Talk:Frozen
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Move discussion in progress[edit]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Frozen (2013 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Primary topic[edit]
@CapnZapp: The primary topic for "Frozen" is not "Freezing". If it were then Frozen would redirect to Freezing and the disambiguation page would be at Frozen (disambiguation) and not at the base name Frozen – the guidance is at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you want to do this then use WP:RM to move Frozen to Frozen (disambiguation), but I think it would fail: Massviews indicates that pageviews for Freezing (ranked #10 at 834 thousand views since Jul 2015) pale into insignificance compared to, for example Frozen (2013 film) at 14.5 million, and usage is often how WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is determined. Disambiguation pages at the base name do not have a primary topic, and do not have a lead sentence that says anything other than "Foo may refer to:" because, by definition of being at the base name, there is no primary topic. They can have common uses, at the top, which is precisely what I did. I hope this helps you understand that there is no "primary topic" here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I understand it you are arguing that because the way the Wikipedia topics are set up, that "proves" that this structure must be maintained. If I am wrong and I have misunderstood you, please accept my apologies. However, assuming this is not the case I must point out that your argument is solely based on a blind assumption no deviations or variations or errors (vs MOS) can occur. This is entirely backwards, of course. We don't revert change because of change itself. If you wish to argue against what was discussed over here, you are more than welcome to. That is, if you are ready and willing to argue that the primary topic for "Frozen" is not "Freezing". But you then need to engage in that discussion as opposed to being the sole voice of opposition, and one based at essentially circular unassailable administrative Wiki logic at that. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: This is nothing to do with the RfD. I am telling you that the primary topic for "Frozen" is not "Freezing", which is why I reverted your edit here, and is why your reversion of my reversion is not correct. You should not say in the lead sentence of this disambiguation page "Frozen is the result of freezing" because freezing (in the context of the article Freezing) is not the primary topic. Neither should you say "Frozen is a film" or "Frozen is a paralysis response in extreme cases of fear". I can't think of another way to explain that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is the first time you have come close to a relevant argument as opposed to trying to disguise your opinion as "objective fact". That in itself would not have been so bad (and certainly not the first time a Wikipedia editor has done so), but when you use circular argument internal to how Wikipedia works, you really are led astray. Please never again use argumentation that boils down to "I must be correct or the article would already have been changed." Thank you. Since you plainly state you can't think of another way to explain what you mean, allow me to help you: Next time tell the editor that in your opinion there is no primary topic for "Frozen". Fair enough. If anyone else wants to chime in, feel free. Otherwise I'm done here. CapnZapp (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad we got there in the end. I am explaining the status and style of the page as determined by the community (and how that might be changed if your opinion differs), but never mind. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is the first time you have come close to a relevant argument as opposed to trying to disguise your opinion as "objective fact". That in itself would not have been so bad (and certainly not the first time a Wikipedia editor has done so), but when you use circular argument internal to how Wikipedia works, you really are led astray. Please never again use argumentation that boils down to "I must be correct or the article would already have been changed." Thank you. Since you plainly state you can't think of another way to explain what you mean, allow me to help you: Next time tell the editor that in your opinion there is no primary topic for "Frozen". Fair enough. If anyone else wants to chime in, feel free. Otherwise I'm done here. CapnZapp (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: This is nothing to do with the RfD. I am telling you that the primary topic for "Frozen" is not "Freezing", which is why I reverted your edit here, and is why your reversion of my reversion is not correct. You should not say in the lead sentence of this disambiguation page "Frozen is the result of freezing" because freezing (in the context of the article Freezing) is not the primary topic. Neither should you say "Frozen is a film" or "Frozen is a paralysis response in extreme cases of fear". I can't think of another way to explain that. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: It may be frustrating, but Shhhnotsoloud is correct here. If you think the primary topic for "frozen" is "freezing", you can propose moving this page to Frozen (disambiguation) and changing it to redirect to freezing. Then you would have a primary topic redirect. But as it stands now, "freezing" is only one of many topics to which the term "frozen" may refer. There might be a case to be made for placing it at the top of the list of topics ("first among equals" in a sense), but that doesn't make it the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 18:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)