Jump to content

Talk:Smiles (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 11 August 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. This has already been relisted twice, and I do not foresee consensus becoming clearer after another relist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles → Smiles (disambiguation) – The disambiguation page is a collection of comparatively obscure partial title matches, and topics with no Wikipedia article. I propose that the primary topic of "Smiles" is Smile, for which "Smiles" is both the plural and the third-person singular simple present indicative verb form. bd2412 T 18:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 13:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As BD2412 says. @Martin of Sheffield: those examples are not valid. Smiles is not used as mononym like Stalin or Mozart. As to "not a dictionary" if that's the case why do we have an article for smile in the first place. If you can provide another example on en.wp where plural doesn't redirect to singular be interested to see it. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If dismissing usage of one the the major authors of industrial history, please justify "not valid". I suspect Rolt has a published and cited opus greater than any of the contributers here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Rolt refers to Samuel Smiles as "Smiles" alone only after he has been introduced to the reader as "Samuel Smiles". This work, taken as a whole, is therefore not proof that "Smiles" is a mononym. bd2412 T 00:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mozart and Stalin are poor examples. Stalin is frequently referred to as Josef (or Joseph) Stalin. W A Mozart is needed in program notes and similar to distinguish him from the composer and violinist Leopold, who happened to be WA's father. In the present case you are also on shaky ground. The entire first paragraph of Rolt's Introduction runs: "Although this book forms the third and last part of the Lives of the Engineers it was, in its original form as a biography of George Stephenson, the first to be written. Smiles later expanded and re-wrote it to include the work of his son, Robert Stephenson." Over the next three pages Rolt continues to name Smiles as just "Smiles" 11 times. Never once does he use Smiles' forename. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. However, "Mozart" and "Stalin" seen alone almost always reference to the person. Not so with smiles - even if Rolt overlooked the facial expression. bd2412 T 23:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AjaxSmack I think you're misunderstanding NotDict as a guideline, as demonstrated by plurals invariably redirecting to singular articles. And someone searching "smiles" would be looking for smiles. What else would they be looking for? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But would someone searching for "Smiles" be looking for "smile"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: plurals invariably redirecting to singular articles – WP:PLURALPT: The relationship between a singular and its plural is important, but not the only consideration. Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form. [...] Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Snickers), or to a dab page (Suns) No such user (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And can we not see the difference between SNICKERS® and "teeth" "lips" "smiles" "eyes" "looks" "winks" "whistles" and every other word which isn't a famous brand name? What is SMILES®? Look on the dab page; zero. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 May 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved per rough consensus that "smile" is the primary topic for the plural too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Smiles → Smiles (disambiguation) – WP:ASTONISH clear PT per PT#2 and Smile got 10,224 views compared to 36 for the film, 5 for the song and 4 for the drug [[1]]. Even though readers and editors are used to things being at the singular it would seem that the primary topic of "Smiles" is still Smile. A Google image search returns results that appear to show nothing but Smiles. Even cases like Cars, Cats and Bones that have topics that are of a similar popularity go to the singular, Smiles doesn't appear to have anything comparable by views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move. Though this same request failed two years ago, the singular article gets such a ridiculous number of views that even if a very small percentage of people who wanted Smile searched for the plural, it would still be the most likely intended target. ONR (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smily support as the creator of {{P}} and a contributor to WP:PLURALPT Red Slash 04:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per the arguments last time. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as far as Samuel Smiles goes compared to the general meaning, yes we should and do favour generic meanings over specific meanings (such as the fruit over the company), especially considering "Samuel Smiles" isn't a full match. WP is not a dictionary which is why "Smiles" and "Smile" shouldn't have separate articles but the primary topic of the plural is still the title with the singular even if we have chosen to title it differently, the only point here is that due to readers and editors being used to things being at the singular them expecting to use singulars. But NOTDIC is a content guideline and it specifies that topics that have more than one term should all redirect to the same article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sam isn't the only entry under Smiles. A per WP:LEAST and from that WP:EASTER going to Smiles should either be a primary meaning of smiles, or else a disambiguation page. There is no primary, ergo it should be a disambiguation page for Smiles. Feel free to add a "see also" pointing to smile if you want, but don't confuse the readers by assuming they are too stupid to know the difference between singular and plural. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking into account views for him and Tom Smiles, Smile gets nearly 5x the views [[2]] and few people would search for a person (especially a common name) with just the last name so views there aren't that helpful. And the article is only titled "Smile" because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) but WP could easily have a NC to title things in the plural, if this was the case would you oppose to redirecting "Smile" to "Smiles" under NOTDIC and suggest that "Smiles" should only be in the see also section on the "Smile" DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance has the numbers of views of smile and smiles to each other? If more people view smile that is presumably because that is what they want and have the sense to enter it. Maybe I'm "one of the few", but I would normally start a search for information on a person with their surname, it's the usual way of ordering names after all. What, pray, is an "NC" in this context? I very much doubt that WP would ever title things in the plural (unless of course they are intrinsically plural), it would be at odds with normal encyclopaedic and dictionary practice. In short: the primary meaning of smile is the facial expression, with a hat note to the disambiguation page. There is no primary meaning of smiles so it goes direct to the disambiguation page. For those few who have difficulty understanding English plurals there is a both the first and last lines to point the reader to the singular. Where is the problem that you are so desperate to fix?
Should you get your way, have you given thought to the possibility of confusion having two hat notes on top of smile? If you don't want a multiplicity of hat notes, are you going to combine the disambiguation pages into one? Alternatively will the diligent reader looking to understand a drug reference have to go to smile, then smile (disambiguation) then smiles (disambiguation) before getting to their objective? We need to see your plans in full. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The number of views for the article titled "Smile" is relevant in that it shows that that topic is far more common (even if people are more likely to search for that article with the singular). NC is that WP could either title the article about the facial expression at Smile or Smiles and we have chosen the former. I don't see how its normal encyclopaedic practice to use singulars. In any case topics are frequently referred to in the plural form even if encyclopedias don't usually use them.
There will be hatnotes to both the singular and plural DAB pages, like there is at Cat. And the same situation happens with Churchill and Dowland meaning that a search for a topic actually called just "Churchill" or "Dowland" (which you participated in) such as the places is only successful after being directed onto the person (who is usually called by their first name to). With people its obvious that they will be under "Firstname Lastname" its not obvious with singular/plurals. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And topics in other parts of WP use the plural form such as Category:Crickets and Crickets as pets even though the main article is at Cricket (insect). Also {{Closed stations Norfolk}} is plural. Its only WP convention to use the plural for the main articles, as can be seen many other parts use the plural and if we had an article dealing with art on the facial expression it would probably be at Smiles in art not the more awkward Smile in art. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTDICT. No evidence is given that users typing "Smiles" are looking for the singular "Smile". —  AjaxSmack  01:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The page hits show that that the article about Simle(s) gets over 243x the views (compare that to Bone/Bones (TV series) where the TV series gets over twice the views [[3]]) of the other "Smiles" topics, even if we assumed that 90% of readers search for the topic in the singular that would still leave the Smile(s) article over 24x as likely. Do you have any evidence to suggest that readers searching in an encyclopedia are significantly more likely to search for things with the singular? (the Google image search is telling) And if you look at PT#2 its even clearer since the facial expression clearly has far far more encyclopedic relevance than a film (which looks to be named after the facial expression) and a few PTMs. The Hitomi Shimatani song doesn't have a standalone article, and the other song and musical don't currently have articles (though we don't ignore red links) and even if they did I doubt that they would get many views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is you're argument similar to that at Hearts that the encyclopedic concept is typically not referred to in the plural, I don't think that's the case even though we only have 1 face, its common for smiles to be shown (and spoken of) in the plural (though not as often as some plurals). But I think the main point is that there are prominent uses of "Hearts" but not "Smiles". But in any case readers who expect to find topics under the plural will probably search for them in the plural form even if that form is uncommon and people looking for things in the singular will probably look for singular titles even if (like Twins and Shoes) its more natural to refer to them in the plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smiles_(disambiguation)&oldid=1248836639"