Talk:Ige

No primary topic here

Hi User:PamD, I know this is obvious, but there is no primary topic for this dab Ige (it's not Ige (disambiguation)). Users will land here first, so there's no reason to assume they've been to those separated items first like with a primary topic (and they're not going to have navigated here from two articles anyhow). If we follow that logic, all variants caps/dia/etc would be placed at the top, which I've never seen. Care to revert and discuss at MOSDAB or somewhere? Widefox; talk 15:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I concede on IgE, but on ICE the logic at MOSDAB applies -can't copy and pare on mobile, but the reader looking for ICE will have come via article and doesn't want this primary topic mixed in with other entries. PamD 15:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is software I haven't used before -is it Flow? - and gives no chance to edit my post e.g. remove redundant Sig. I'm unimpressed! Also appears not to indent. PamD 15:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(hmm, I thought Flow was abandoned?, indented, rm 2sig) What's the difference between IgE and IGE? We have guidance for which article titles get hatnotes to the dab, but that doesn't mean they become primary topics. We could, theoretically, have many of them and once we have more than one then we don't have that most likely to have come from there as there are several. I do recognise this (along with "commonly refers to" and having entries before the section headings) as potential grey areas, but to me this is the most black and white of them per the definition of a primary topic at MOS:DABPRIMARY "When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title..". Anyhow, I'd support clarification at the project and incorporation of such a common thing (and the other styles) in an example. We have lots of combined dabs, but rarely/never see this, however tempting because of the recent merge history. Combined, it's a whole new primary topic discussion after all. Widefox; talk 16:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I see the current version visually jarres with IGE. Not seen this before Pam, regards Widefox; talk 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I previously looked into this page when PamD merged them, and I feel IgE should be at the top as well. It is the primary topic when using that exact case. Furthermore, since the redirect exists, I would prefer IgE to be linked in the article rather than the full name, as this is a page on the three-letter combination IGE. But am not going to dispute it, these things are not worth it. Live and let live... --Midas02 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, based on? 1. DABPRIMARY says there's no primary topic here. one or two is moot - there's none by definition. (and yes, that's the thing - IgE is in the same boat as IGE). Sure, it's tempting because of the recent merge which is why we're discussing this, when they were primary topics, now they aren't (for this dab page). Yes they can be considered as needing to go at the top due to popularity but surely not by definition primary topics, and not styled as such, as they aren't by definition. Widefox; talk 01:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Midas02 linking IgE vs Immunoglobulin E : No because of WP:DABREDIR "However, when the disambiguated term is an acronym or initialism (alphabetism), links should not use redirects to conceal the expanded version of that initialism." (If it were a primary topic then yes per MOS:DABPRIMARY "CIA" example). Widefox; talk 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]