Talk:Pavlov

Splitting of Pavlova
It has been suggested (see Talk:Pavlova (food)) that Pavlova, currenly a redirect to Pavlov, be either a redirect to Pavlova (food) or a separate disambiguation page with cross-referencing links to Pavlov. I favour the latter (since there are several possible "pavlova"s that it could refer to), but would like some more opinions from here first. If there is anyone who objects to the creation of a separate dab page at Pavlova, please speak up! Grutness...wha?  06:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly do object. "Pavlov" and "Pavlova" are simply masculine and feminine forms of the same last name, so they are expected to go together.  The fact that some food is also called "Pavlova" is coincindental at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that being the feminine form of Pavlov is good enough reason for the redirect here - or even relevant. Where specific surnames have two or more different spellings, they tend to have two or more disambiguation pages on Wikipedia - especially when there are items other than direct surnames involved (in this case not just the food but also a town). Thus there are St Clair and Sinclair dab pages, for instance. In terms of the names here being male and female equivalents of the same thing, it is worth noting that neither Þóra Magnúsdóttir nor Guðrún Kristín Magnúsdóttir is listed under Magnusson, neither are Ingeborg Eriksdotter of Sweden and Katarina Eriksdotter listed under Eriksson. In English (and this is the English language Wikipedia), the different spelling of Pavlova indicates a different name, albeit a variant of the original. Given that outside the scope of their countries of origin feminine-suffixed surnames can readily become fixed as a separate form, transferred down to children as separate names from their masculine-suffixed equivalents, there is not always a direct tie-in of one form with another in the English-speaking world. Grutness...wha?  02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was split, Pavlova could have a link to a disambiguation page linking to Pavlov, along with the other people sharing the last name, Pavlov. Im sure more people who search Pavlova are looking for the food then the surname Pavlova. Obviously you come from a place where this food isn't very popular. Matt (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that people in the US, Canada, UK, etc. (countries with total English-speaking population far exceeding that of Australia and NZ) are more likely to search for this (exotic for them) food item than for Anna Pavlova herself? Sorry, I'm not buying it (and yes, you are right, where I come from, this dessert is not just "not very popular", it's pretty much unheard of).  In any case, I am not absolutely against splitting this dab into "Pavlov" and "Pavlova"; I just don't see a good enough reason for that.  Russian feminine last names tend to be "masculinized" far more often than feminine last names from other languages; due to a simple fact that they look so much more similar (cf. "Pavlov"/"Pavlova" vs. "Eriksson"/"Eriksdotter" or "Magnusson"/"Magnúsdóttir").  The potential for confusion here is a lot higher, so I stand by my opinion that the page should not be split.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but people who are looking for Anna Pavlova search Anna Pavlova. Just because you haven't heard of the food doesn't mean its not popular or well known [and for the record, its well known in the UK]. This page attracts around 60-100 people a day, whereas the pavlov page achieves around 200. Therefore, we can conclude (since there is no direct link to the Pavlova page [people must travel through the Pavlov disambiguation to get to the Pavlova one] that roughly a quarter - half of the people that search Pavlova are indeed looking for the food. As there are 52 pages (assuming i counted right) that are linked from the disambiguation page, this clearly represents that the Pavlova is what most people are searching for. And if im not mistaken, searching Anna Pavlova takes you straight to her page, and as im assuming most of the people looking for Anna Pavlova are not just 'crusing through articles', but are actually looking for her page for either research or to read more about her, and can be assumed to know her name, Anna Pavlova.

However, I don't fully want the page to just link to the Pavlova, as there are still another 51 pages it links to, but for people whom search Pavlova to either go to the page and have a reference up the top towards the Pavlov disambiguation page, or to have only link to people and things that are Pavlova. After all, they are two different last names no matter how similar they are. Matt (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot in good conscience agree that these last names are "different". If my last name were "Pavlov", and my wife's or sister's or mother's, correspondingly, "Pavlova", would you say that we have different last names?  In that regard, Russian last names are exactly the same as Russian adjectives—one form has several gender variations.  No dictionary would list masculine and feminine forms of an adjective as separate entries, and neither should an encyclopedia.  Hits, backlinks, and probability calculations are beyond the point, and they are also subject to change over time.  The bottom line: I am still not convinced.  If more people weigh in in favor of the split, I will, of course, yield, but with only three people offering their opinions so far it's hard to justify making an exception to existing practice just so some readers could save one click when searching for a food item most of the English-speaking world (I trust the US and Canada fall under that definition) has never heard of.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you ask anyone before you redirected Pavlova to the Pavlov page?

