Jump to content

Talk:Mold (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 20 August 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Molding

[edit]

@Johnbod:, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do here. Mold is the primary topic here and is the only article that should be linked up at the top. I don't know what you mean by "do a proper disamb page" either. There is a dab page for molding right here: Molding. And that link is already included on this page. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way the fungus is sufficiently primary. Moulding moulds and other types should be on this page. Either this page needs to give proper prominence to that sense of mould, or the pages should be combined. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to moving the molding entry above the other categories, directly below the "may also refer to" line. That's frequently done on dab pages for more common usages and I'd certainly agree that Mold and Molding are significantly more prominent than the other meanings. And of course if you want to formally propose a page move to make another meaning of Mold primary, you're free to do that. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy now, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2020

[edit]
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: No consensus buidhe 17:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– No clear primary topic, Slime mold gets 16,502 views compared to the fungus's 23,669, Oomycete gets 5,122 and Mold, Flintshire gets 1,574[[1]]. When I Google Mold I get a map of the Welsh town but that's probably because of my location but most of the other results are dictionary results (for all the meanings and mould). By PT#2 Molding (process) and Mold (cooking implement) and some of those mentioned above are probably also common enough that the fungus meaning isn't much more important either. There were also 44 incorrect links for the town in Wales and there are probably more and also some for some of the other uses. If moved Mould should also target the DAB since others use this British spelling. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 21:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you have nothing. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly thought this move request would fail easily, so I didn't bother to give a more serious answer. But with several people now supporting the move, I will give you a more thorough answer. When I Google "mold", every search result on the first 50 search results (and probably more but I stopped looking at 50) are about the fungus. Google is very good at knowing what information people are most likely searching for based on what they type into the search box. So Google clearly thinks that someone searching for "mold" are looking for information about the fungus. And just like on Google, when someone searches for "mold" on Wikipedia, they are highly likely to be looking for the fungus article, and therefore that is what the primary should be. Almost nobody who searches for simply "mold" is looking for a cooking implement or anything else besides the fungus, which means that the fungus article is the primary topic for "Mold". Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a number of people recently trying to use Google search results as a primary factor for determining primary topic and I think they're giving it too much weight. Yes, Google is very good at giving people what they want, but what someone wants out of a Google search is not at all a direct correlation to what they want from Wikipedia. In this case, I would bet most people Googling "mold" are trying to fix a fungus problem in their home, which is not something I would personally come to Wikipedia for. I think page views are a much stronger indicator of usage for this site, and in this case the fungus is above the others but not significantly enough (it's a bit worse than what the proposer linked if you look back farther than a month). I was initially on the fence and genuinely wanted to see what support you were thinking of for this, so thank you for at least providing some evidence. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being a redirect does not in any way invalidate the topic. It's a bold term described in the third sentence of the article. I'll grant it isn't a very high quality article though. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, the fungus article is probably the most likely target but primary topic requires much more than that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fungus article is the intended target for someone searching for "mold" 9 times out of 10, and that's plenty to make it the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case any other readers think "9 times out of 10" is based on some sort of evidence, it isn't. He just guessed/made it up. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm estimating it off of Google search results that overwhelmingly produce search results for the fungus when searching for the term "mold". But what percentage would you estimate it to be and what method would you suggest using in making your estimate? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also restored the original Mold_(disambiguation) page to try to keep this discussion somewhat clear. The current mold (fungus) article is move protected though, so before this post, the WP:STATUSQUO was the content being at mold, which was moved to mold (fungus) in the first close before the reversal and relisting. Basically if there's no consensus, mold (fungus) reverts back to mold, and the disambig page would stay the same. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Fungal mold seems to be the primary topic. This mostly boils down to the traditional fungal mold and the complicated naming issues/history with water mold or slime molds, and lesser used topics like the cookware or casting molds.
In the proposer's opening, organismal molds already get the majority of page views (whether Wiki or Google) over others. More on the mold, fungal mold, water mold, etc. in a bit. Process molding (casting, etc.) only gets 10k views whereas the cooking implement is just barely at 1k views. The locations etc., are also very minor topics. This just really boils down to the organism side of things being the primary.
