Talk:Reformation (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

February 2002

Please, someone have a look here, i don't feel like fucking you right know but competent to add anything, and redirect to protestant reformation i guess isn't enough!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 16:43, February 25, 20023510rover six hut hut

July 2008

The disambiguation page should be at this article and not

talk) 02:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Links should not point to a dab page but straight to the target article.
Abtract (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Making this not a disambiguation page

Please see the discussion at

Protestant Reformation, and moving the disambiguation page to Reformation (disambiguation) -- Natalya 19:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

the reformation is a very important piece in history because it shows us different sides of how religion was descussed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.64.37 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No good idea - that is Euro-centric, and there may be other "Reformations" in other historical epochs, there might even be a starship in a C-rated scifi series with the name "the Reformation" (just an example). I think the
Protestant Reformation to deal with Leo X:es economical decisions, Luthers inflamed tries to evoke debate, and the subsequent schism, chaos, peasant wars, schmakaldic wars, thirty year wars and this-that-whatever. As much as I'm concerned, Kung Fu Tse made an important reformation in China more than 1500 years earlier. Said: Rursus (☻) 14:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

"Protestant Reformation" Should Not Be the Primary Topic

As can be seen on the disambiguation page, there have been several other significant Reformations throughout history that were just as important, if not more important, than the Protestant Reformation. "Protestant Reformation" should not be the primary topic, and so the pages "The Reformation" and "Reformation" should redirect to the disambiguation page, not to "Protestant Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting this, finally. This should be discussed, and a consensus should be reached before
The Reformation and Reformation redirect here. StAnselm (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

Protestant Reformation. Although an involved editor, I'm only trying to summarize the close after other editors have repeatedly removed the move templates without properly closing the discussion. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

