years as primary, at least in my opinion. –xenocidic (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually tending to agree with Andrew Howse. 5 years is longstanding, but the AFD on "real life" showed that really it isn't widely viewed as the primary topic. If I type in the GO box "Real Life", where do I want to end up? Probably Real life (reality), but not enough so to consider it primary (maybe it once was 5 years ago, but CCC and all that). I think Real life should be a generic topic disam page, Real Life (disambiguation) should redirect there, and Real life (reality) should be added to the mix of possible targets. I'm convincible otherwise, really this isn't a biggie. Fixing inbound links isn't too hard, just tedious, I'll volunteer for it (I miss my WP:DPL days...) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no problem with "Real life" serving as a wider disambiguation page. Our disagreement is whether "Real life (reality)" should serve as the lead-in sentence - see the two different versions in the first paragraph. –xenocidic (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If its decided here that this is a "generic topic" disamb page, which I feel it is since there is no consensus as to whether there's actually a primary topic, then the second version (Propaniac's) is the correct version, comparable to Table. My apologies for not clearly articulating that above. From WP:DAB, also, under Primary Topic, 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. I think that this extended conversation, as well as the "primary topic (RL(reality)" actually barely surviving an AFD, are good evidence that we have a "generic topic" dab on our hands and not a primary topic Dab. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• How about this version as a compromise? –xenocidic (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It keeps it from being buried, and style meets our style guidelines. Nice compromise. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the one I saw last night, and I agree with it. Keeps the dab page but features the main use at the top. It's probably the best way. Enigma ^message 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Nice job. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I took the holiday weekend off from Wikipedia, but I'm fine with the current version of this page that everyone else has agreed to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propaniac (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Page name

I think this page should be at Real Life rather than Real life. There's only one dabbed entry that uses the non-title-caps version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I just replied here, and reverted myself, I completely misunderstood your question. I'm moving along, I don't have an opinion on what you're asking, but it seems a reasonable concern. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No real objection here as long as Real life (reality) stays at the top. –xenocidic (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Real Life", the capitalized form, indicates a proper noun whereas "real life" or "Real life" is the improper noun talking about the concept. There is only one meaning to the improper noun; the ones where Real Life is the name should have the parenthetical qualifiers. 118.90.101.123 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree too, and have already requested and admin to remove Real Life to make the move possible. +mt 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)