Overall, mold (no specific organism qualifier) is it's own large topic that mostly focuses on fungal mold, but also has ties to the other organismal usages of the word. That's in part why we shouldn't be adding the fungus qualifier. Something like water mold is not a true mold. It's fairly common for common names to be complicated like this (e.g., "flies" that are not flies in entomology). That's why the qualifier of say water mold is important and shouldn't have been treated as a competing primary topic. The subject of mold without qualifier generally deals with fungus, but historically, water, slime, etc. molds have been lumped within that for better or worse. What's better in this case is for mold to be the primary redirect for the current fungus focused content while getting into the history of common name usage to pipe readers over to the relevant pseudomold pages (e.g., Slime mold) in the correct part of the article. A hatnote to the disambig page for the other minor uses would then be a the top of the page.
Another aspect looking at WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY is significance. Even process molding isn't something everyone is going to come into contact like living mold. People are regularly going to deal with moldy food, allergies, diseases, etc. There is a significant burden to determine that another topic significantly competes with that which I haven't seen here. Overall, this is just a messy real-world topic with the naming, so we need to be careful about that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I think mold (fungus) is going to be the intended target more frequently than the other uses of "mold" combined. The Wikipedia article Mold (where the material at Mold (fungus) was until recently) got more traffic over the last 30 days than every other use of "Mold" I can think of combined. If I understand correctly, Mold used to have a link to Mold (disambiguation) at the top, and while mold was getting 1000-1200 hits a day, Mold (disambiguation) was getting just 15-30 hits a day. So I assume (and maybe I'm just misunderstanding how the traffic stats are calculated) that it was very rare for a reader to get to Mold, find themselves in the wrong place, and navigate to Mold (disambiguation). Also, per Rreagan007, a Google search for "mold" gives me pages and pages of results on mold (fungus), suggesting it's the primary topic folks have in mind when they're looking up "mold"... I'm not sure where else to look: I haven't come up with a clever enough Ngrams search to try to get a sense of how often different uses of "mold" come up in English writing. If someone has another way of looking at things (or if I'm misunderstanding the traffic data), I'm all ears. Otherwise, I think Mold (fungus) is almost certainly the primary topic for "mold". Ajpolino (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the biologists pile in! "Even process molding isn't something everyone is going to come into contact like living mold" - what a fatuous comment! You can't drink a cup of coffee, from whatever sort of cup, without 'coming into contact' with moulding. No ngram evidence has been produced. Of course the ENGVAR spelling difference complicates matters, but I see no reason at all to change my support. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ENGVAR spelling aside, any thoughts on how to do an Ngram search for these? There's not obvious context words I can think of to differentiate the uses in a search. For the pageviews I mention above, I used this search [2]. Any other titles you feel we should consider?... I mean I guess we could wait and see how many hits mold (fungus) gets from disambiguation and decide in a few weeks if it's truly the primary topic for that title... Ajpolino (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, you've been making a lot of rather strong assertions about process molding, and you really need to satisfy the burden of demonstrating those if anything is going to change with that subject. We've been discussing page views, etc. so please watch the tone.
