Misplaced Pages

Talk:Tatar

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Raladic (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 24 November 2024 (Relisted requested move using Move+). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:40, 24 November 2024 by Raladic (talk | contribs) (Relisted requested move using Move+)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. 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

Against merger

Although there may be one instance in which Tartar and Tatar are synonymous, there are many more in which they aren't. There's no reason to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

The request to rename this article to Tatar has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Tatar (disambiguation) → Tatar – This adjective currently redirects to the plural meaning a people, but there's also the language, and it's common to see such adjectives disambiguated.

From the topic area, vaguely similar examples may include Turkic, where readers proceed to both the languages and the peoples; Turkish, most people proceed to language; Kipchak, readers visit people but also language and another major topic.

Page history for the redirect that would need to be replaced here indicates this was last attempted in 2017, and last discussed in 2005. There was a recent discussion at Talk:Tatar language (disambiguation) where there was no opposition to this idea, at the same time, it wasn't the primary focus there, and this requires disambiguating over 700 links, so it merits a discussion of its own. --Joy (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Support there are also other meanings such as places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to this, but what then is even the point of our umbrella article at Tatars? Srnec (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    It seems to be largely about the Tatar peoples, not so much about their languages. If the languages were called e.g. 'Tatarian' or 'Tatari' this would be less complex. --Joy (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
    But if the languages do not form a family, what makes the various peoples called Tatars a family? Does any part of that article beyond the etymology section justify lumping them together? Maybe we need an article on the word 'Tatar' instead. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems to me to be a very clear primary redirect. The people are the primary topic over the language and certainly over everything else on the list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but why? What makes them different from other cases? --Joy (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    We operate on a case-by-case basis. In most cases where the name of the people and the name of the language are the same both are either very well-known or pretty obscure. But I don't think that's the case here. The Tatars (of which this is the singular) are extremely well-known in history. Their language nowhere near so much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Sure, but even the references to Tatars in history have multiple meanings - notably our articles make a clear distinction between the historical tribal confederations and the modern-day Tatars. Is making this distinction wrong, are they all really just Tatars and there is no ambiguity with the use of the term Tatar? --Joy (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    But the current redirect is to the broad scope article covering all of them, which I think is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    OK, then the main focus of the discussion is whether it's more beneficial to short-circuit both singular and plural to the broad concept or whether it's better to have links to singular disambiguated. I'd still lean towards the latter, as it would make the links from other topics be more relevant to context. --Joy (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the "disambiguating over 700 links" suggested above – articles should link to the specific subject they're talking about, which is often not going to be the concept of "Tatars" as a whole, but specific articles about certain languages or groups. Toadspike 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • correction - I thought this was last discussed in 2005 but that's only because I didn't notice a 2018 discussion at Talk:Tatar, sorry. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    Interestingly, that argument in 2018 was:
    What do the modern Tatars of Kazan have to do with all of that? Nothing.
    Sadly the same user has been inactive since 2020, but there might be something to the idea that maybe our broad concept is too broad.
    How does modern-day mainstream historiography handle the matter? Do reliable sources discuss medieval Tatars as the same topic as the modern-day Tatars, just shifted in time - or are they so distinct that they are actually separate topics, so we can have a broad-concept article about the word Tatar(s), but not about a single overarching concept? --Joy (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing is broken, so no need to fix. Ghirla 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ghirlandajo while I appreciate laconic statements, it would be more helpful if you were to elaborate. For example, how is it not 'broken' that Special:WhatLinksHere/Tatar sends all of the readers to the same 5,000-word broad-concept article, for example:
    I literally just clicked around that list and found all this ambiguity in the last ten minutes - I technically cherry-picked these from the list but didn't omit anything I found.
    Sending readers to read the broad concept article about a millenium of history seems inferior to disambiguating and cleaning up those links to get readers to more straightforward destinations. --Joy (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories: