Talk:Acoustic punk

MOS:DAB
User:Bkonrad I will apologize for not checking the history first here, but I believe the idea is the all of the topics on the page may be referred to by "Acoustic punk", making this a valid DAB, or at least User:Moline1 seemed to think so. If that is not the case the redirect should be restored. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What evidence is there that ANY of these items are ever referred to as "acoustic punk"? None of these entries satisfy WP:DABMENTION. At most, it *might* be possible to convert this into a broad concept article, but as is, this is not a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad, WP:DABMENTION is not relevant here because all of the asserted possible topics have articles of their own. One of two things is true, either User:Moline1 was correct in asserting that "acoustic punk" is ambiguous, or they are not in which case the redirect should be restored. Another option in case of uncertainty would be to restore and list at RFD to decide whether to delete, retarget, or dabify. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it not relevant? This page is about disambiguating items that might be known as "acoustic punk" None of the existing articles have titles that are ambiguous with that term. That is precisely what WP:DABMENTION is about. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad I don't want to sidebar here to much, but WP:DABMENTION applies to entries of the form
 * "Topic that may be sought by ambiguous search term", description Link to article mentioning topic
 * entries of the form
 * Topic that may be sought by ambiguous search term, optional description,
 * are not covered by DABMENTION.
 * Irrespective of the above, if, and that if is the key part here, Folk punk, Celtic punk, Antifolk, and Gypsy punk are all sometimes referred to as "Acoustic Punk", the DAB page is valid. Otherwise it needs to be trimmed only to the entries that may be searched for under that term unless there are no such entries in which case the redirect should be restored. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The entry point for disambiguation is that there is more than one article that could be titled with the ambiguous term. That is definitively not the case here as none of these articles would conceivably be titled as "acoustic punk". After that, we might consider articles that contain some treatment of the ambiguous term. That is where WP:DABMENTION comes in. Again, none of these articles so much as mention the term. At present, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that these topics might be helpful to readers looking for the term "acoustic punk". older ≠ wiser 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad not to be pedantic here but the section at WP:DABMENTION is literally titled "Items appearing within other articles" all of the asserted ambiguous topics have their own article so DABMENTION is entirely off-topic, as none of them appear or are even alleged to appear within another article, please reread that section.
 * That off topic bit out of the way, if it is true as you assert that none of the topics would be sought under "acoustic punk" then the redirect should be restored, and I am inclined to do that and let RFD sort out any further dispute unless you have an objection. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But none of the articles have a title that is ambiguous with the term (and have nothing whatsoever within the articles to suggest that they might be known by this term). That is where disambiguation begins. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad the sole question is whether "acoustic punk" is an ambiguous title, since you believe it is not, and User:Moline1 believes it is, I have restored the original redirect. An RFD listing can decide whether it is better to keep, retarget, delete, or dabify if needed. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Add, WP:DABMENTION does absolutely apply precisely because the titles of these articles are not ambiguous. The expectation then is that there is some relevant content within those articles that would illuminate any ambiguity. Because that is absent, WP:DABMENTION applies. older ≠ wiser 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again DABMENTION only concerns cases involving "Items appearing within other articles" which is not the case here as all of the asserted possible targets have their own articles. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We seem to be talking past each other. The starting point for disambiguation is articles that have titles that are ambiguous with the term being disambiguated. That is not the case here. If you are suggesting that any or all of these items have some sort of synonymy, then MOS:DABSYN would apply, which states: (emphasis added). WP:DABMENTION is an extension of this for cases where the entirety of an article is not synonymous but is treated within the article. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bkonrad, that first point is what I have been getting at all along, as WP:D states one of the key purposes of DABs is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be".
 * I don't know what DABSYN has to do with any of this, while all DABSYN entries are descriptionless, not all descriptionless entries are DABSYNS.
 * From MOS:DABENTRY, "If an entry link by itself is insufficiently descriptive for navigation, use a sentence fragment" (emphasis added), this is why I previously described that portion as "optional".
 * Anyway the assertion implicitly made when linking without a description is that the article title for the topic is sufficient for navigation. DABMENTION only applies when an ambiguous topic does not have its own article, and that is quite clear from the section title. Since in this specific case, all of the topics asserted to be ambiguous have their own articles and are not confined to mentions within other articles (see Folk punk, Celtic punk, Anti-folk, and Gypsy punk, none of which are redirects), DABMENTION is off-topic and potentially confusing had you been discussing with someone not familiar with the MOS who clicked on the link you provided and then read the section. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:4C6E:86ED:8AFC:A45B (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But once again, the starting point for disambiguation is articles that have ambiguous titles. That is not the case here. The only way that could be the case is if you are suggesting they are synonymous with the term being disambiguated. Perhaps you are getting stuck on the format of the entries on this dubious disambiguation page. If these articles happened to satisfy either DABSYN or DABMENTION, then the corresponding entries would likely need to be modified to include some description. But as NONE of the articles have any indication whatsoever as to why there are included on the page at all, it seems pointless to update the descriptions for such invalid entries. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I nominated acoustic punk at redirects for discussion. This will allow us to get a consensus on whether the redirect or the disambiguation page is suitable. Please see Redirects for discussion Moline1 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you both earlier, Wikipedia is not something I can or should prioritize right now. It is good that an RFD has been started, if I get a bit of spare time I may look the RFD over but probably not unless it ends up being relisted into early August. I may circle back to some of the other issues as well, but those are tangential and should have been shifted to a user talk page earlier anyway. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:185F:7798:1E7C:CF2F (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)