As for your remark on "fatuous", thank you for demonstrating why it isn't a primary subject. I already mentioned it in my initial comment, but process molding is a very indirect topic here even if people indirectly come in contact with items made by it. Outside of select groups like artisans, etc. it's not going to be a subject most people are going to significantly focus on. It's too niche in that regard, although not as niche as some others in the disambig. That doesn't detract from it being an important process, but living mold is just too pervasive (both literally and figuratively) comparatively to direct effects and general interest demonstrated so far for living mold. That "molding" tends to be used more to describe the process rather than living mold also helps with distinguishment too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More wild assertions! You are a biologist, & appear to think that non-biologists share your interests & "significantly focus on" the same things. They don't. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not cast aspersions, and stop using this discussion for such personalizing. I'm looking across all topics here and have personal experience with each of the main topics coming up (including manufacturing). That is not relevant here though, just as your clear background in art shouldn't be a factor here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am truly shocked at how many supports this move request has gotten. The supporters seem to be basing this on the number of page views for the articles of Slime mold and Molding (process). The flaw in this is that those page views are irrelevant, as practically no one searching for those articles will type simply "mold" into the search box. Almost every person tying "mold" alone into the search box will be looking for the fungus article, which is what makes it the primary topic for "mold". If this move request ultimately sticks, it will be the worst move request decision that I have ever seen. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this proposed move shouldn't happen, I mentioned the complication about slime molds, etc. above. Views for something like slime or water mold do matter in the sense they partially add, not detract, from living mold being the primary. In the latter case mildew (i.e., water mold) is sometimes used interchangeably with mold (some not so appropriate, some just old common name issues). Mold is actually an umbrella term that does cover slime molds to a certain degree that should be reflected in the article. With an appropriate history section (in the works) that article would act as a WP:CONCEPTDAB for the umbrella term most people would be searching. That's why the (fungus) title addition causes issues even though most of the focus of the article should be fungal mold. That's a real-world complication we need to reflect though.
WP:2DABS also has some guidance that fits this. With living mold being the primary topic, it gives an example of inflation where the current living mold page would be the main page, a minor subject could be included, and the rest of the disambig could be listed. That's much better than what this was originally closed as. If it's established process molding really is significant enough outside of the rest of the disambig, it could be included in the hatnote. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The technical/industrial moulding pages are in a considerable mess - Casting, which always needs a mould, needs also to be considered with over 770 views pd, and things like blow molding, which I've never heard of, but gets 350 views a day. Compression molding gets 223 pd. "Almost every person tying "mold" alone into the search box will be looking for the fungus article" just seems nonsense to me - why wouldn't they be looking for one of these? Never mind the slime moulds, Welsh town (almost certainly what a BE searcher for "Mold" is looking for) ..... The numbers just don't stack up, and there just is no primary topic. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just try Googling "mold" and tell me how many of the first 20 search results you get are for slime mold or for casting vs the fungus. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone has pointed out above, the results vary with the spelling, with Wales featuring strongly in UK "mold" results. Don't Americans use the phrase "breaking the mould"? This features quite strongly in google book results. Of course the top hits are all about getting rid of it from walls or washing machines, but I don't think people wanting that are going to look at WP. Do we even have Mold removal I wonder? No, we don't - per google the views on that would knock all the others out of the ring. User:Fyrael explained all this to you at the top of the section, but you take no notice. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wales does not come up anywhere in my search results for "mold". I assume it's based on the IP address being close to the town and because mold is spelled differently by most people with UK IP addresses. Regardless, that is irrelevant as I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Welsh town is the primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As has been explained to you twice now, this is because you are searching in America. I am not "close" to Mold myself (it's a 4-5 hours drive, which counts as "the other side of the country" in Britain), nor I think was the other guy. No, nobody is arguing "that the Welsh town is the primary topic here". People are arguing that there is no primary topic, and the point is relevant to that. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just said that it's because I'm searching in America. But besides this obscure Welsh town of 10k people that I've never heard of before, what other search results for "mold" do you get when Googling the term in the first 20 search results? Rreagan007 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DABCONCEPT really applies since biological meanings have nothing to do with the fungus even though there might be confusion, indeed given the discussion at the top of the page there seems to have been dispute that the fungus meaning is primary. The present disambiguation provides readers with the opportunity to click on the one they want which seems to avoid confusion with the likes of leaf mold. In addition as noted the process/cooking meaning is significant to and like the fungus is also common (even though not as common as the fungus) in everyday life and would certainly be to someone in manufacturing/catering. Crouch, Swale (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the few people who search for "mold" and don't actually want the fungus article, the hatnote at the top of the page will redirect them to the disambiguation page. The vast majority of readers looking for the fungus article when searching for "mold" shouldn't have to go through a disambiguation page. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you keep saying, without the slightest evidence of a "vast majority". Btw, Philip Mould, who Americans won't have heard of, gets a couple of hundred views a day. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply an incorrect assertion. I have provided evidence above, as Google search results are indeed evidence for what someone who is searching for the term "mold" is most likely looking for in their search. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure how that can be said about the fungus/slime/water mould etc. Last I checked, disease and food production are pretty big deals for shaping human civilization well before a few thousands years ago when you say the manufacturing subject became important. That said WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY is clear that your historical age comments are not relevant. We look at significance. That last bullet in the link also covers this exact situation. Manufacturing molding is only relevant to a specific group, whereas living mold is relevant to a much broader audience (e.g., everyone has to deal with food potentially spoiling, housing damage, health issues in the subject).
