Talk:Dick

Don't add individuals

Please don't add humans with the name Dick to this DAB page. There are already links to the given name Richard and to a list of people with the surname. Rpresser

That may be so, but why is "Dick Tracy" still in the list? Is there a Wiki Guideline describing this?

Philip K. Dick should be on this particular DAB page, because it's his surname. I'm not that sure about people who have Dick as a first name - because that would be an awful long list. mensch 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Very notable Dicks should be on this page. Otherwise, both Dick Tracy and Moby Dick should be removed, and, following the Richard paradigm, be included as part of another page like books and comics with Dick in the title.--Pro-Lick 18:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added Philip K. Dick. Additionally I looked into the Wiki guidelines concerning DAB pages and didn't find any rules dealing with the names of individuals. I agree with Pro-Lick that the notable "Dicks" should be on this DAB page. People like Dick Cheney shouldn't, because the first name is to generic as a criterium. mensch 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree. There is a link to a list of people with the surname. People arriving at this page will not be astounded to find out that Phillip K. Dick has this surname. Dick Tracy is sort of a special case because it is related both to Richard and to "private dick"; but I'd be fine with removing both Dick Tracy and Moby Dick. If you arrive at the Dick DAB you don't need to know everybody who uses the name Dick; you just need to know that Dick is a personal name and also has some other uses. But I will not revert at this time; I'll wait for more argument -- maybe someone can persuade me. Rpresser 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets out of hand and people start dropping all kinds of Dicks in here, I'll agree with you. I'll hold off a few days before trying to add Cheney so any adverse effects between adding PKD and him can be distinguished. My rule wasn't just notable, but VERY notable Dicks. I think that should filter out TV weathermen of the world.--Pro-Lick 21:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno...i think a lot of guys will still want to think that their dick is "very notable."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.223.212 (talk • contribs)

Of course you don't have to have every person named Dick (whether it's a first or lastname). But as Philip K. Dick is quite a noticeable person and his surname must be a common search term, why not have his name on the DAB page? It's true he's in the list on another of people named "Dick", but in that list he's still by far the most well-known person in that list. If I search for "Dick" and consequently arrive at the relevant DAB page I would expect to find the name there, that's why I added it in the first place.

On a side-note, the List of people named Dick should be more prominently on the DAB page, instead of the external meta-wiki link. I changed the order of the list. mensch 22:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made PKD a bullet item *under* the surname item. At least some organization will reduce the cluttered look. Rpresser 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Examples_of_individual_entries_that_should_not_be_created is clear, dab pages are not for individual people unless they are only well known by that name (eg, Elvis, Cher). SchmuckyTheCat 17:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??????????? Janathekiller (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick's Sporting Goods

Since typing in "Dicks" redirects to this page, I think that there should be a reference to Dick's Sporting Goods. But I'm not exactly sure how it should be listed since it doesn't quite fit in the list of meanings for "Dick". Personally, I don't like the name of the store (lots of bad results if you search for it), and I guess that at least having a link to the store from this page would help things out. Thunderforge 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best answer is a "see also" to Dick's, which itself has a link to the store. Rpresser 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surname, pen name Dicks

Dicks, ending with "s," is a pen name (at least in one case), and also a surname. Seems to be more common in England and Scotland, but there was a U.S. congressman by that name. As mentioned above, a WP search "Dicks" brings one to this page, so Dicks should be included. Ragityman (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC) oleeé — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.204.47 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slang term for penis

Why is there no link to [Penis] on the disambig page? It seems reasonable that someone would be searching for that. 71.95.205.78 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Penis doesn't mention "dick". Either that information can be first added to the penis article, or another article that covers the slang usage can be listed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to expect all common vulgar terms for penis in the article on penis. However it does make sense to provide the information here nevertheless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually alternatively to fulfill the formal requirement of MOS:DABMENTION, one could link to the wiktionary entry rather than the wikipedia article.

