Talk:Vamp

Volunteer firefighters?
I've qualified this, as it certainly isn't in general use. Merriam-Webster doesn't have this meaning at all, and the linked article doesn't mention it, though the wiktionary entry has a couple of quotations to support it. Is this a term that is used within US Fire Departments only? Swanny18 (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's not in the linked article, then it really shouldn't be on this page, per MOS:DABMENTION.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It turns out the OED lists this as one of the word's main meaning (I was surprised to find) and it seemed worth mentioning on the Volunteer firefighter page, so I've re-instated it here as a re-direct. Swanny18 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dubious
In October this page stated that : Vamp or vamps may refer to: These were edited on 12 October to delete one and move two others, leaving the statement: Vamp or vamps may refer to: I moved this down also on 24 November, which was reverted with the edit summary “It's common practice to put entries above the categories if they're far more popular”
 * Vamp, short for Vampire
 * The upper part of a shoe
 * Vamp, synonym for femme fatale
 * A volunteer firefighter
 * Vampire

This is problematic for two reasons; First, it begs the question whether vampire really is a “far more popular” meaning of vamp (or, to put it another way, whether vampires are commonly or popularly referred to as “vamps”). Is there any evidence of that? The claim is going to need something to substantiate it; none of the dictionaries I've looked at even mention vampire as a meaning of vamp, except as the root of the word when applied to a seductress or femme fatale. But that isn't the same thing. And there's nothing on the Vampire page about it, which would rule it out per DABMENTION. Second, the other meanings of the word are supported by dictionary definitions; so, the logic of putting the main meanings of a term at the top would suggest the actual meanings of the word should be collected together, with the titles that are similar following, rather than just burying them in the text. That was the situation before these edits, which I have restored. I have also re-worded them to use the actual term in the link, per MOSDAB. Swanny18 (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse the bullet points in my reply, but hopefully they'll keep things appropriately sectioned off.
 * Regarding the practice of placing more common meanings above the categories, even though I've come around to seeing how it can be beneficial to readers it often seems more trouble than it's worth. Just how much more popular does an entry need to be to be put above the others? How can anyone prove this popularity? Page views can be useful, but certainly have their limits, with this case being a good example. While Vampire probably gets a good deal more views than the other topics here, that doesn't speak to how many readers who searched for "vamp" were looking for that article. Frankly, I don't much care about the entry placement at this point and I won't make any further movements (but yes, I'm obviously still happy to participate in discussion about it).
 * I have to say that the dubious tag on vampire really surprises me. I would honestly bet that if we polled 1000 random English-speaking persons with the question "What does the term 'vamp' usually refer to?", the most common response would be vampire with maybe the femme fatale being a contender (especially if the age range skewed a bit higher). Of course my perception on this could be off and either way I have no evidence to support it. I also grant that "vamp" isn't specifically mentioned on the vampire article, but the abbreviation is thrown around very regularly in popular media that involves the creatures. I suppose I may go grab a source to add it to the article, but the tag really seems a bit silly to me. Edit: Yeah, I retract this last bit. It's not silly; I cite DABMENTION and DABACRO all the time when removing entries. I'll find something appropriate to add to the article.
 * I'm not at all sure why we're talking about dictionaries so much. Disambiguation pages are not meant to correlate to dictionary pages and the meanings found in a dictionary have little bearing on what would be most popularly sought after in an encyclopedia. Many or even most of the entries found on DAB pages are proper nouns that wouldn't even appear in a dictionary. For example, discussion on the Bing page recently has been about whether Bing (search engine) or Bing Crosby should be the primary topic and neither of those would be "supported" by a dictionary. If entries are given more prominence than others it shouldn't be based on "main meanings" given by a dictionary, but on which topics are more common/popular so long as they're ambiguous with the "Vamp" title.
 * Finally I feel like I have to say how especially confused I am by the placement of the firefighters entry. In October you said that this meaning "certainly isn't in general use", but now a couple of months later you've determined that it should go at the top of the page, which would imply that readers are more likely to be looking for that meaning than most of the others. How did this come about?
 * Sorry for the long-windedness&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @: First, thank you for replying...
 * On the subject of the Dubious tag, I know it seems counter-intuitive, but the connection between vamp and vampire seems more an artefact of predictive spelling than anything. There doesn't seem to be that much evidence of a connection; a google search for “vamp” throws up one or less links per page of anything vampire-related. There may be something in the recent Hollywood re-vamping (excuse the pun) of the genre, but I don't know of it. If you find something I would certainly be interested.
 * I know the purpose of disambiguation isn't the same as giving dictionary definitions, but I do feel the actual meanings of a term belong together, somewhere on a dab page; I put them at the top because that's where they were before, but having no stand-alone links at the top works for me also. My objection was to having just one, and that one being “vampire”. (If I had to choose one I'd probably go for “seductress”, as well, but that's neither here nor there). Even “abbreviation for vampire” would be safer.
 * As for “firefighter”, I've followed up the comments above, but I put it back at the top because that's where it was before; I'm not suggesting it is the most likely search request.
 * But on that subject, I hardly think anyone looking for vampire is going to just type vamp then come here (ignoring the various vampire options our search engine would offer); and if they did maybe they'd learn something. Swanny18 (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)