Talk:U-238

Move to dab

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved there is no consensus on a single primary topic for the term. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

U-238 → U-238 (disambiguation) — Looks to me that uranium-238, Uranium-233 are the main meanings. So U-238, U-233 should be a redirects. ospalh (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• U-233 → U-233 (disambiguation)

Discussion

• There is no need for a separate disambiguation page; see WP:TWODABS. Both of these can be disambiguated through hatnotes on the respective articles:
  • {{redirect|U-233|German submarine|German submarine U-233}} -->
    "U-233" redirects here. For German submarine, see German submarine U-233.
  • {{redirect|U-238|German submarine|German submarine U-238}} -->
    "U-238" redirects here. For German submarine, see German submarine U-238.

older ≠ wiser 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I support the move, as I think the Uranium isotopes are the more likely targets, though strictly speaking I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary per WP:TWODABS. older ≠ wiser 02:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• In reply to ospalh: I appreciate it may look that way to you; it looks to me (being more interested in ships and military history than in geology or nuclear physics) that the U-boat is the main meaning. I would expect that sort of thing in the readership of an encyclopaedia.

And the reason I put the Dab there in the first place was to avoid a wrangle over precedence see Talk:Ceres for an example).

PS I notice the page has been changed (just 6 hours after the discussion opened!) I’ve put them back; perhaps we should stick with the status quo ante until this is resolved?Xyl 54 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• It wasn't me who changed the pages.
• Did you look at what links to U-238 or did a google search? I still think there is a primary meaning and it's not the U-boat.
• I hadn't tought of WP:TWODABS. Now i'm for just redoing User:Bkonrad's changes. ospalh (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the dabs - there is no obvious primary topic for either. It depends on your interests as to which of the two meanings you would think of if someone said "U-233" or "U-238" to you. To someone not interested in either WWII or chemistry, those two phrases may not have an immediate meaning without context. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Put hatnotes. At the top of the uranium isotopes, put "This article is about the isotope of uranium. For the German submarine, see German submarine U-238", and at the top of the German submarines, put "This article is about the German submarine. For the isotope of uranium, see Uranium-238." It's as simple as that! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• The current arrangement looks good to me forthe reasons identified by Mjroot Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep the status quo It's exactly what I'd expect of I searched for U-238. Shem (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the disambiguation page - the current page is useful. This seems a better solution than changing the page to a redirect with a hatnote on the page redirected to.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:TWODABS and common sense; it's silly to have a disambiguation page when there are only two things being disambiguated. Powers ^T 12:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment The problem there is that WP:TWODABS starts by saying "if an ambiguous term (has) no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page"; it goes on to say "If there are only two topics...and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed". The issue here is not that there are only two items, but that neither is the primary topic. So my opposing the move is also "per TWODABS", if it comes to that. And I would have hoped that common sense would dictate that splitting the difference is better than arguing the toss over the matter.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not by my measure; I'd rather help half of the people by taking them directly to the right article than force everyone to go to a DAB page when there are only two options. Besides, I think the isotope is far more likely to be sought than a relatively undistinguished U-boat, especially with a bare search. The isotope is far more likely to be encountered, even in literature written for laymen. Powers ^T 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect and hatnote per TWODABS Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I'm inclined to think that, in view of the prominence of the nuclear power debate over the last half century with no likelihood it will diminish any time soon, the isotopes of uranium are indeed the primary meaning, it's borderline IMO so the safest thing is the current DABS. Hatnotes don't resolve the issue. Two-way DABs are appropriate in exactly the case of there being no primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there was both a World War I U-238 (which was never completed) and a World War II U-238 (which was completed).--Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the same for U-233. Both would qualify for articles IMO, but for the moment they're not even redlinks, and there doesn't seem to even be an article on their class, which is a definite omission. The German Type U 81 submarine article doesn't mention these boats, perhaps it should be expanded to do so, that's another option. Either way, perhaps these will in time become true three-way DABs, but to reiterate, for the moment they're quite within guidelines as two-way DABs. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PS The probability that a contributor who quotes a guideline or policy in a move or delete discussion has actually read the page they quote is disappointingly low. Assume good faith but never, ever accept such arguments without reading the page for yourself. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: By the way, "U-238" is not IUPAC-sanctioned; you're supposed to write "²³⁸U" or "uranium-238" if you need to refer to the isotope. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Many above state that the primary topic of this term is unclear, but a search in google books or the google news archive clearly shows that the isotope (or whatever it is) is the primary topic. In my gbooks search every single one of the first 100 hits were related to the type of uranium. The primary topic of the term is clear. Jenks24 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A (belated) Comment: Primary Topic may not be the best guideline to quote, given the row that’s broken out over it at WP:D and elsewhere. But as for google searches, if most of the hits for U-238 come up for the isotope, the 3rd and 4th on the list are the U-Boat.[1] And for U-233 (as it is two different pages we are talking about here) the U-boat is second.[2] So it is hardly a minor, inconsequential usage.Xyl 54 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redirection?

The main page Uranium-238 claims that this page is a redirect to that page. Either that hatnote should be removed (or possibly replaced with a note to this page for other uses of the term?) or this page should be altered. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the hatnote on Uranium-238.

The situation is a little odd:

• German submarines called U-235 and U-238 were laid down in World War I, but not completed. There is no page for these submarines. There probably will be one day (though maybe not for years to come).
• German submarines called U-235 and U-238 were built in World War II and saw service. There is a page for U-238, but not yet for U-235. I expect a page for German submarine U-235 will be created one day.
• There are isotopes of Uranium called U-235 and U-238.

Accordingly, there is currently a need for a disambiguation page for U-238, but not yet for U235. Sooner or later there will be two articles on German submarines called U-235, and two articles on German submarines called U-238.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Why uranium should be primary

Uranium has 29 known isotopes, with mass numbers 217-243 (218 and 235 have two variants). Germany has commissioned over 1,500 U-boats starting in 1906. This should give uranium an importance factor of 1500/29 or about 50 times that of German U-boats. On that basis alone it seems reasonable to me to accord uranium the status of primary topic in discussions of the U-n nomenclature.

One problem with this line of reasoning is that it makes rock groups so named (ignoring the hyphen) about 30 times as important as uranium. So perhaps a better basis might be mortality, which would put Bread the immortal food ahead of Bread the mortal rock group and U-238 as an immortal isotope ahead of U-238 as a mortal submarine. But again it could be argued that U2 is as immortal as Mozart. Absent any rock groups Un for n in the range 217-243 however, that point should be moot. And absent Wikipedia articles for most of those uranium isotopes, the corresponding U-boats, however mortal, should not encounter any competition from such minor immortals. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)