To give this an official close, I see no consensus really for or against changing the redirect at Reformation. But the move that I enacted, from Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation) appeared to be a reasonable "at a minimum do XXX" solution. The contents of the disambig really showed that, one way or another, it should be at a "Reformation" based name, and absent a consensus about changing Reformation itself, this was the next best location for it IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reformations → Reformation
  • Reformation → Reformations
  • It makes no sense that "Reformations" is the disambiguation page. This is because the article title "Reformations" implies that every article on the disambiguation page refers to a Reformation, which is not the case. For example, the Music section does not have any "Reformations" listed; rather, it has albums and bands listed. The content of "Reformations" should be moved to "Reformation", and "Reformations" should redirect to it. Current article naming conventions are not consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions for disambiguation pages. The proposed change will cause the disambiguation page to be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move
    Protestant Reformation is, I believe, the primary topic for Reformation - for one thing, there are a lot of incoming links to the redirect. But I agree that "Reformations" is an awkward title for the disambiguation page, since most of the entries are in the singular. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In my opinion, the number of incoming links to a redirect isn't a strong enough of an argument to prevent the disambiguation page from having the proper title. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links should not point to redirect page, but directly to the target article. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move of
    Protestant Reformation. A Google search confirms that this is the primary meaning. Support move of this dab page to something sensible, e.g. StAnselm's suggestion. -- 202.124.73.99 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The fact that
Protestant Reformation is the primary meaning is also supported by the fact that the "Reformation in Country X" articles all mean "Protestant Reformation in Country X." -- 202.124.73.99 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, you realise, don't you, that the
WP:DABCONCEPT. StAnselm (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Same for
Protestant Reformation. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, since Wikipedia search is not case-sensitive, users searching for "reformation" are not looking for Reformation (with a capital 'R') but are more than likely looking for reformation, which is the primary definition of "reformation" in any legal Dictionary. Which is more evidence that "Protestant Reformation" is not the primary topic of a search for "reformation". 12.165.27.130 (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. The
Protestant Reformation. Protestant Reformation is the primary topic. -- 202.124.73.147 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Reformation" with a capital 'R' is completely different from "reformation" with a lower-case 'r', the former of which is a proper noun, and the latter of which is a common noun and has absolutely nothing to do with the
Protestant Reformation did by people searching for "Reformation", "reformation", and "reformation (law)", regardless of what they are actually intending to search for. I disagree that Protestant Reformation is the primary topic. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason
Protestant Reformation (in the past 90 days), while only 3,618 finish up at Rectification (law), which is a very minor topic in comparison. -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Total hits for
Protestant Reformation, obviously, which gets 75 times as many hits as the legal term. -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
They aren't necessarily searching for
Protestant Reformation when typing "Reformation" or "reformation. They could be searching for any of the other various topics on the Reformation disambuguation page. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The ambiguity is best handled by the current system of (1) redirecting
Protestant Reformation, and (2) placing a hatnote there to catch the relatively small number who were interested in something else, and sending them here. -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, as StAnselm points out, changing this would mess up a huge number of incoming links, which link to
Protestant Reformation (and they do this because the literature doesn't normally have the prefix "Protestant"). -- 202.124.73.35 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
And as user 12.165.27.130 pointed out, the number of incoming links is a weak argument for preventing proper redirections from being set up. Wikipedia is continuously being changed and made better. If everbody in the Wikipedia community made the argument that improvements shouldn't be made because it's too much of a hassle, then nothing would get done and Wikipedia would become static. We don't want that. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links should not be pointing to a redirect but should be pointing directly to the target article. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't be an improvement. The large number of incoming links reflects the fact that "Reformation" in ordinary usage almost always means the
Protestant Reformation. -- 202.124.73.182 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Most of the incoming links use the term "the
Protestant Reformation because they are completely different things. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
"Reformation" without a definite article almost always refers to the
Protestant Reformation too (generally as an adjective). Without a capital letter, properly speaking it doesn't, but most searches for "reformation" are indeed looking for "Reformation." -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Incoming links should point directly to the target article, not to a redirect. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are Wikipedia articles about "reformation" in the common noun sense, such as
Reformation (law). Whether that page (and other Wikipedia pages that use "reformation" in the common noun sense) should exist on Wikipedia or Wikitionary is a completely unrelated topic. If you wish to delete them, you should discuss it on their respective Talk pages. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no article at
reformation (law); it is a redirect. Even so, it is a technical usage and not the "common noun sense". Srnec (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The redirect implies ambiguity:
reformation (law) is the same as rectification (law). All English Dictionary definitions for "reformation" clearly indicate that "Reformation" with a capital 'R' refers to the Protestant Reformation, while other definitions use a lower case 'r'. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The hatnote on
Protestant Reformation gets 75 times as much traffic as rectification (law). -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
And it gets hundreds of times as much traffic as the bands and albums, which are even more minor then rectification (law). -- 202.124.75.102 (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't get more traffic than all other "reformation" topics combined, which is the requirement for being a primary topic. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of Google hits for "Reformation" that yield results with the definite article in the title. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand -- TimBentley is referring to Wikipedia articles. All the top Google hits either relate to the Protestant Reformation, or to "Reformation" as a brand name for something without a Wikipedia article. Going by Google,
Protestant Reformation is clearly the primary topic for Reformation (and going by Wikipedia views and incoming links, the same is true). -- 202.124.72.134 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You are incorrect. Please read
WP:DAB#Determining_a_primary_topic. -- 202.124.72.99 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It clearly indicates that those tools listed are not absolute determining factors but simply are suggestions. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going by Wikipedia views, the same is not true. All topics on the
WP:DAB#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F for more information. Also, the number of incoming links can be changed, as has been stated above. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
It is dishonest to butcher quotes from sources you are citing. The entire quote from
Wikipedia's criteria for being the primary topic. Therefore, Reformation should be made the disambiguation page and Reformations should redirect to it. The proposed change should be made. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Please,
Protestant Reformation as the primary topic only increases the stats very slightly, since so few people are looking for the other topics. -- 202.124.72.99 (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize for accusing you of being dishonest. The stats posted above do not prove that the amount of people who search for "Reformation" or "reformation" (and are looking for
Protestant Reformation) exceeds the number of people who search for "Reformation" or "reformation" (and are looking for any of the other topics listed on the disambiguation page). 76.125.166.228 (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep

Protestant Reformation. This is not a dictionary, so we don't need to define the word. We give information about topics, that's what an encyclopedia does, and the most important (or at least most-viewed) topic by far dealing with a "reformation" is that one. There's no real ambiguity. This name for this disambiguation in my opinion is not ideal and could've been better, but the main topic is without a doubt. Red Slash 21:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

