Talk:Witch (disambiguation)

message: Incorrectly piped link ?
W.I.T.C.H. Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, an American feminist organization
 
Writing so, the relation of 'W.I.T.C.H.' to 'Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell' becomes obvious, which otherwise can't be seen. AVS (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Acronyms (such as organizations) are not piped in that way on disambiguation pages. The entry would not belong on the disambiguation page if it were not known by the ambiguous term. older ≠ wiser 13:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching by 'W.I.T.C.H.' for 'Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell' ends on the disambiguation page w/o result, if not clarified that way. AVS (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? A user looking for this organization would just browse the entries and find it like any other meaning that a user looks for on this page. Why do you believe this entry is special? Also, the guidelines for this are at MOS:DABPIPE and are pretty specific about when piping should be used. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  When looking for 'W.I.T.C.H.' while intending to find 'Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell' by this acronym, one fails to find. To ease finding of encyclopedic elements (articles), is the most essential task of any meta-articles such as disambiguations. AVS (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You've not addressed anything I said. Your explanation could apply to any of the acronyms on this page. We don't want to add "W.I.T.C.H." to all of those because it would be pointless, as they would all have it, so the user would still need to narrow down by category. Again, what makes this one entry special? -- Fyrael (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability 

message: There's relevant discussion at User talk:Bkonrad#The WITCH companies are very commonly known by that name. – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The WITCH companies 

message: The current redirect "witch" inappropriately combines historical and modern meanings of the term. This should be corrected. There seems to be some editors who prefer to tar modern witchcraft with obsolete historical views. This needs further discussion. Skyerise (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Witch is indefinitely move-protected.  Take it to WP:RFD if you want to change it (or possibly a proposed move of this page if that is your strongly-preferred option).  Given the several hundred incoming wikilinks to that page, you'll need to make a pretty convincing case.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already brought it to the attention of the protecting admin, requesting that it be redirected to Witch (disambiguation), since the article Witchcraft make itself clear in the heading that it does not cover the whole topic of witchcraft but rather just the traditional historical views of witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening sentence of Witchcraft read until the most recent editorial skirmish:  Ditto, short description:  Redirecting unsuspecting readers and editors alike to this page, that should really be titled something like [Scholarly views on] "Witchcraft (premodern)", is the cause of much confusion and many heated talk page discussions. Skyerise's Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal seeks to address this and other concerns. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

text: That's probably not going to help.  Unless you were planning on a cut'n'paste move (hint: don't), you probably won't be able to move the dab page over even an unprotected redirect because it has a massive history (unless you're a secret admin or have some special privileges).  I'll suggest again that you bite the bullet and start a move discussion or RfD discussion rather than hoping that all the informal discussions here are somehow going to change the primary topic for Witch.  Someone with sufficient permissions will make the consensus happen after such a discussion whatever protections happen to be in place.  I am curious about that serious history at Witch, whether we would want to preserve it even if it were to become a dab page.  Much of the merged content at Witchcraft is only properly attributed in the history at Witch.  Luckily not my problem.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of two differing meanings