Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article

Note on attribution.
The contents of this page were initially copied directly from Disambiguation, where they have previously been long established as a guideline. Cosmetic changes have been made here (addition of subheaders and the like), but no changes have been made to the substance of the guideline. bd2412 T 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Some tests
There are some common sense tests that I like to use when examining potential dabconcept situations. One of these is what I call the "I'm an expert" test. It goes like this: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [term], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? Although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" person could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be an expert on "Mercury", or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and law, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball, too. bd2412 T 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as an excellent test, and should be incorporated into the guideline. The Mercury expert would need some physical chemistry as well, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. bd2412  T 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fish stew
I would like to add a line indicating that lists of cuisines featuring a common element or combining common elements and cooking styles are not ambiguous under this guideline. I just de-disambiguated Fish stew, and would use that, and Rice cake, as examples. Any objections? bd2412 T 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Academy as a broad-concept article
Do you think Academy is an instance of broad-concept article? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How to tag broad-concept articles already written?
After resolving Dabprimary, how can we tag a broad-concept article as so to avoid it being confused for the primary-topic article? For now, I've created a Wikipedia-maintenance Category:Broad-concept articles. I'd like to create a Template:Broad-concept article, similar to Set index article and Disambiguation. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In a sense, the broad concept article is the primary topic; it's just primary for an unusually abstract topic with a range of discrete subtopics. Examples that I particularly like include Size, Schedule, and Enemy, which address the variety of perspective for each of those topics. bd2412  T 20:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; I was confused by the wording of Dabprimary, which I just tried to improve now . Let me try and rephrase my original inquiry: is it desirable to tag a broad-concept primary-topic article as such, so as to avoid it becoming conflated with less general, more specific related concepts? I'm thinking specifically of Undersea mountain ranges. Secondly, while Dabprimary is to be applied to disambiguation pages, can we come up with a template to apply in WP:Chimera articles? Now I'm thinking specifically of Academy. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: Undersea mountain ranges, it is important to note that broad concept articles still need to be reliably sources and cited. That is good example of a broad concept topic, however. The test is very simple. All "undersea mountain ranges" are some kind of range of mountains found under a sea. bd2412  T 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving undersea mountain ranges. While we don't conclude the discussion about the template Broad-concept article, I intend to make such articles members of the hidden Category:Broad-concept articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a hidden category to track them, that is fine. But I fail to see how a separate, visible Broad-concept article template would be practical or useful. Set index article and Disambiguation both were also intended to give editors reminders in the fine print to change internal links to point directly to the intended article instead of the disambiguation/set-index page (if necessary). But in many cases, internal links pointing to broad-concept articles are useful. As BD2412 stated, the broad concept article is treated as the primary topic. And a number of broad-concept articles are usually written per Summary style, with the discrete subtopics treated as detailed subarticles of the main broad-concept article. Furthermore, putting such a Broad-concept article template could get buried on long articles like Football, where it could get barely noticed.
 * Well, I was thinking for of a hatnote like Split-apart -- do you think it could be applied to, e.g., Academy, which is an undesirable WP:Chimera article that could/should become a nice broad-concept/summary-style article? Or would we need a Split-apart2, offering more specific wording? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And good luck trying to find articles to put into Category:Broad-concept articles. First, I do not think many of them are obvious. It is easy to spot a disambiguation/set-index page because it's basically a short list of related links. But as I mentioned, a broad-concept article can look like any normal article written per WP:SS. Second, I think such a category would eventually be unmanageable. If you take the Nokia Lumia example mentioned on WP:BROADCONCEPT, you could wind up tagging almost every single product brand and multiple product lines article. Under that example, it could be argued that anything from a series of software products like Microsoft Windows with its multiple versions (Windows 7, Windows 8, etc), to a media series like Star Trek with its multiple TV shows and films (Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek (film), etc.) could be considered a "broad-concept article" and would be required to be placed in that category. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; although I'm uncertain the poor distinction between summary-style articles and broad-concept articles implies that either or both wouldn't benefit from a category of their own. Nor would the large number of candidate articles be a valid reason not to get started. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Microsoft Windows, for example, be an SIA rather than a BCA? Just asking, I'm new here! Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Fgnievinski, I'd like to look at reviving this. As a newcomer to the area of BCAs I found it very hard to get a handle on what a BCA is (still working on it), and the lack of entries in Category:Broad-concept articles was part of that. See ... I'm not sure whether any of those are in the category!

