Talk:Tatar

On 3 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tatar (disambiguation) to Tatar. The result of the discussion was moved.

Against merger

Although there may be one instance in which Tartar and Tatar are synonymous, there are many more in which they aren't. There's no reason to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatar (disambiguation) → Tatar – This adjective currently redirects to the plural meaning a people, but there's also the language, and it's common to see such adjectives disambiguated.

From the topic area, vaguely similar examples may include Turkic, where readers proceed to both the languages and the peoples; Turkish, most people proceed to language; Kipchak, readers visit people but also language and another major topic.

Page history for the redirect that would need to be replaced here indicates this was last attempted in 2017, and last discussed in 2005. There was a recent discussion at Talk:Tatar language (disambiguation) where there was no opposition to this idea, at the same time, it wasn't the primary focus there, and this requires disambiguating over 700 links, so it merits a discussion of its own. --Joy (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support there are also other meanings such as places. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to this, but what then is even the point of our umbrella article at Tatars? Srnec (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be largely about the Tatar peoples, not so much about their languages. If the languages were called e.g. 'Tatarian' or 'Tatari' this would be less complex. --Joy (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the languages do not form a family, what makes the various peoples called Tatars a family? Does any part of that article beyond the etymology section justify lumping them together? Maybe we need an article on the word 'Tatar' instead. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Seems to me to be a very clear primary redirect. The people are the primary topic over the language and certainly over everything else on the list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but why? What makes them different from other cases? --Joy (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We operate on a case-by-case basis. In most cases where the name of the people and the name of the language are the same both are either very well-known or pretty obscure. But I don't think that's the case here. The Tatars (of which this is the singular) are extremely well-known in history. Their language nowhere near so much. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but even the references to Tatars in history have multiple meanings - notably our articles make a clear distinction between the historical tribal confederations and the modern-day Tatars. Is making this distinction wrong, are they all really just Tatars and there is no ambiguity with the use of the term Tatar? --Joy (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the current redirect is to the broad scope article covering all of them, which I think is correct. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then the main focus of the discussion is whether it's more beneficial to short-circuit both singular and plural to the broad concept or whether it's better to have links to singular disambiguated. I'd still lean towards the latter, as it would make the links from other topics be more relevant to context. --Joy (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Ethnic groups have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There seems to be no WP:Primarytopic with the Tatar language and Tatar alphabet. Theparties (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The language gets about 10 times as many pageviews as the alphabet [1]. The potential primary topics are the language, Tatars, and possible the sub-articles of each; I don't think the alphabet has much to do with this. Toadspike [Talk] 14:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current broad-concept article at Tatars is an appropriate redirect target. I assume most readers are looking for the people (the main focus of that article), but the article also suitably covers the languages and groups. Also, the Tatars page is viewed between 4 and 8 times as much as the language (not great evidence, but it's what we've got).

I am not opposed to the "disambiguating over 700 links" suggested above – articles should link to the specific subject they're talking about, which is often not going to be the concept of "Tatars" as a whole, but specific articles about certain languages or groups. Toadspike [Talk] 14:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correction - I thought this was last discussed in 2005 but that's only because I didn't notice a 2018 discussion at Talk:Tatar, sorry. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that argument in 2018 was:
What do the modern Tatars of Kazan have to do with all of that? Nothing.

Sadly the same user has been inactive since 2020, but there might be something to the idea that maybe our broad concept is too broad.