The amount of times the topic has been viewed is not what makes it a primary topic. It has to be viewed more than all other topics combined, which it has not been. That is why Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: an additional page view statistic: 775 views (over 100 since this RM started) of Reformations the past 90 days, compared to 26830 for Reformation. Another thing to consider is that six pages on the disambiguation are, roughly speaking, subtopics of the Protestant Reformation. TimBentley (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The number of views for the disambiguation page doesn't matter according to
Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic", which says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." Protestant Reformation did not receive more hits than all other "Reformation" topics (listed on the disambiguation page) combined, therefore it does not fit Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Excluding the pages which are subtopics of
Protestant Reformation, yes it did. By a long, long shot. -- 202.124.75.102 (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Subtopics are different topics, so you can't exclude them like that. Combined non-"Protestant Reformation" topic views exceed the number of views for
Protestant Reformation in the past 90 days, which means Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic per Wikipedia's definition. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
They're called subtopics for a reason. Taken as an aggregate, topics related to the protestant reformation vastly exceed any other topic. The protestant reformation is by far the primary topic for the unqualified term. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Topic" and "article" are synonymous. We are discussing a primary topic, which implies a singular Wikipeda article. Different articles on Wikipedia are different topics. If they weren't different topics, they'd be part of the same article. The number of topics related to the
Protestant Reformation must have more views than all other topics combined in order to qualify as a primary topic, which it does not. Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic, and the proposed change should be made. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
While I disagree with your dismissal of "subtopics",
Protestant Reformation does in fact have more page views than all of the other pages combined. For the last 90 days, it had 270,034 views. Taken very, very broadly, views for all of the other listed pages (excluding only the unambiguous Reformation Day and Reformation Wall and including numerous redirects for the other listed pages) was 208305. And that is an extremely generous count, including views for a number of views for unambiguous titles such as Counter-Reformation and Post-Suharto era. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You can't exclude Reformation Day and Reformation Wall because they are still topics on the Reformation disambiguation page. Also, there are other topics that aren't included on the disambiguation page that should be (such as
Protestant Reformation in the last 90 days. Which means that Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic, according to Wikipedia's definition of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Reformation Day and Reformation Wall are not ambiguous. A truly fair count would compare only ambiguous titles and not unambiguous partial title matches. The count already extremely generously includes counts for many unambiguous matches. However, even if those topics are included, Protestant Reformation still has far more page views than all the other combined. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Wikipedia's definition of Primary Topic contradicts your claim. Protestant Reformation does not have more hits than all other "Reformation" topics combined, per Wikipedia's definition of "Primary Topic". See below. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have a defective understanding of primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your simple say-so is not a persuasive argument, nor does it prove anything about my understanding of "primary topic". 76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,
broad-concept article: "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics, such as chronologically (e.g., History of France) or geographically (e.g., Rugby union in the British Isles), the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page." StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
All that means is that
Protestant Reformation should not be a disambiguation page. It does not mean that Protestant Reformation is the primary topic of Reformation. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Summary so far:
Support move: Wikitam331, 12.165.27.130, 76.125.166.228, PowersT.
Leave Reformation as a redirect to Protestant Reformation: StAnselm, older≠wiser, Srnec, TimBentley, RedSlash, me.