I've been seeing a lot of comments lately saying X,Y,Z articles related to manufacturing molding get ~100 views each. Those are insignificant numbers, and if someone really wants to start combining all of those views, then let's add all of the existing mold species articles page views too. Realistically, that's reaching too far in to the subareas though in both realms. To rattle off a few though, white mold is ~2k, black mold (disambig mostly focused on fungi) ~3k, gray mold ~4k, etc. If someone is trying to claim living mold (or even fungal molds) doesn't overwhelm the significance of manufacturing, we could just start rattling off all of the crop or human diseases caused by molds and the people who would actively be searching for those subjects whether it's medical information, gardening, etc. It should be pretty implicit that living mold is something people will tend to actively search for due to direct implications in their life. Manufacturing molds are much more niche in that regard in terms of significance (i.e., used often, but not as actively acknowledged by general audiences). Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, highly significant natural world topics should generally take precedence for historical importance over later human inventions. Mold (the fungus) has been around for hundreds of millions of years, and efforts to thwart it have had a significant shaping force in human civilization. BD2412 T 04:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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" says the policy. Manufacturing moulds have been around for several thousand years, about as long as writing, and the advent of plastic has only increased their significance. Certainly they "have had a significant shaping force in human civilization" - I'm not really sure how that can be said about the fungus/slime/water mould etc. Mold (fungus) doesn't seem to make this claim - it mentions various uses, some no doubt ancient, but they are mostly East Asian & large stretches of the world seem to get by without them. For example in European cusine it seems blue cheese would be the main (only?) loss. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also says that "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." That's the part important part of article naming policy that is really at issue here, as a reader searching for "mold" will be looking for the fungus article at least 9 times out of 10. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Human uses of mold are not the issue; human efforts and innovations in order to avoid mold (or, conversely, the destruction of food supplies by mold) are. This is very much like Fly. Humans haven't trained flies to carry little things around for us or whatnot, but they are the most significant of the many uses of the term, "fly", because their pestering has forced changes to human behavior and the development of human civilization from the beginning. BD2412 T 15:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacturing is also an important part of history and in particular to industrialized areas. In addition cooking molds are part of many people's everyday life to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed previously, arguments that cooking molds, etc. are simply a part of everyday life doesn't suddenly jump them up to competing with living molds. I understand that is an opinion some editors hold here, but that opinion has not been grounded in anything concrete. Even though manufacturing has come up in this discussion, no one has really established that is has any long-term significance in comparison to living mold and all the issues it causes that people directly have to deal with (or benefit from like antibiotics). If something really comes out at the top of the non-living mold subjects, that would then qualify it for mention in the hatnote at the current mold page. That wouldn't be enough to make living mold not the primary topic though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except it does have more than most others combined. Mold and slime mold are linked to some degree (whether biologically appropriate or not) yet they are also different topics that aren't really competing too. It would be like comparing views for fly vs. dragonfly and saying fly should be the main topic. Distinguishable common names of distinct groups typically don't compete in these discussions. Even when you set that aside, all others discussed so far haven't reached the magnitude of views living mold has and the broad concept article on mold that mostly focuses on fungi still wins out there. The fungal mold article was at 24,000 views. If you give the other non-living articles a handicap and only use that number instead of combining fungal, slime, and water mold into one (~45,000) none of the locations, processes, etc. win out over living mold whether you combine broad subjects or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mold_(disambiguation)&oldid=1241348280"