In any case for common slang term such entries in disambiguation pages are imho a useful service to readers and explicitly mentioning the term in the target is not necessary. As I understand it the intent of MOS:DABMENTION is to avoid that term gets linked to articles where they are not described/explained (assuming an explanation is required!), because then the reader might not understand why he got redirected. However in the case of common slang term, the entry in the disambiguation page is self explanatory and requires no additional information/explanation in the target article. In that sense applying MOS:DABMENTION here doesn't make much sense, though it could be argued for merely formal reasons, but for that we've WP:IAR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is already linked in the template. One cannot link to Wiktionary entry in the bullet list of Wikipedia topics being disambiguated, because the Wiktionary entry isn't a Wikipedia article. Please, add the information on "dick is slang for penis" to the article to be added here first; it makes no sense for a Wikipedia disambiguation page to act as a dictionary when we already have Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the "Penis" article notes that "the penis is the subject of many slang words and euphemisms for it", and links to the corresponding WikiSaurus entry, which does list "dick". This falls under MOS:DABSY, so I'll add an entry. Also remember WP:NOTCENSORED. Augurar (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not sure, should it link to human penis specifically, or the more general penis? I think "dick" is sometimes used in reference to animal penes as well, so I linked to the more general term. Augurar (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not censored, no synonyms listed on the Wikipedia article, not mentioned, no Wikipedia ambiguity. Please add the mention to penis or human penis first, then add the entry here, since then there will be Wikipedia ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the term is not mentioned is irrelevant. "Dick" is a synonym for "penis". A synonym, if you are confused, is a word that has the same meaning as another word. You might want to look at the disambiguation pages for Cock, Prick, and Dong, all of which have a link to "penis" or "human penis". I will add the link again, please do not revert unless you have an actual reason beyond prudishness.Augurar (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's relevant. I will remove the link again. Please do not revert until there is actual Wikipedia ambiguity. (That's the actual reason; no prudishness is present.) You might want to note that "cock" is mentioned on penis, which is why it's on the dab page. It's really that simple: if it's encyclopedic (and not just just relevant to a dictionary), add it to the encyclopedia. Once there's encyclopedic ambiguity, disambiguate it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:DABMENTION has a basis other than minimizing confusion -- it is also that disambiguation pages are not articles and should not contain any content that is not supported by the linked articles. While it may be obvious for many that "dick" is a synonym for penis, it is nonetheless asserting a factual claim which should at the very least be mention at the linked article, or even better referenced. Without such a guideline, editors might feel entitled to add a variety of what they consider "true" and self-evident links equivalence or relatedness. As such WP:DABMENTION is (and should remain) a very simple threshold for inclusion with few exceptions. older ≠ wiser 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DABMENTION is for articles whose topic is included within the scope of a larger article. The relevant guideline here is MOS:DABSY, which does state "Synonyms that are not mentioned on Wikipedia should not be included on the disambiguation page." I guess the real question is why "dick" isn't mentioned in the article for Penis. It's quite a widespread euphemism and has been around for more than a century, according to the OED. Augurar (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I guess it's a moot point now, as I noticed there is an existing article about "dick" as a slang term, for which I added a link. That's gotta stand up to even the most determined Wikilawyer. ;) Augurar (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@older ≠ wiser However imho that guideline doesn't really apply here as tried to explain further up. To me the question is rather whether one considers the wiktionary link as good enough (it covers the meaning) or whether one thinks an additional entry in the disambiguation list is warranted. It seems to that constant readding of that term is due to people simply not noticing/looking at the wiktionary entry. They just look at the least and correctly feel the term should be explained so they add it, without realizing that the wiktionary link explains it already.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Just saw that since January this year we Dick (slang), this makes the discussion with regard to this page more or less moot indeed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That some editors persistently do something that is against guidelines is not necessarily always a good reason for ignoring or altering the guidelines. Although glad to see the resuscitation of Dick (slang) address the problem. older ≠ wiser 11:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is not against the guideline other than in purely formal sense and the reason for that is not people keep adding it, but the explanation i gave 1.5 months ago further up. As far as people constantly it is concerned, I explained why they most likely did it and not whether their doing is ultimately justified or not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is clearly contrary to the guideline. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Other editors following guidelines one happens to disagree with is not following them in "purely formal sense" or for "merely formal reasons", and th 1.5-month-old explanation "However it does make sense to provide the information here nevertheless." is incorrect -- articles provide information, and disambiguation pages are not articles. If the information isn't presented in the encyclopedia (where it can be cited, verified, checked for notability, and otherwise edited with the rest of the encyclopedia), it can't be ambiguous in the encyclopedia, and doesn't need to be disambiguated in the encyclopedia. Sure, WP:IAR exists, but it's not for this -- it's for ignoring rules when ignoring the rules benefits the encyclopedia, not ignoring the rules one disagrees with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"when ignoring the rules benefits the encyclopedia" was exactly the point of my argument 1.5 months ago. Those editors that kept adding the term can be seen as readers for which the structure of the disambiguation page failed. They apparently did not find what they were looking for or expecting. Disambiguation pages are not articles, but they do of course provide information as well in the half sentence usually added to an entry. In the case of common slang terms that half sentence is all the reader needs to understand the redirect and hence and explicit mentioning in the target article is not really necessary. However you are correct with regard to the sourcing. If one feels the slang term requires sourcing, then of course that needs to be done in the target article. But then again common slang terms may not necessarily require sourcing. Still the link to wikitionary solves that problem too and allows sourcing as well, but the drawback is here that some readers simply seem to fail to look at the wiktionary entry, when they are looking for something and of course the direct redirect to an according wikipedia article is missing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we get rid of WP:NOTDICT because some users are trying to use an encyclopedia as a dictionary? Or do we continue to distinguish Wikipedia from Wiktionary because, even though some users are trying to use the encyclopedia as a dictionary, the encyclopedia is actually improved by focusing on encyclopedic content instead of dictionary definitions? "They apparently didn't find what they were looking for or expecting" is not a problem to be fixed if "what they were looking for or expecting" wasn't encyclopedic content in the first place. The information presented on disambiguation pages is there to help the reader identify and navigate to the encyclopedia article covers the encyclopedic content for sought topic of the ambiguous title. There are multiple ways to handle the inclusion of common slang terms on Wikipedia, and the easiest (add it to the article and then add the article here) was recommended above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem with WP:NOTDICT. We are just talking about (exceptional) cases where a common slang term coincides with a disambiguation page. So there isn't really any shift towards a dictionary nor are we creating dictionary articles that way (articles are basically not affected at all, only a few disambiguation pages at best). And as far as the navigation is concerned that seems to work smoothly for an entry with a half sentence here even without having it mentioned in the target article as well. At least i can't see how adding the redundant information in the target as well is improving the navigation experience for the reader in any way.