Move Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation): StAnselm, older≠wiser, TimBentley, me. -- 202.124.72.94 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a consensus that the disambiguation page needs to move. Perhaps all the others (StAnselm, older≠wiser, TimBentley, Srnec, and RedSlash) have changed their opinions on the issue after the most recent points were made. The absence of their responses does not necessarily mean that they still oppose the proposed move. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about moving the disambiguation page to Reformation (disambiguation), there is support for that. The last statement: The absence of their responses does not necessarily mean that they still oppose the proposed move. is simply nonsensical. older ≠ wiser 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. If they were here to read the entire discussion, they may have been convinced of my position. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, they would have struck through their vote (like this) and written something different. We can't proceed on the assumption that people may have changed their minds. For myself, I don't find your arguments convincing at all, and stick to my original position. StAnselm (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to rebut them if you don't find them convincing. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to rebut as there is no merit to your arguments. older ≠ wiser 00:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your Argument by Dismissal is a logical fallacy. All other topics on the disambiguation page, when combined, have had more hits in the last 90 days (312,085 views) than
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." This means that Protestant Reformation is not the primary topic. Wikitam331 (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
No, the supposed arguments are invalid. There is a primary topic for the term reformation. Evidence has been provided. That you don't agree or understand the criteria for primary topic means little. Even assuming that your count of 312,085 is correct (which does not accord with my own count), many of the entries on the page are not ambiguous with the term and should not be used it artificially inflate the count. older ≠ wiser 03:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the definition of "primary topic". I counted the views for every topic on the disambiguation page and it was pretty close to what Wikitam331 came up with. I didn't cherry pick articles on the disambiguation page in order to artificially deflate the count. If the terms weren't ambiguous, then they wouldn't be on the disambiguation page. If you want to remove them, that's a completely different unrelated issue and you should start another discussion about it below. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 312,085 (which doesn't agree with my count either) presumably counts both subtopics of
Post-Suharto era or Council of Trent belong here. Nobody calls them "reformation". Counter-Reformation probably doesn't belong either. -- 202.124.75.150 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
As a side note, the fact that it is called "Reformation" is already in the article... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issue with including
Protestant Reformation. Something smells funny here. Ah, I think I located the problem -- I had excluded Council of Trent as there is no indication whatsoever that it is ambiguous with "Reformation". Excluding the council, Protestant Reformation has more page views than all the other topics -- even when counting those topics which are not primarily known as simply "reformation". older ≠ wiser 15:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with your opinion that topics on the disambiguation page should be excluded from page view count simply at your discretion. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, since there is no indication of ambiguity, I removed the Council from the page. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a whole separate issue. If you wish to remove links from the disambiguation page, start a discussion about it below. Wikitam331 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of unambiguous entries is simple housecleaning. If you wish to justify the inclusion of such an unambiguous entry on the page, start a discussion below. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a discussion underway regarding the removal of certain topics. Please do not take it upon yourself to simply override the discussion and make the edit anyway. Wait until a consensus has been reached before making any moves. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subtopics can also be separate topics as well. That's why they have their own page. You can't just discount them because you feel like it. If you disagree with articles being on the disambiguation page, feel free to start a descussion below to remove them. 76.125.166.228 (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, maybe not. They could have simply forgotten about this page. Some of them haven't participated in this discussion in days. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The week is up; people have given their opinions; the proposal has been defeated. Any admin can close this discussion now. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The week is not up yet. The unbiased closing admin can evaluate the discussion and decide whether the proposal has been defeated or not. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not going to close this because of the sheer amount of heat still generated here, but I firmly support moving Reformations to Reformation (disambiguation) and keep Reformation as a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus could not be reached regarding the requested moves. The result was no change. Wikitam331 (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you don't get to close the discussion. My personal opinion is that an admin may see consensus for a move to Reformation (disambiguation) -- which you've supported at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but I don't get to close the discussion either. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin. Wikitam331, 12.165.27.130, and 76.125.166.228 have been identified as sockpuppets and temporarily blocked. Socks stricken in summary above. -- 202.124.73.137 (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Failure to adhere to
WP:MOSDAB