How does modern-day mainstream historiography handle the matter? Do reliable sources discuss medieval Tatars as the same topic as the modern-day Tatars, just shifted in time - or are they so distinct that they are actually separate topics, so we can have a broad-concept article about the word Tatar(s), but not about a single overarching concept? --Joy (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nothing is broken, so no need to fix. Ghirla^-трёп- 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghirlandajo while I appreciate laconic statements, it would be more helpful if you were to elaborate. For example, how is it not 'broken' that Special:WhatLinksHere/Tatar sends all of the readers to the same 5,000-word broad-concept article, for example:
- Tatarstan - meaning today's population demonym, so Volga Tatars?
- Demographics of Turkey - meaning today's ethnic diaspora, but from Tatarstan or in general? This one probably should go to a broad-concept article about the people (but not the language)
- History of slavery - meaning 16th-century Crimean slave trade?
- Don't Hold Others Back - meaning national music of Tatarstan?
- Russian military deception - meaning 14th-century Tatars under Mamai who is rather described as a Mongol?
- Krakow - meaning a legend about a 13th-century Tatar invasion, so not necessarily anything coherent, maybe linking Tatar confederation would make more sense?
- Ruslan Batyrshin - meaning today's ethnic group, but I'm not sure if it's Volga, Lipka, Crimean or Siberian given that all it says is the person was born in Moscow?
- Dov Gazit - meaning Armenian–Tatar massacres of 1905–1907 or something like that? So, not what is customarily known as Tatars now, but rather Azerbaijanis?
- Abakhan - meaning Tatar language?
I literally just clicked around that list and found all this ambiguity in the last ten minutes - I technically cherry-picked these from the list but didn't omit anything I found.

Sending readers to read the broad concept article about a millenium of history seems inferior to disambiguating and cleaning up those links to get readers to more straightforward destinations. --Joy (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination; Crouch, Swale; Melik and Theparties. There are numerous examples, such as Albanian, American, Belgian, Croatian, German, Estonian, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Russian, Serbian or Ukrainian, with none of those main title headers, which describe either a native of a country or, if applicable, that country's language, redirecting to the WP:PRIMARYTOPICS Albanians, Americans, Belgians, etc, with, furthermore, none of the dab pages Albanian, American, Belgian, etc, needing to use the parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)".

Thus, there is no need for Tatar to serve as a primary redirect to Tatars. Instead, Tatar should use that standalone main header, without the qualifier "(disambiguation)", analogous to all the other examples.

These arguments were submitted in 2011 as Canadian (disambiguation) → Canadian at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation)#Requested move, closed as not moved, and again three months ago at Talk:Canadian (disambiguation)#Requested move 13 August 2024, closed as no consensus. However, it may be also noted that a nomination in the opposite direction, Austrian → Austrian (disambiguation) at Talk:Austrian#Requested move 29 September 2022, likewise did not succeed, although with only two participants. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with Austrian is curious, because there the language is not consistently called just "Austrian" but mainly "Austrian German", but in this case it does seem to be just "Tatar".

The comparison with Canadian is less clear because there's no language in that case. --Joy (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there isn't a language called Brazilian even though some people say it is, although the Portuguese spoken there is very different to back home. JuniperChill (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as demonyms generally don't (and shouldn't) have a primary topic. I proposed to make Canadian a no primary situation not a long time ago, yet they all said that the demonym is the primary topic without proof that it is. Austrian, Australian, American, Belgian, Brazilian, Mexican, Swiss, etc don't have languages of their own, yet the all don't have a primary. Maybe an exception that not everyone knows about the Tatars, but everyone knows about Canadians. Additionally, Tatar is also a language, so seems like another reason to support. JuniperChill (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

post-move

Hmm, it looks like @Onel5969 and @Rodw disambiguated a lot of the links to just Tatars, which sort of defeats the point discussed above... we can still use either the user contributions lists or a somewhat more complex search query to find all these links and review them. --Joy (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles linking to Tatars can be seen at Pages that link to "Tatars". Any help with sorting out any remaining problems would be appreciated.— Rod ^talk 09:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue specifically is the new [[Tatars|Tatar]] links, these are now squashed with [[Tatars]] and other links in Special:WhatLinksHere output. Yes, even the plural links should be reviewed, but that's a whole other bunch of work :) --Joy (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tatars should probably be nixed in favour an article Tatar (ethnonym). Srnec (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]