This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments11 people in discussion
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 section.
Note that Trestle bridge was boldly moved from Trestle in 2016. Although the first definition of trestle is the structural element, the bridges can also be called simply trestles,[3] which I would guess is more common than trestle bridge. Station1 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
A search like that will also return matches that are within longer phrases. Here we are looking for just "trestle" by itself. The first definition in the dictionary seems to be the structural element, and all subjects seem to be derived from that. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Leaning Oppose. Just based on looking at the incoming links targeting these terms, I'm coming to doubt BarrelProof's idea that "trestle would typically refer to a trestle support". There are 28 mainspace wikilinks to Trestle support. There are a bit more than 300 mainspace links to the Trestle redirect, and virtually all of them are appropriately referring to the bridge (you can browse a random sample here). The redirect actually has significantly more links than the full Trestle bridge title (184 links). My takeaways from this are: 1) When an editor wants to refer to the architectural structure, they are somewhat more likely to call it a "trestle" than a "trestle bridge". (Granted, some of the "trestle" wikilinks are of the form "[[trestle]] bridge" or "[[trestle|trestle bridge]]", though I don't think it's so common that it significantly affects the accounting). 2) Statistically, when an editor uses the bare term "trestle", it's much more likely that they're referring to trestle bridge, rather than trestle support. For these reasons, I would support keeping things as is, or even moving Trestle bridge back to Trestle. Colin M (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion
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.
Trestle (disambiguation) → Trestle – I believe the alternate proposal in the just-closed RM here obscured the consensus (though it seemed obvious to me) that there's no primary topic here (certainly there's no consensus as to what the primary topic is, if there is one!). So let's just move the disambig page to where it belongs, as proposed before. Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support per my previous nom. While I agree the alternative proposal may have obscured consensus I don't think the close was incorrect as it can be argued the meanings are somewhat conceptual meaning it may be reasonable to select one as a broad-concept or primary topic. I think you should probably have discussed with the closer but now we're here let's get on with it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I felt it would be cleaner to start fresh. I don't expect BarrelProof with make the same alternative proposal again, since it's now clear that it will not gain consensus, so we should focus on a proposal that might. I liked yours and so did several others. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment. This identical proposal was closed just a few hours ago. It's usually considered inappropriate to open an identical RM so soon after a close. @Paine Ellsworth: is an experienced closer, who specifically said there was "no agreement...to rename the dab page to the base name". It would have been more appropriate to ask Paine Ellsworth on his talk page to reconsider or reopen, and if there was still disagreement, to go to move review. At the very least the participants in the previous discussion should have been pinged. Station1 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think I explained clearly enough why I restarted the same proposal. Not taking issue with closer's finding of "no consensus", but looking to find a clearer consensus than what I might have hallucinated there. Feel free to oppose if you think this is not a good move. Yes, I could have asked him to re-open, but then there would still be all that baggage. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Actually, maybe I should have asked closer to reconsider. The original proposal said "No clear primary topic", and that was very clearly borne out by all the comments. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment. Personally okay with this out-of-process reopening that should have waited a few weeks, because usually the longer the wait, the better chance of success. Since three editors in the previous RM, HBP5, FOARP and Nsu, suggested moving Trestle supporttoTrestle, those were assessed as opposed to the requested move. That, together with CM's oppose rationale, means the no-consensus outcome was a gift. Too many participants were unimpressed with Crouch, Swale's stats even after his hard work digging them up, so I expect this hurried RM will fail, but I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth - ed.put'r there07:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Two of those you count as opposed already now support (BarrelProof and No such user) (actually you didn't count BarrelProof, but it was his idea). As expected. It's hard to see why someone who thinks Trestle support should be primary would oppose fixing this, knowing that they're not going to get that result. Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support. Well, since we could not agree last time which topic is primary, that implies that there is not one. We should probably introduce that as a rule (there was a discussion to that effect a year or two ago, possibly with some of the editors involved here, but if I remember correctly it got stale). No such user (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
If there are reasonable arguments for different topics to be primary that seems to suggest there isn't a primary topic. However WP:DABCONCEPT says if it can be described in an article then it should not go to a DAB. This may suggest having either a broader meaning like the support or a narrower one like the bridge. However it does look many editors didn't think this applied. In the case of Hearts the card game was moved away from the base name after a rough consensus at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 16 March 2019 that it wasn't primary but some editors suggested the organ (or suit) were primary so the closer put the DAB at the base name and started a new RM at Talk:Hearts#Requested move 25 March 2019 to determine if there was consensus to have the organ as primary which there was consensus against. While the different meanings of hearts were probably named after each other the meanings are quite distinct so a lack of consensus for which is primary seems to suggest there isn't one. Similar with Talk:Status Quo#Requested move 16 November 2021 where some argued the generic meaning and some the band was primary. In such cases (as perhaps with this one) the closer probably should move the DAB to the base name and allow a discussion on making a different topic primary to happen straight away, a kind of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I was basically arguing (although I probably did not articulate it well), that Trestle support is the WP:DABCONCEPT here, or could be easily edited to be a proper one (and I'll try to rectify that right now). The problem with DABCONCEPTs is that they tend to be about basic things and of rather general exposition, so they do not attract many pageviews. Here, the simple concept of trestle was applied to bridges, tables and desks, and in common parlance "trestle bridge" got shortened to "trestle", obscuring the original meaning. So we have a tension between DABCONCEPT (favoring the simple structure) and PTOPIC (pageviews favoring the bridge), and a difference in views among editors how best to resolve it. So having a dab page seems like a compromise. No such user (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
