Talk:Drakkar

The Viking longboat is the primary meaning

Hi Bkonrad. We never see eye to eye, but here you managed to stun me.

I introduced the Viking longboat as primary meaning, with the detailed edit summary:

"Primary meaning. ALL Western items take their name from the Viking ship. I don't know about the Cambogean band."

You reverted with the shortest of comments:

"No primary meaning."

1. It is utterly illogical.
2. It lacks even a minimum of collegial considetation. WHY isn't it the primary meaning, in your learned opinion?

Is it so hard to show some consideration? Always my way or the highway? Forget logic, that I'm not even asking for. Arminden (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

It perhaps is a "primary meaning", but that does not make it a primary topic. If it were the primary topic then drakkar would be an article about the subject or a redirect to another article (and "primary topic" is what I said and what I meant in my edit summary. older ≠ wiser 10:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can have a discussion.

The "Primary topic" page explains that while nothing is 100% clear (nothing ever is), there are 2 main criteria, which are quite clear:

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.

I+II) Peeminence & long-term significance

Now please tell me WHICH other term than the longboat

1. is (much) more likely than any other single topic to be sought by readers
2. has (much) more long-term significance, substantially greater enduring notability, and educational value?

To me, the answer to both question seems to be a total no-brainer. I+II: checked and checked.

We're comparing with:

• a junior ice hockey team
• a French barracks building bombed in 1983 in Beirut
• a minor German record label
• a 1982 line of Guy Laroche men's cologne
• a French underground black metal record label
• a country-folk band from Lawrence, Kansas

III). As to connection to primary topic

- Items named after the Viking boat

all but maybe one (the Cambodians)

• the ice hockey team
• the French barracks
• the German record label
• the cologne (marketing copy: "Inspired by the Viking ship, it encapsulates true conqueror spirit within you.")
• the French underground black metal record label (parent co. of Viking Digital Music Distribution)
• the country-folk band

- Not clear if named after the boat (1 item)

• the Cambodian hard rock band (but quite likely)

- Items that also play on words (drakkar + dragon/Dracula/...; max. 3)

• the French record label
• maybe the Kansas band
• maybe the Cambodian band

I'd say: III easily checked.

IV. Redirect rather than primary topic

This I don't think you thought through, really. What is the sense of a DAB page if the primary topic is excluded? The rule you encounter all across Wiki is that the primary topic is included, in redirect form, at the beginning of the lead - with the secondary topics listed below, under "X can also mean", "ferner liefen" so to say. Either you want to impose an illogical approach to thousands of sensible DAB pages, or you allow this logical use of the format in this case too. Check out for instance Paris (disambiguation), Berlin (disambiguation), Silk (disambiguation)... whatever.

It's a non-topic, really, so IV checked.

Did I overlook anything? Arminden (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want to propose a move of some sort, the instructions are at WP:RM. So long as drakkar is not an article about Viking longboats or a redirect to that topic, there is no primary topic. It seems obvious, but from what you write, you might be confused, so it is worth pointing out that for the examples of redirects you mention (Paris (disambiguation), Berlin (disambiguation), Silk (disambiguation)) the base name in each case IS the actual primary topic. (Paris, Berlin, Silk), which is why the pages are all named with "(disambiguation)" appended. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please, plain English, OK?

What I want to do is no secret - it's what I've already done, and you have reverted.

You mean, the longboat article must be called drakkar for you to be OK with it? Not hard to formulate it that way.

I won't start a war there, but would you have a problem if longboat and drakkar would both be used, together, in the definition (lead) there, both in bold, both with sources, and a redirect "drakkar" -> "longboat" would be set up, with this DAB here being moved to "Drakkar (disambiguation)"? So they don't collide.

That's plain English, easy to do, and constructive. Are you OK with it? Arminden (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The formulation you used is not appropriate for disambiguation pages where there is not a primary topic, which is where the base name is an article about the topic or a redirect to an article about that topic. So yes, the proposal to move drakkar to drakkar (disambiguation) and redirect drakkar to longboat would be OK. I'm not saying I support this or oppose it -- that should be determined by consensus from a requested move discussion.

At this point, with the longboat as the first entry in the list, I don't really see much advantage and some potential for reader inconvenience. While most of the other entries might derive from the longboat sense, that doesn't necessarily mean that most readers looking for "drakkar" are looking for the longboat (beside which the article actually says very little at all about the specific term at present). older ≠ wiser 18:20, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :)

I admit it took me time to understand what you mean and I'm not sure I fully did, but I believe the short version would read "yes".

A man needs to stick to his principles is the 2nd thing I'm reading out of it. I agree.

In diesem Sinne, have a great weekend! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)