Talk:Relationship

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

I believe this article should be returned to a simple disambiguation page, with links to all relevant articles. The concept of relationship is too broad, or perhaps more accurately, the term has too many definitions, to place it into a single article. Kablammo 03:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I put it back to a dab page. -- Jeff3000 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree--Ziji 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh no they bhavevtotaloy blocked me out if my account and u no why caus I am suppose to win money for omnobe if the places I can play for free this us nit gonna happen what what can I do there has to be something helloa anyone there 174.240.161.120 (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

Moved from User talk:Gorthian § Relationship

– — Gorthian (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits to Relationship, because it seems that you used a hammer to perform surgery there. Removing interpersonal relationship, which is probably the single most significant meaning of the term "relationship", is insane, and will complicate the work of disambiguators trying to use the list on that page to determine how to fix incoming links. bd2412 T 02:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Could we work out something better than "all or nothing"? That page was (and now is again) a mess, including seemingly any article with the word "relationship" in it. I agree that Interpersonal relationship does belong there. But most of the rest do not.

The problem is that just plain "relationship" is basically a WP:DICDEF word. So you get interpersonal relationship and then titles of music, books, or film. All the other entries are basically a list of different kinds of "connection or association; the condition of being related" (quoting Wiktionary).

As I was writing this, it occurred to me that interpersonal relationship is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and relationship should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Maybe a requested move is also in order? — Gorthian (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have actually recently been the ~~victim~~ recipient of surgery done with a hammer (and a saw, and a drill). Fun! Not. — Gorthian (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page needs cleanup; my goal is not to force all-or-nothing inclusion, but to limit exclusion to matters that can not reasonably be referred to by the disambiguation term alone. As noted on my talk page: "I just cleaned up the two incoming links to Relationship. One intended a romantic relationship, the other indicated correlation. If I was using the dabsolver, these commonly needed options would not come up on the list of possible fixes". I think that's a useful rule of thumb. I don't know that I would say that the interpersonal form of relationship is the primary topic of the term. Correlation is a strong contender. bd2412 T 04:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad-concept article tag[edit]

I don't think this article needs to be converted into a broad-concept article. Interpersonal relationship is already the broad concept, which includes familial relationships, friendship, and romantic relationships. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 01:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A relationship, most broadly stated, is any correlation between any two things. One can speak of the relationshiop between poverty and crime, or the relationship between gravity and magnetism. However, these are still examples of the same concept, as are relationships between people. It's just a question of writing an article that captures this breadth. BD2412 T 02:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any article about that topic would either be riddled with meaningless jargon or seriously contrived. I would consider it a violation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, including the section Wikipedia is not a usage guide. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation is a meaningful topic, but it already has an article; a substantial article could not be written covering both interpersonal relationships and correlation. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing articles that are impossible to write is kind of my thing, though. BD2412 T 02:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]