Talk:Triplet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Quantum Mechanical Triplet[edit]

I want to get this right. I'll mostly ignore the unproductive inflamatory comments (Confused? How about Insulting!).

As is, the description of a triplet in quantum mechanics is not general enough. A triplet state doesn't have to be derived from two fermions. In the oxygen molecule, for example, there are 16 electrons making up the triplet ground state. Many other atoms or molecules have spin triplets, and only a few (hydrogen molecule and helium-like atoms) have exactly two electrons. Also, the W and Z bosons have spin 1 and exist in spin triplets by themselves.

So I suggest, the following wording as an evolution of the current description:

It still doesn't mention the difference between the three states of a triplet, only the similarities.

--Snags 15:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

This disambiguation page was marked for cleanup per MOS:DAB. I removed the following entries because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and because they didn't back up their claim to be included on this disambiguation page by mentioning the word "triplet" in the linekd article. Some could however potentially be added to wikt:triplet.

sgeureka t•c 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This page says that triplet is "Tuplet in music" which is not right, I'm afraid. Triplet is one of the cases of tuplets in music. Can anyone fix this? Actually, I feel there should be a separate page about 'triplet in music'. 193.61.65.100 (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2018[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus that Multiple births#Triplets is the primary topic of "Triplet," and thus no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


TripletTriplet (disambiguation)Multiple birth § Triplets seems the clear primary topic; Triplet should redirect there per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. This would also be consistent with Twin and Twin (disambiguation).

While triplet (singular), like twin, is found in a variety of contexts, GBooks shows that triplets (plural) nearly always refers to multiple human births. Both Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries give this as the first definition of triplet (one of three children or animals born in one birth).

In article traffic as well, the article on multiple births gets vastly more hits than other Triplet articles (excluding synonyms and partial title matches). While not all of that traffic can be attributed to the content on triple births, the large margin – about 6x the views of the next-highest page – nonetheless suggests that most people who type Triplet or Triplets into the search bar are looking for that page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose While Triplets should definitely redirect to the multiple births, no one says "Triplet" to refer to them. There is no primary topic for "Triplet", the disambiguation should not be moved.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • A GBooks search for "born a triplet" or "being a triplet" yields numerous examples of singular triplet used this way. I doubt that dictionaries would define it as "one of three children born at once" were this not so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That is an awkward way of saying it, which no one would ever use in common speech. While it can technically be used that way, you can't make the WP:COMMONNAME argument for it, as you would be able to with Triplets.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Which no one would ever use in common speech – well, that's pretty easy to refute. See here, for example. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom and discussion. 'Triplets' is the common and most familiar name for three children born at once, and the way they are referred to throughout their life. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to Oppose for much the same reason as Zxcvbnm. A simple google search (both web and books suggest it is in common use for many sets of three besides "one of three children born at once". While that may be the most common meaning, the evidence is not convincing that it is the primary topic for the singular term. I'd be OK with redirect for the plural form. olderwiser 13:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I wanted the sort of multiple birth then sure, I would enter Triplets, not Triplet, so we should redirect Triplets to multiple births (not currently done). But if I want one set of three (in many fields) I ask for a Triplet (and normally not mean one result of a multiple birth). tahc chat 15:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support triplet means triplet. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Far too many technical scholarly meanings and uses. GBooks contains many non-scholarly uses and should not be relied upon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As far as I can see, the technical meanings are nearly all partial title matches that use triplet as an adjective within a longer term: Spin triplet, Triplet state, Triplet oxygen, etc. The presence of a term within a longer, more specific term is not an argument against the more general term being primary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
      • You might think that they are partial title matches, but that is in part due to the policy on naming the article. In this field of my study, you don't call a such a compound lens a triplet lens-- you would normally just call it a triplet, and only a triplet lens for disambiguation (like doublet). tahc chat 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is written for the general reader. Readers who search for Triplet are unlikely to be looking for Triplet lens. That's what hatnotes and disambiguation pages are for. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the term is very ambiguous and needs a disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - clear primary topic and avoiding WP:ASTONISH. Anyone looking for another meaning will not be surprised to find themselves at multiple births if they type in "triplet" - what else would you expect? Red Slash 11:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a search engine. You are not supposed to put in words off the top of your brain and expect Wikipedia editors to know what you probably want. That is the function of a search engine with artificial intelligence learning. Wikipedia is for looking for specific things. "Triplet" is easily encountered unexpectedly, and being taken to a dumb lowest common denominator guess of what the average pleb would thing when the word is thrown at them, downloading the wrong article when you need the DAB page, maybe not astonishing but certainly frustrating. Especially from weak connections, let me tell you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is in fact written for the "average pleb". We make judgements all the time about the most likely target for a search term. That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support . I support the primary topic argument, and consistency with Twin. Triplets are a triplet and a triplet and another triplet: if the primary topic is the multiple birth then that should be the case in plural and singular. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Consistency with Twin is a non-issue. Triplet (multiple birth) is much less common than twin (multiple birth); in contrast, a triplet lens or a triplet stanza is more common than a member of the Minnesota Twins, etc. tahc chat 15:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No evidence that the multiple birth meaning is used "more than all other topics combined" (WP:PRIMARYUSAGE) nor is that use the most clear general knowledge topic (as evidenced by it not having its own article). -- Netoholic @ 12:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Most likely topic. feminist (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Netoholic. Nomination is flawed as it is based on dictionary prominence and on pageviews of a page with scope far vaster than "one of three born in one birth". —  AjaxSmack  01:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.