Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus in this discussion is to delete - happy to explain Wikipedia's concept of consensus to Wikid77 if he is still confused - fair play, it isn't the common usage. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designated

edit
Designated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

List of pages that happen to have "designated" in the title. See WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Page changed to avoid objections - see bottom "Reduced/split article". -Wikid77 (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand the point, this is not a disambiguation page, just a list of articles which happen to have a particular word in the title. There is nothing ambiguous which might create confusion between any of the articles, hence no need for disambiguation. . . Rcawsey (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per pointless deletion. It is absolutely a correct page. A term "designated driver" is a correct entry for the page, just as "John Henry Smith" is a correct entry for the page "John Smith" even though the word "Henry" is added. The addition of extra words does not exclude a title from being an issue of disambiguation. In fact, disambiguation absolutely demands the inclusion of extra words. Why? because only 1 page can have the exact title, and other titles must vary by other words (or word spellings). If you can't comprehend that, then you honestly have no clue as to what a disambiguation page provides. Dear God, I cannot believe anyone cannot comprehend this disambiguation. How can so many people have such limited thinking? I suspect the content of the MOS:DAB is so twisted and confused that people lose all common sense as a result. By themselves, so many people would not be so confused that disambiguation titles contain different words in them, beyond the shared words. HINT: Disambiguation pages list titles that contain some different words in each title, where the shared word(s) could be used alone in context, such as a player who was "designated" or a driver who was "designated". The MOS:DAB is very poorly written and fosters many pointless deletion requests. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Extensive explanation of your view does not keep it from running counter to consensus: WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, WP:D#Partial title matches. Your personal attacks and other unhelpful hints do not change that either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello (?), there is no so-called "consensus" because I disagree. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. Consensus can exist on Wikipedia even with disagreement; WP:CONSENSUS is not the same as other definitions of consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the writing of WP:CONSENSUS has been incorrect. Consensus must be unanimous, otherwise: 2 people discuss an issue, and one claims they have consensus, but the other disagrees. That simple proof is an example of reductio ad absurdum, and so yes, consensus obviously must be uanimous. There is no such thing as a 1-person consensus between 2 people (except in past Wikipedia decisions, hence the flawed policies). -Wikid77 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTUNANIMITY. There are more than 2 people involved in the disambiguation guidelines. That none of them agree with you does not mean that they are all one person. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Extensive explanation was used above to explain the concepts. The word "designated" is being disambiguated, because it is the main "title" of the concept that is shared. Specifically:

Those articles are disambiguated as various meanings of the term "designated" because a separate article could be titled "Designated" to describe what is meant as "designated" in each case. This explanation is not intended as a personal attack, but rather as a clarification. Above, I thought I had made it clear that the MOS:DAB is to be blamed for the confusion, and no "personal attacks" have been made. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a disambiguation. That is a list of articles that include "designated" in the title. They are not articles about various topics that are ambiguous with "designated". They are articles that all use the same dictionary definition of designated in different ways, and are perfectly findable with {{intitle|designated}}: All pages with titles containing designated. Readers who are looking for a hitter who is designated are not likely to enter "designated" in the go box, but rather "designated hitter". -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "designated" certainly is a disambiguation, and many of the articles have extremely diverse views of the word "designated". For example,
  • a "designated driver" does not need to use a bat to hit a baseball.
  • a "designated range" of a musical instrument is not chosen by a group of friends at a bar, and does not involve drinking alcoholic beverages.
However, in those examples, the key word is the term "designated" as the shared title, as in "Designated (baseball)" or "Designated (driving)" or "Designated (musical range)". Also, readers have been entering the word "designated" more than 35 times per day, so they are actively seeking the information, such as being unsure what term to use for the military "designated marksman" or what term to use for soccer (football) "designated player" versus "designated hitter" in baseball. I hope those examples help to clarify and answer all your questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a disambiguation page and it does not appear to serve any other function that is not provided by the search function and a good dictionary. Phrases that happen to contain a particular term, but are not commonly known by that term alone do not need to be disambiguated by that term. older ≠ wiser 03:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it certainly is a disambiguation page (please read/re-read all the explanations here and re-read again) that handles various uses of the shared term "designated". Also, anything can be hunted by the "search function", and a so-called good dictionary is unlikely to have "designated marksman" or even "designated range" (music).
  • Comment - About broad scope: Another issue, that might be confusing, is to combine so many articles with the title "designated" rather than have a separate disambiguation page for each subset of titles. For example:

The intent is to have one disambiguation page to handle many phrases about "designated" rather than have several disambiguation pages for each of the 20 sets of the similar terms, official rules, and song/book titles. This strategy helps to reduce all the various disambiguation pages, as more similar song titles and book titles are added as article titles. However, the combined page of all variations of "designated" is likely to remain small because the term "designated" is quite specific, in actual use. The page is not similar to attempting to handle the word "slow" for "slow lane" or "slow day" or "slow motion" or "slow hand" (etc.). No, instead, the page "Designated" is much more focused, as a true disambiguation page. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this [your idiosyncratic interpretation of disambiguation] has been discussed extensively before and your arguments are entirely unconvincing. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's the way disambiguation actually works: if the articles could stand-alone with the exact same title: "Designated (baseball)" or "Designated (soccer)" or "Designated (driving)" or "Designated (musical range)" or "Designated (song)" then it is a case for disambiguation. There's nothing extensive to discuss about that concept. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not how disambiguation works. That is only your opinion about how disambiguation works and you've persuaded no one that that is a reasonable model to perpetuate. older ≠ wiser 04:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles wouldn't stand alone under the title "Designated" though. The title, for example, Designated Hitter- the important bit about that is the hitter bit, not the Designated bit. If it didn't have it's own article, it wouldn't be a section in an article called Designated, it would be in an article called Hitter. MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the use of the word "designated" for a designated hitter most certainly would appear in an article about "Designated" along with explaining the term "designated driver". There are numerous such multi-meanings articles on Wikipedia. The fact of including "designated hitter" within the topic of "designated" is also proven by Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary for the word "designate". However, I understand your alternate viewpoint, even though I share the view of those mainstream dictionary writers to put "designated hitter" with "designate". The reason seems to be the rarity of the word "designated", and thus there are quick dictionary connections to the term "designated driver" whereas "hitter" does not directly imply explanation of "designated". The world, at large, really does disambiguate the term "designated" as seen in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and that is the reason hundreds of people request "Designated" every month on Wikipedia, and the reason I initially wrote that page. It's not my mere opinion, it is the way the World works. I hope viewing the Merriam-Webster dictionary helps to sort out the priorities, as to why "designated" is the focus. It took me weeks to research and conclude that "Designated" was the disambiguation used by mainstream people in the world. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you've not offered any evidence of actual ambiguity. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several, clearly, are known as "designated". For example, at a baseball game, if a player said, "John needs to get ready to bat; he's designated" then they know the meaning is as designated hitter. Also, when drinking at a bar, if the conversation went, "Why is John still in the bar with you? Oh, he's the designated", then too, there is obvious intent: "designated driver". The fact of including "designated driver" within the topic of "designated" is also proven by Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary for the word "designate". Again, that is not mere opinion, it is the way the World actually disambiguates the term "designated". Perhaps I should have cited all these reasons earlier, and this delete-request would never have arisen. The world has specific venues: in Austrian music, "Strauss" is either "Father" or "Son" (the Waltz King), but when designing blue-jeans, then "Strauss" is typically "Levi Strauss". I had researched the term "designated" for weeks, to see that the world considers the word "designated" as an exclusive word for disambiguation. Perhaps the best approach is to write several articles all titled "Designated (xx)" because so many people do not realize that's how the world at large handles the issue. My focus has been to make Wikipedia answer the questions asked by the real world, by several thousand people in each case. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term designated is simply not used alone when referring to a designated hitter or a designated driver. In your example for baseball, What any announcer or fan would actually say is "John needs to get ready to bat; he's the designated hitter" and your bar example would have actual conversation that ran as "Why is John still in the bar with you? Oh, he's the designated driver". The "designated" portion is a fragment of the actual topic and ass such are not valid entries for disambiguation. -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (after ec) I am not convinced that this will do any good, but: if the baseball game announcer or the story in the paper the next day is likely to say "The designated cinched the game with a home run", then "designated" is ambiguous. If you have a source that says "The police officer gave the designated a breathalyzer test because he smelled alcohol in the vehicle", then "designated" is ambiguous. But they don't -- "designated" is just another word that has a meaning that can be used in multiple sentences and multiple Wikipedia article titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and split
Other tag-alongs created

If this discussion ends in deletion, what process needs to be followed to also remove the add-ons Designated (baseball), Designated (driving), and List of phrases with designated? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - All the recent editting fails to address the fundamental issue that there is nothing about "Designated" that needs disambiguation; in particular, all the framgent usages that have now been made redirects are not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designated&oldid=1137782107"