How can I help? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding broad "language" words as a subtype?
There is currently a deletion discussion taking place regarding the article Report, a broad concept article which is one step short of (or, depending on how you look at it, one step beyond) being a dictionary definition of the word "report" (and not really comprehensive at that, but that's not the point for now). I am thinking that perhaps this editing guideline should have a subtopic for English words that are BCAs (right now the guideline has subtopics for physics, geography, aspects of sports, etc., but not for broad concept terms like "report" which have lots of meanings in English, none of which are related to any of the existing subtopics specifically mentioned here now). I am not certain to what extent this would simply provide a method to circumvent WP:NOTADICTIONARY (have you ever tried to think up a term that you were pretty sure was just a dictionary definition and then came to Wikipedia to see what was there and sure enough there was a whole article on it? Try it sometime-- think of a word, and see if there is not an article on that word.  Cause I betcha there is...  and maybe there shouldn't be) but then maybe WP:NOTADICTIONARY is in the end a toothless policy: I have yet to see it applied in an WP:AfD with success (maybe the policy should be changed!  No, no, not going there, not today!). Thoughts?? If there aren't any in a day or two I will consider opening up a WP:RfC before implementing the idea of creating a subcategory on English words on my own. KDS4444 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Examples
I'm trying to get a better idea of what a BCA is and how it's useful.

WP:BCA currently lists as examples particle, triangle center, Supreme court, Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, Central Asia, Northern Europe, Southern United States, football, dead ball, out of bounds, and Nokia Lumia.

Frankly I find these a bit confusing. For a start, Nokia Lumia seems to me to be a prototypical topic for a set index article rather than a BCA. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. It is confusing. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to help fix it, but I don't want to be like what Sir Lancelot Sprat brilliantly termed an elephant reversing into a greenhouse. wp:creed


 * User:BD2412 suggested I look at Color code, Enemy, Guessing, High priest, Schedule, Size, World domination, and Worst-case scenario as good examples of BCAs. Maybe these might provide some better examples for the guideline.


 * I think that all examples given in WP:BCA should be members of Category:Broad-concept articles, and I'm reluctant to add some of those already there... notably the Nokia one, I still think that's just plain wrong. So I guess that means removing it.


 * As part of my education (and because it needs doing anyway) I'd like to write some BCAs. Can you suggest some members of Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles that it would be good to start on? Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, I think Category:Broad-concept articles is problematic in that there really are not any defining features for what a BCA is. Without that, the category is likely to be populated by arbitrary subjective criteria (i.e., identifying a BCA is in the eye of the beholder--what one editor might think of as a BCA, to another editor would simply be an overview article). A category that *might* work is something more like Category:Disambiguation pages changed into broad-concept articles which could be used to track such transformed entities. older ≠ wiser 10:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one other of a similar type of article Category:Introductory articles. older ≠ wiser 11:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that I have about three dozen dabconcept resolver drafts in various states of disrepair listed at User:BD2412/sandbox. On the current list, Fish sandwich is ridiculous as a disambiguation page (it's just a list of fish sandwiches; compare Rice cake); Finding water also deserves encyclopedic treatment. Godhead is another one that I have had my eye on for a while. bd2412  T 12:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, thanks! Not sure I'm game to take on fish sandwich, it's a shame IMO it passed RfD in quite the way it did. Rice cake is awesome but flagged as inadequately referenced and it is, and I fear fish sandwich might end up a lot worse. But thanks, this is very educational. Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, but in that the category does exist, the prototypical examples used at WP:BCA should be in it, surely?
 * It could serve a useful purpose even if we just have these articles and ones that go through the process of listing at Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles and subsequent de-listing when they've been converted. Put a notice on it stating how waffly the definition is (perhaps not in quite (-> those terms)... still thinking about that... Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that as of now, WP:DABCONCEPT is the only guideline we have on converting poorly styled disambiguation pages into something other than disambiguation pages. We could have separate WP:DABSIA and WP:DABLIST guidelines for disambiguation pages that should be converted into SIAs or lists (or we could have all three rolled into one page). However, there has to be some means of marking disambiguation pages that do need to be converted into something else, because they are merely listing types of a single thing rather than listing ambiguous things. bd2412  T 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Tempted to jump to a solution on that but I'll resist. Andrewa (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please consider using Open source as an example. I recently opened a can of disambiguation worms by improved the disamb page and redirections creating thousands of disamb links. But we've since discussed it and think Open source would be better as a Broad-concept article. The article may need summary paragraphs for each section and the 3 or 4 main usages but I think it's pretty good. Also, I'm wondering if there needs to be a new tag to replace the disamb tag. If anyone responds please be sure to ping me. Thanks in advance. ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Scare-line being split from Scare quotes article
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Scare-line. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning OR/SYNTH?
This guideline has been used a lot recently in AFDs (see here, here and here) to justify articles that at present include nothing but original research (usually specifically WP:SYNTH) and seem by their very nature to be necessarily based on such. Should the text Please remember when writing a broad-concept article that the concept must have been discussed specifically as a concept in third-party reliable sources. Do not synthesize sources that seem to you to be talking about something similar into an original broad concept. (or equivalent) be added to the page? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some kind of warning against WP:SYNTH is due, but it should not be too stringent. Otherwise it will kill articles like Secretary (title).

Feedback sought for proposed article-to-DBA/SIA conversion at Allopathic medicine
Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Allopathic medicine. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologize for the ping if it's unwanted, but we could still use opinions at this discussion. Pinging top ten editors at WT:BCA:  (Skipping already notified: Andrewa|BD2412|Bkonrad).   Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Interim
Can it be that Interim is a BCA? If yes, how to indicate this (or edit the page)? - Altenmann >talk 21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)