Talk:Salt water (disambiguation)

Requested move 7 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved  Dr Strauss   talk   17:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Salt water → Salt water (disambiguation) – There is a clear primary topic here, saline water, of which the other related entries are subtypes. All current article links to salt water are intended to point to saline water or a type thereof. Therefore salt water should redirect to the primary topic at saline water. — swpb T 16:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also heard the term used to describe seawater specifically so I'm not sure about this.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hence the dab page. Saline water does not need to be the only referent to be the overwhelmingly primary referent. — swpb T 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I have worked recently on a number of articles from the Water salinity series, trying to make them less crappy and better organized, but I missed this one. Saline water is probably in the worst shape among those, lagging behind seawater but nonetheless it is the obvious primary topic. No such user (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The |Salt_water|Brine|Brackish_water|Seawater|Saline_(medicine)|Saltwater_(Chicane_song)|Saltwater_(Julian_Lennon_song)|Saltwater_(2012_film) page view analysis indicates this is an ambiguous term and that saline water is clearly not the most commonly sought article. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think pageviews is a relevant measure. We're not interested in which page people go to most often in general, but which one they go to after they wind up at the dab page, or which one ambiguous links were intended to point to. Pageviews doesn't offer any evidence for that, but the other evidence – that from the ambiguous links to here – suggests it's saline water. — swpb T 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not particularly convincing evidence. It may just be me, but the article saline water is certainly not the topic I would expect to see for salt water. I think either sea water or brackish water or saline_(medicine) are far more appropriate specific topics than the banal chemical generalities currently at saline water. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sea water is just one, rather narrow, aspect of salt water. I concur that the current article at saline water is below the expected coverage for so broad topic, but that in itself is not a reason to mis-setup the pages. Besides, pageviews are a poor measure here -- basic articles such as this one are hardly expected to receive much of the traffic. I think that WP:COMMONNAME for this topic is "salt water" rather than "saline water", so they could be reversed, but that's a debate for another round. In fact, this is a textbook example of WP:BROADCONCEPT: A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it [...] covers relationship between a wide range of related concepts. Due to the difficulty of explaining this relationship (and the comparative ease of merely listing articles to which the title relates), editors often create disambiguation pages for such titles, [...] However, if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, [...] then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. No such user (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that sea water should be the primary topic -- but rather that this should remain as a disambiguation page because in most cases a link to a more specific topic will better serve readers than to saline water. If at some point that article dramatically improves, there might be something worth reconsidering, but as it is, I think disambiguation is the best option. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving the dab doesn't do anything to prevent editors from linking to the most specific page appropriate to their purposes. No such user is right — "saline water" is an uncommon term for a common thing, called "salt water", which is what both names should point to. That article can and should then point to more specific types of salt water both in a hatnote and in the body. There's no reason a link to "salt water" should point to a dab page with obscure media titles, when a more appropriate target is obvious. The incoming links are the most convincing evidence available; they're certainly more meaningful than target pageviews. — swpb T 17:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving the dab page would immediately and drastically reduce the likelihood of editors finding and fixing links to salt water that would be better served by a more specific link. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking through what links here, I think many of the links to saline water should be updated to a more specific topic. for example, the link in Crocodile is almost certainly meant to be seawater rather than the chemical description contained at saline water. older ≠ wiser 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your logic, but it doesn't fly with me: we don't leave dab pages at primary topic titles just so incoming links will be so ambiguous that they have to appear on a maintenance page. Those imprecise links should at least point to the right general topic – anyone interested in making them more specific can find options just as easily in a hatnote as on a dab page – maybe more easily, since the totally unrelated entries can be relegated to a separate hatnote. — swpb T 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory, it may be possible that someone might write an article suitable to be the primary topic for salt water. Saline water is not that article. Until there is something at least remotely plausible to serve readers needs as a primary topic, they are better served with a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be — since this topic area is apparently of some interest to you, would you be up for fixing up saline water (probably at the title "salt water") into the primary topic page Bkonrad is talking about?  I have some idea, but what would you like to see added to that page to make you comfortable having it sit at the primary title? — swpb T 19:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To be an adequate broad concept article it would need to introduce pretty much all of the topics currently covered by seawater, brine, brackish water, saline (medicine), and salinity. As I mentioned in an edit summary, that last topic arguably provides better coverage than the current article. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * swpb: I am up for fixing it, but can't promise a deadline; I'm quite busy IRL lately. In my company, we have an unwritten rule that the proposer of a Smart Idea (TM) should be the one in charge of implementing it. It significantly reduces the proliferation of Smart Ideas and improves the implementation of ones that do pass ;). No such user (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you get to it, wonderful. I'll keep it on my list as well. — swpb T 15:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:DABCONCEPT. Salt water is merely salt + water; different kinds of that combination are merely variations on the theme, not topics ambiguous to it. bd2412  T 14:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.