Talk:Abuse (disambiguation)

Query about 2 meanings

On 4 June 2010 I removed two items that appear to violate MOS:DAB

The word abuse can be applied to an inanimate object, for example, "this car has been subjected to much abuse as a rough-country log-hauler"
The word abuse can be applied to an abstract concept, such as abuse of language.

Another editor has since re-added them. I submit that this is unwarranted, as neither is ambiguous.

The first contains no internal link; it is a usage note describing the word abuse. Such discussion is better left to Wiktionary.

It may be argued that the page linked in the second item could be ambiguous, but it looks like a partial title match. I submit that abuse of language could not plausibly be referred to simply as "abuse". Abuse of language is itself a disambiguation page, since the term can be used in either a semi-technical sense within mathematics (Abuse of terminology) or in a general sense of "misused" language (Misnomer). Neither sense is called "abuse" without the rest of the phrase "...of language". Cnilep (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those 2 lines are about 2 more meanings of the word "abuse", therefore (even after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)) I see justification in including them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we disagree but you clearly have a point. I'll ask WikiProject Disambiguation for a third opinion. Cnilep (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a meaning of a word is not a justification for inclusion on a disambiguation page. Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles. "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions." WP:DABNOT. "Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary." WP:MOSDAB#Linking to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Abuse provides thorough coverage of the many meanings of "abuse", I think the disambiguation page is unnecessary and inappropriate. If Abuse had a hatnote linking to Abuse (video game), there would be no need for this disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. A hatnote to the video game from the base name article would orphan this page, and it could be speedy deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]