To be clear I'm not arguing against other ways of doing it nor do I have any objection against adding in the target article. I'm merely saying in the case of the common slang term, the improvement of the navigation experience is created by the entry in the list on the disambiguation page and not by being mentioned on the target page. The requirement to be mentioned on the target target page is for different reasons, namely for the reader to understand the redirect in the general case (which doesn't apply here) and if you want to provide additional information (more than the half sentence) or sourcing. But as I pointed above for common slang terms you can make the argument that this requirement is not necessary (as long there is no need for sourcing and as long as you do not provide a half sentence worth of information anyway).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, the case where an ambiguous title coincides with a dictionary term (slang or otherwise) is unexceptional. Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous titles for topics on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and Wikipedia disambiguation pages aren't dictionary pages. In the case of common or uncommon slang terms, the encyclopedia is improved by capturing the encyclopedia information in encyclopedia articles. If the information isn't encyclopedic, the encyclopedia doesn't need it (in articles or on disambiguation pages that facilitate navigation to those articles). The argument has been made, but it hasn't been won (and isn't the consensus). -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If the information isn't encyclopedic, the encyclopedia doesn't need it" sounds nice, is however not what de facto have argued with regard to the disambiguation page. Instead you've argued , that if the information is not located in the target article it can't be "encyclopedic". I find this location based approach to "encyclopedic nature" of information rather odd. As far as the dictionary argument is concerned, improving the navigation for common slang term doesn't turn the affected disambiguation pages into an dictionary entry. As far as "arguments made and won or lost" is concerned, you'd need to be more specific. What exact argument in what discussion? And what consensus by who?--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is captured in the guidelines at WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that wasn't really my question and those I know anyhow. The point of dispute is, that we read those 2 guidelines slightly differently, I claim they allow for including the occasional common slang term and you claim they don't. In fact WP:MOSDAB states at its end itself ... so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them. and imho for the common slang terms you can argue that case. Furthermore WP:D states A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context.. But we may not even disagree on these lines though you might see them less favourable with regards to my argument further up than I do. Where we really disagree seems to be on the concrete application of WP:DABMENTION to this case. That is you seem to argue for a strict no matter what application of the first part of If the title is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. While I put a greater emphasis on the last part, that is the explanation for not linking and argue that this reason is void for the case of common slang terms in disambiguation pages, hence we do not need to apply the first part.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would second to move to add the slang defintion of "dick" to mean "penis". It is popular use in the United States to use vocabulary in such a manner, as it is in many other places in the world. For the article to remain silent on this point is to technically render the article falsified by encyclopedic standards, since we're then knowingly and delierbately misrepresenting information, regardless of the guise or reason for which we allege to do so. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? This is a disambiguation page. And the disambiguation quite clearly notes: "Dick (slang), a euphemism for the penis as well as a pejorative epithet." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too much word. Didn't read all Janathekiller (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can i edit your page because i have information about the surname dick

Captainlevi445 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blue dicks

Dichelostemma capitatum could be added as it is known (as says on the page) as blue dicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources link?

sources for links 71.223.94.49 (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]