The current page contains several entries that are not remotely plausible search terms for "Reformation", including

Post-Suharto era, Council of Trent, and probably Counter-Reformation. These entries should be removed. -- 202.124.73.48 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

In no conceivable way is Reformation ambiguous with Council of Trent. Probably not with Counter-Reformation either. A DAB page is not a list of "related topics." -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not ambiguous with Counter-Reformation? The word "Reformation" is in the title. Council of Trent is just as relevent to the Reformation disambiguation page as Volleyball is to the Set disambiguation page. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partial title matches should not be listed simply because they include a term in the title. The comparison with volleyball on Set (disambiguation) is inapplicable because there is a thing called a "set" in volleyball (which happens to have an entire section in the article -- I see nothing in Council of Trent to indicate that anyone would type "reformation" in the search box and expect to find any discrete "thing" described in the council article. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
From the article summary: "The Council of Trent, delayed and interrupted several times because of political or religious disagreements, was a major reform council and the most impressive embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation." Please explain how its not plausible to expect that people searching for the term "Reformation" could be looking for the Council of Trent. Wikitam331 (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because, for obvious reasons, the Counter-Reformation is never called the Reformation. -- 202.124.74.140 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that the Counter-Reformation is never referred to as "the Reformation". The fact is that Counter-Reformation is a relevant result for the search term "Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help readers find articles that are ambiguously titled. If the title of the article is not ambiguous, it really doesn't belong on the disambiguation page. Dab pages are not a generalized search index. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Disambiguation#Deciding_to_disambiguate: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles." "Reformation" is a search term that could reasonably be expected to lead to "Counter-Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If no one refers to either Council of Trent or Counter-Reformation as "reformation" -- there is nothing to disambiguate. Because there is some tangential relevance, I'm OK with leaving Counter-Reformation in See also, but the Council of Trent is not in any way ambiguous with the term. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody refers to "Volleyball" as "Set" either, but it still appears on the Set disambiguation page because it's a relevant search term per WP:Disambiguation, in the same way that Reformation is a relevant search term for Council of Trent. Wikitam331 (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, which I already explained, is that there is a thing called "set" in volleyball. There could conceivably be an article at that title about the subject. There is nothing in Counter-Reformation or Council of Trent that any reasonable person would place in an article titled "reformation" or be likely to confuse with the term. older ≠ wiser 02:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there could "conceivably" be an entire article about a Set in Volleyball, then why isn't there? The fact that the word Reformation is in the title "Counter-Reformation" alone makes it a valid entry for the disambiguation page.
Protestant Reformation, is a valid entry for the disambiguation page. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The fact that the word Reformation is in the title "Counter-Reformation" alone makes it a valid entry for the disambiguation page. Once again, what is so difficult to understand about why
partial title matches are not included on disambiguation pages? Disambiguation pages are not generalized search indexes of topics that happen to contain the term. I'm not sure what to make of your remark about a volleyball set -- it seems to show a profound lack of understanding or denial. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hypothetically, someone could be looking for information about the volleyball set by typing "set". Nobody looking for information about the reformations included in the the Council of Trent or Counter-Reformation would type in "reformation". TimBentley (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion. Wikitam331 (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the person who disagrees with that opinion is you (and your IP socks). older ≠ wiser 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Post-Suharto era is known in Indonesian (and several academic works regarding the country) as "Reformasi", which translates to "Reform" or "Reformation". As such, it is a viable search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reformasi is generally rendered "Reform" in English. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate contradicts your claim. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a
WP:RS for the name of the period, and Google Translate has a whole list of alternate translations, anyway. These sources confirm that the Reformasi period is known as the "Reform" (not "Reformation") period: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. -- 202.124.73.203 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
None of your sources prove that "Reformation" is not a valid translation for the name of that period. You have been provided with references that prove that "Reformation" is a valid translation of the name. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Reformation" is NOT a valid translation of the name for the post-Suharto era. You have provided no sources showing that it is. -- 202.124.73.113 (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the
Post-Suharto era page for the sources that prove that it's a valid translation. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, no valid sources there. -- 202.124.75.63 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, the fact that it is called "Reformation" is already in the article... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only because of a very recent (and disputed) edit. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC
Several sources, one of which that has been posted in the article, contradicts your claim that Reformasi is not translated as "Reformation". Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Wikitam331 removed Post-Suharto era from Reform (disambiguation), where it has a much better claim to exist. I have reverted that as, at the least, unhelpful. "Reform" is the usual translation of Reformasi. -- 202.124.72.5 (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Reformation disambiguation page. Please stay on topic. Wikitam331 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your opinion that it's "completely implausible". The Council of Trent was the most important embodiment of the ideals of the Counter-Reformation. 12.165.27.130 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No aspect of the Council of Trent is called "Reformation." -- 202.124.74.41 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

order of religious Reformation movements

To me it makes no sense to include

Catholic Reformation) at the end under "See also". Catholic Reformation is a common term for the latter, particularly among Roman Catholic scholars who don't like the implication that they were either reacting to Protestantism or else opposed to all reform. Both Islamic Reformation and Catholic Reformation are redirects anyway. I'd suggest moving Counter-Reformation up to the first section, including the note that it's also known as Catholic Reformation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:Protestant Reformation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reformation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reformation_(disambiguation)&oldid=1170606791"