Also, those hits are counted throughout last year, not just a few days.

I do see where your coming from, and its fair enough, but i still think the Pavlova (food) article is popular enough to either have a special disambiguation page either directing people to the Pavlova article or to the Pavlov one. Matt (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, no, I did not ask anyone before redirecting Pavlova to Pavlov. I've done this pretty much with every Russian last name I had ever edited, and this is the first time such a redirect is questioned.  While I do agree that the reasons for splitting Pavlov and Pavlova dabs are stronger than they might be for some other dab, still, no, you are not going to win me over :)  For me, these reasons are just not strong enough&mdash;I prefer consistency to making exceptions, unless those exceptions fall way beyond the gray area, which, in this case, they are not.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not be offended by the following, as i do not wish to do so, but the majorty rules here so far and you should have no more authority than the rest of us. Two for, one against. While you have made some very valid points, i still feel a special dab page would be better. Why don't we vote, then? Matt (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm not that easily offended; plus, I do believe we are having a productive discussion here. The thing, however, is that decisions in Wikipedia are not up to a majority, but are subject to a consensus.  While 2:1 constitues a slim majority, it can hardly be considered a consensus.  We simply need more opinions for a consensus to be established.  In absence of a consensus, exceptions to existing practices (such as this one you are proposing) are not normally made, and status-quo is usually kept.  This has nothing to do with my vote somehow "overriding" yours, only with the fact that additional input is needed.  If you wish to announce this discussion in some relevant place in order to bring more opinions (the DAB project, for example, although the mob there would be happy to lynch me over anything these days :)), feel free by all means.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we'd want to keep things fair, so maybe thats not the best place to look for people. Are you completely opposed to a special dab page? I agree now that redirecting it completely is a bad idea, but a special dab page does seem appropriate.. And surely click is hardly a huge price to pay. Most of the names on the Pavlov page are Pavlov anyway, so more articles starting with Pavlova would be recognised. Matt (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A possible compromise
One possible compromise that may be acceptable would be reorganise the page in one of two ways - Pavlov (and its feminine form Pavlova) are common surnames of Russian origin. Th names can refer to the following: ==People== ===Pavlov=== Ivan... etc ===Pavlova=== Anna... etc ==Places== ===Pavlov=== ... ===Pavlova=== ... ==Other== ===Pavlov=== ... ===Pavlova=== ...
 * Method 1

Pavlov (and its feminine form Pavlova) are common surnames of Russian origin. Th names can refer to the following: ==Pavlov== ===People=== Ivan... etc ===Places=== ... ===Other=== ... ==Pavlova== ===People=== Anna... etc ===Places=== ... ===Other=== ...
 * Method 2

Either of these would at least keep the names separate within the page, while still allowing them to be listed together. Any thoughts or preferences? Grutness...wha?  00:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against this approach, although I can't really choose between the two either. Whichever one of them works is going to be fine by me.  Matt, what's your opinion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Iv got no problem with either one actually, both seem fine. Anyone choose! Matt (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd leave the choice up to Grutness then :) It's his idea, after all.  And oh, to answer your question above (whether I am completely opposed to having a separate dab page for Pavlova)&mdash;no, I am not completely opposed, I just don't believe the number of entries we have justifies that approach.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Grutness it is then. Best of luck! Matt (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone with method 2 - it has slightly fewer headings. It also means that if ever the page is split into two separate pages it'll be easier to refactor. Grutness...wha?  12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find pavlovian phenomena
Guys, I just wanted to know where to find the concept of pavlovian phenomena? 59.161.89.122 (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Under Ivan Pavlov? Or are you looking for something else?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:08, November 13, 2009 (UTC)