Talk:Waiver (disambiguation)

Title

This should be at Waiver (disambiguation), right? Smartiger (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguous term appears to be "waivers". -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I went ahead and expanded the page with others that might reasonably be linked as Waiver or Waivers. --El on ka 18:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very thorough-looking job. As the majority of the outgoing links are of the form "waiver", rather than "waivers", are there any further objections to such a rename? Smartiger (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the new list, I would move this yes, but to a "list of types of waivers"; the list is not really of ambiguous items, but a list of types of waivers. And "waivers" could then redirect to "waiver" as an {{R from plural}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting silly. RM it is! Smartiger (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every failure to instantly agree with you is silly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smartiger, I'm in agreement with JHunterJ on this, can we please try to keep the level of discourse here a bit more professional? Let's not make assumptions about people's motivations, let's just focus on the content, and what best serves our readers. --El on ka 19:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let that last one go, but since Elonka is piling on again... I said this is getting silly; I don't see how that's "an assumption about [JHunterJ]'s motivations". Rather, out of whole cloth, we get an assertion (one might indeed say, WP:AGF:assumption) that I consider all "failures to instantly agree with me" as silly. Far from what I said. Elonka, if you're here to play "referee", some appearance of even-handedness would be nice. Oh, and "instant agreement" would have been "not reverting five days earlier", so we're already some ways past that, clearly. Smartiger (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for a move. This is an awkward case because, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it disambiguates both Waivers and Waiver. As more discussion could help, I was tempted to relist, but discussion ground to a halt two weeks ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waivers → Waiver (disambiguation) — Per the following naming convention criteria: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English", and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page: "If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page" (as clearly the primary topic here is waiver), and "Singulars are preferred to plurals." Should be completely straightforward and unconversial, but I'm listing it as it's been moved and reverted twice now. (Firstly on the basis that plural items were in the majority, and to be considered a distinct "spelling", now being objected to on the basis that the expanded page is now a "list".) Smartiger (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. List of partial title matches (WP:PTM) and two ambiguously-titled articles which use "Waivers". As suggested above, when Smartiger was trying to form consensus without an RM, with the new entries this should become List of types of waivers (if the list is needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused on the reasoning here. As I look at it, the current content of the page seems reasonable for a disambiguation page, as most if not all of the entries could reasonably be linked as waiver, and therefore require disambiguation. Why change it to a List page? Or to put it another way, which entries would you say are not appropriate for disambiguation? --El on ka 19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The all appear to be "voluntary relinquishments or surrenders of some known right or privilege", i.e., types of Waiver. There are not different topics that are ambiguous with the title, just different types the same topic. The list of types of limestone is distinct from the Limestone (disambiguation) page, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have no objection if someone wishes to create a List page, but for now, let's focus on the disambiguation page itself. Which entries would you say are not appropriate for inclusion? --El on ka 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that the disambiguation page is the list page, and should be titled that way. There appear to be no other topics ambiguous with the title "waiver" beyond the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege. If we instead want the disambiguation page for something, then the entries that are partial title matches would be removed or moved to a See also section, leaving just the two sport-related "Waivers (XXX)" articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit some bafflement as to how you are defining ambiguity here. From my point of view, I could easily see someone linking waiver when they really meant to link Liability waiver, hence the need for the disambiguation page. I'm also thinking that by your definition, we might as well include the sports articles there as well, since I'm not understanding where you are drawing the line. In any case, I have created a List of types of waivers page, though I'm not certain on how to format it. Could you please take a look? --El on ka 20:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is a liability waiver a waiver? I'm assuming it is. If it's not, then it could be ambiguous (and I can see how the above discussion could be baffling). My suggestion is not to draw the line for the sports articles, but go ahead and make this list of waivers into a list of waivers. If we do still need a disambiguation page (which I don't think we do), then the two maybe-ambiguously-titled sports articles would be on it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I see what you are saying about items of the same type sometimes being moved to their own list page. But as we both know, there are plenty of disambiguation pages where that is not a hard and fast rule, and there is definitely a certain amount of grey area between what should be on a list page and what should be on a disambiguation page. In this waiver/waivers case, I would argue strongly that a disambiguation page is appropriate. I could see moving a few items from this disambig page to the list page (such as the Florida waiver), but not all of them. --El on ka 20:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those other disambiguation pages tend to have both different topics (which need disambiguation) and types of one topic (which could be a list, like this one). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a need for a disambiguation page before, there presumably still is one now. I was going to suggest a split between disambig and any necessary list... and I see that happily, this has now indeed occurred. The distinction between PTMs and "bona fide" ambiguous terms seems fairly slight, here: we might just about as well have had NFL Waivers Procedure or Waivers in the NHL on the one hand, or waiver (liability)) etc on the other; they're all essentially just more-or-less specialised applications of the primary sense, and they're all just about as likely to be the objects of inbound links, relative to their overall prevalence of their usages. However, I have no objection to further pruning if you feel that's appropriate, and it still seems clear to me that the conventional title would be of the form "<primary topic> (disambiguation)", on the basis of the three (!) cited guideline criteria. Regarding pluralisation as a substantiate difference in "spelling" strikes me as undesirable because firstly, it's not what people would commonly regard as a "spelling difference": it's just inflection. Secondly, construing it that way would inevitable conflict with the explicit criteria about inflection, to wit that pages use noun phrases, and are in the singular. And lastly, it would be at most one criteria: I'd still struggle to see why it would override the cited three, with the best will in the world. Smartiger (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.