Talk:Pearl (disambiguation)

message: "(cur) (last)  21:19, 21 Oct 2004 ZeroOne (PEARL is not related to Perl. Perl *was* initially called Pearl until the author realized that the name had already been taken.)"
Shouldn't PERL be listed here anyway?  Given that it *was* once called Pearl and the very frequent confusion by novices to call it Pearl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightychris (talk • contribs) 
----
Dear Themightychris, 
I am not too sure, but I think it is okay although most people should know Perl only. Since one might link the word "Pearl" to mean "Perl" (although much less common), to be on the safe side, this may be a valid reason to include it.--Wai Wai (☎) 14:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Perl be included?

message: shouldnt the blackberry pearl mobile phone be included here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.62.103.78 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blackberry pearl 

message: From 26-APR-2009. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlink entries with no incoming links and no mention in a bluelinked article in English encyclopedia 

message: From 26-APR-2009. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entries unlikely to be referenced only as either "Pearl" or "Pearls" or "The pearl" 

message: From 26-APR-2009. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does that imply that the awards should not be included?  (The Pearl Awards play an important role in the realm of Mormon music.)  You may also notice that roughly 5 times as many Wikipedia articles refer to the (musical) Pearl Awards than the Chinese ones, though I certainly wouldn't be opposed to mentioning both here until a "Pearl Award" Disambiguation page is created.  Given that so many Wikipedia articles mention the Pearl Awards, why would we want to leave people in the dark about what they are?  The Jade Knight (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. If the topic is important and you are familiar with it, then create a WP:stub for it. Redlinks with no navigable blue links are pretty much useless for the purposes of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you didn't notice, WP:MOSDAB states "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link."  If you'll also notice, Pearl Award has close to a dozen pages linking to it.  Furthermore, reading WP:Red link makes it clear to me that a red-linked entry would be particularly appropriate here.  In this case, including it here a) provides enough content to help those entirely unfamiliar with the subject matter gain a basic idea as to what it is, and b) encourage those that know slightly more (I, myself, know little other than that it is a prestigious award granted for musical accomplishment) to go ahead and create an article on it.  And I'm still curious why you think we would want to leave people in the dark about what the Pearl Awards are?  The Jade Knight (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are several links to Pearl Award, with at least two intended meanings. In the absence of any article clearly describing either of the senses, leaving that as a redlink intending one sense only is misleading. The purpose of including the entry on a disambiguation page is to enable readers to find information in an article about the subject (the disambiguation page is NOT the place to include information is not supported other article with verifiable sources. There is very little value to having an entry with only a redlink or with a blue link to an article that makes no mention of the term. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and I would like you to point me to the specific language in Wikipedia policy which you think supports the removal of information from this page when a red link would otherwise be entirely appropriate.  If you bothered to read WP:Red link, you'd notice that it states: "Please do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that deserve more treatment than just a dictionary definition, or topics which should obviously have articles."  It should be clear that this topic should obviously have an article—Pearl Awards are mentioned in a number of magazine and news articles, in books (generally those written by or about Pearl Award recipients), and other sources.  Additionally, some 10 other articles in Wikipedia link to "Pearl Award" in the context of this specific award, and one article even links to this disambiguation page in the context of this award.  Instead of just clicking revert, please do a little homework and consider trying to improve the project.  The Jade Knight (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

text: And the inclusion of a mention to the awards in the blue-linked article is a simple matter.  Reverting over it is, frankly, either petty or extremely nit-picky.  The Jade Knight (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If, per WP:Red link, you do in fact intend to create the article, then please do so. A hastily added unreferenced statement of as little value as no mention. As with any addition, it is incumbent on the person adding the information to provide reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 14:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have pointed out several ways in which its inclusion here is applicable, and how it fits in perfectly with current guidelines.  If you still have an objection, please point out where in Wikipedia policy you justify your objection, as I have pointed out how under both WP:Red link and WP:MOSDAB such an inclusion is perfectly merited.  Red links are not evil monsters, you know.  They won't eat your children.  BTW, if you feel I'm being obstinate about this, I'll happily agree to WP:3O; I'm beginning to find your shifting demands somewhat exasperating.  The Jade Knight (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlink entries with no blue link and ambiguous incoming links 

message: This link... redirects back to this disambiguation page. Does a page about the movie even exist anywhere, or was it overwritten in a page move? Timeroot (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pearl (movie) 

message: No article on it yet, though an article may be called for eventually; see Ukase of 1821.Skookum1 (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  another ship named Pearl 

message: Pearl is the sixth track on the Love and Rockets album Sweet F.A. That song is prety obscure though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.27.118 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another song named Pearl 

message: Pearl is one of the many widely use slang terms for Cocaine. When I added it to the disambiguation under 'other', someone reverted it. I don't know why it is, after all, a perfectly valid entry. Perhaps someone can enlighten me, since, while old to Wikipedia, I'm fairly new to making edits to it. Mr.Warchild (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't mentioned in the Cocaine article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is 'Blow', 'Flake', or 'Snow' (among others) mentioned in the Cocaine article. Yet some terms such as 'blow' or 'snow' (for example), have a disambiguation page that, among other things, rightfully points out the slang and links to the Cocaine article, while others such as this (Pearl) do not, regardless of being valid slang terms for Cocaine Mr.Warchild (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Any slang terms not mentioned in the article should not be in disambiguation pages, or else they should be included in the main article along with citations to show they are in common use. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Using that logic, none of the slang terms for Cocaine should be listed in any disambiguation page for any word, as the Cocaine article doesn't have any specific slang sections in it defining and/or citing them; more to your point, nor does the Cocaine article offer any reference/citations when slang terms are mentioned throughout. I honestly don't care about adding it to this page enough to go fix that entire article on cocaine's various slang/terms used in past/present to identify it, as you suggest is necessary (I simply noticed, by chance, that it was missing from here and quickly added it - not looking to get into a huge editing project heh), regardless I believe it's entirely valid. Mr.Warchild (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl - Slang