Talk:Baba

Limiting entries

Please try to limit enties to this disambiguation page to articles in Wikipedia.

For various definitions of "baba" in other languages, please put them in Wictionary which is designed for this. Wiktionary can be found here.

The idea of disambiguation pages is to send people to the proper article. It is not intended as a mirror site for Wictionary which gives meanings for words in various languages. Note that there is a link on this disambiguation page to Wiktionary so people seeking such definitions will know just where to go.

The one exception to this Wikipedia link rule on this page is British Artist Blacksmiths Association. I'm hoping someone will write an article about it. If not, then it ought to go too. Chris 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors (including myself) tried to make this page organized and more concise. At the risk of being uncivil, I believe you reverted it to a sprawling mess, overwriting many rounds of useful edits. I don't want to get into an edit war, but there are way too many useless entries on this list. It's due in large part to your reversion that there are currently so many "dictionary" (particularly foreign language) entries.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what happend to this being a disambiguation page? This is totally misformatted.

Please reformat. For help in Wikistyle for disambiguation pages see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). See some examples such as School (disambiguation) and Defense. Chris 17:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see this page for understanding disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Disambiguation. AguireTS 21:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with similar pages

r.e. "For various definitions of "baba" in other languages, please put them in Wictionary which is designed for this. Wiktionary can be found here." Since when does wikipedia not allow for the description of these terms, especially when the first line of the article is:

"Baba is a word of Indo-European origin and means father in several languages."

At the very least it should be added that "Baba, a term that means grandmother" much in the same way that Nana or Poppa is described under their respective semi-disambiguation pages used for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halogenated (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; it should be consistent. I've removed both dictionary definitions per WP:NOT. Thanks for pointing it out. — Brian (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Did you remove the entry for Nana? It remains on the page too. Halogenated 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Header linking to Wiktionary

I have added a slightly unconventional header to the page explaining that this is a disambiguation page and pointing to the word at Wiktionary. This seems necessary since there are continual efforts to add non-English definitions for "Baba" to the page. Rather than continually repeating the same explanation I have placed it at the top. Hopefully this will help. Cott12 12:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a disambiguation page is not

From 'What Not to Include" at Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Lists

Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion).

Dictionary definitions

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. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary.

Cott12 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Why are all the non-European people named Baba listed under folklore? David Plum (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. I didn't even notice 'til you brought it up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Thank you. David Plum (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Contrary to WP:MOSDAB, this page has a list of name holders first. If this is a surname article, the dab information should be split off from it. If not, the name holders should go after things known as just Baba.

Descriptions of people as "the Romanian painter" only make sense if there was only one Romanian painter. The article the should be removed or replaced with a.

There are pipe links when redirects should be used (Bau mythology). There are redirects used when they aren't needed (Baba (film)).

There are operettas, districts, and foods that are not known as just Baba that should be move to a See also section.

And the link to another dab page should use the redirect, per WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in using the template "surname|Baba" in sections ... and why do name sections have to be of the == type rather than "In type"? I have been meaning to ask this for some time as it happens wherever you edit. Both imho make for an inelegant and non-userfriendly appearance. So far as I can see mos:dab doesn't require either but you are the expert so I may well be wrong. Abtract (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of name holders are not disambiguation entries. They should be moved to separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy articles, but when the lists are short it has been agreed to keep them as separate sections on the dab page. I usually add the surname template (or given name template) as a matter of course to reinforce that distinction, but if the list is very short, just adding the Category:Surnames would be okay instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that but why make such a big thing of it on the page (big headings and templates), why not simply have a section "In people" and put it last if you will? This is surely all mos:dab asks ... As it is now the name sections often overwhelm the whole page and become the most significant entry and surely that isn't what we want? Abtract (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB asks for a separate section: "For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list." If the name section overwhelms the dab list, then it's probably time to split the dab from the antroponymy article/list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: 90% of the people currently listed as having the "surname" or "given name" Baba have neither. Baba is an honorific title or term of endearment in many languages.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those should probably be removed or relocated to "See also" then, if they are neither commonly referred to as just "Baba" and are not named Baba. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, the only people with the family name "Baba" on this page are Corneliu Baba (Romanian painter) and Jaroslav Bába (Czech high jumper). The rest are adopted names or titles of respect, as in Father Francis. Among the ones that are suppose to be 'given names' it ought to be pointed out that Baba is not the actual given name of Gary Dell'Abate, but is a facesious alias used on the Howard Stern show. See the definition of a given name. Also note that Wikipedia discourages filling disambiguation pages with names that merely include a word. See for instance Watson (that does not include all the people with the last name Watson) and compare it to Thomas Watson where such a disambiguation makes sense as confusion is bound to occur. David Plum (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create a Baba (name) and be done with it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would need a Smith (name) and a Jones (name) and a Watson (name) and you would wind up with the telephone book of famous people. It makes sense to have a disambiguation page for a name when both first and last are the same for two or more people as in Sai Baba. David Plum (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then create those pages. Otherwise, I'd like to format this page similarly to Seru (disambiguation). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to stress something that I think a lot of western people don't understand. In most cases the word "Baba" isn't really a name. It's a title. So it's like having "Lt." in front of the name of a person who was a Lieutenant. In India and parts of the middle-east this honorific title "Baba" is simply appended to the created or adopted names of respected people to denote a person of great respect like Mahatma (which literally trasnslates as "great soul" from maha meaning great and atma meaning soul). So these are not last names. In India and Pakistan for instance they literally have hundreds of people who have the suffix Baba added to their name. So there are hundreds of Babas just as there are hundreds of priests referred to as Father so and so. The word Baba literally means "father" in dozens of Indo-Europeon languages. Baba Mountain means Father Mountain. In North Carolina there is a Grandfather Mountain. So I think people are confusing this honrific eastern title for a last name, when it rarely is. Though in the two cases given (both Eastern Europeon) it is a last name or family name. But it is never a family name in the East as this would be seen as a kind of blasphemy. Hope this helps. David Plum (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really wanted to include the Indian gurus in this page, the right title would be People with the honorific title Baba. As for Gary Dell'Abate, Baba is neither his given name, his family name, nor is it an honorific title. Rather it is a comedic alias or comedic nickname used for a radio and TV show meant to be funny. A given name is a name given to demarcate different people in a family with the same last name. Dell'Abate's parents don't have the last name Baba. So for him you'd have to come up with a heading just for him like Nicknames (which is how it is explained in the article about him.) Since Dell'Abate is the only person so far with this comedic nickname it might make more sense to put him under Other or See Also along with for instance the Townshend song Baba O'Reily. A small problem with this is that you'd have to create a piped link to his name or let it go to a redirect page since the article is under Gary Patrick Dell'Abate and not Baba Booey. David Plum (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing to consider. I think it's not a good idea to list all the people who have the honorific title in their names as this is a slippery slope. There are literally hundreds (count them) of people and objects on Wikipedia that would have to be included. It makes more sense to include those terms where "Baba" is literally what someone would be looking up and might have confused with another Baba. I thought that was what disambiguation pages were for. Otherwise they become lists. So I'd leave it pretty much alone at this point. As it stands it has the people who actually have that name as their real name. Adding Baba Booey is complicated by the fact that there is no article by that name. And adding every word with Baba would amount to hundreds of potential links. David Plum (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help dramatize the problem I'm talking about when listing people and objects that have the word "Baba" in them. This is only a very partial sampling of what is on Wikipedia that includes the name Baba: Count them here.

Meher Baba Baba Yaga Sathya Sai Baba Shohei Baba Baba Gurgur Ghafar Baba Shigeru Baba Baba Vanga Złota Baba Baba Jigida Jale Baba Judah ben Baba Hazrat Tajuddin Baba Baba Deep Singh Gazi Baba municipality Fortuneteller Baba Saga Baba Budangiri Bava Kamma Sai Baba of Shirdi Baba Zula Rachid Baba Ahmed Ali Baba Bujang Lapok Baba Sali Tupeni Baba Baba Fakruddin Baba Kalyani Jaroslav Bába Hariakhan Baba Oruç Baba Baba Amte Shivapuri Baba Aglar Baba Baba Vida Aglar Baba Baba clan Neem Karoli Baba Baba Azmi Cape Baba Baba Rabba Baba Ana Baba Sy Baba Samit Ganesh Baba Baba Sawan Singh Baba Hyder Vali of Mulbagal Baba clan (Shinano) Ahmad Baba al Massufi Baba Dhansar Baba Budan Baba Gurditta Baba Budan Ammo Baba Harabati baba tekke Kathia Baba Baba Ben Buta Baba Adamu Baba Buddha Baba Novac Baba Saad Youssef Baba Baba Sissoko Irsadi Baba Baba Suwe Baba Nobushige Baba Dochia Tun Ghafar Baba Museum Baba Nobuharu Baba Ishak Pir Baba Baba Yara Stadium Ponda Baba Baba River Baba Ramdevji Baba Taher Baba Burnu Imad Baba Baba Kalyani (film) Dovška Baba David Plum (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Plum puts it very, very well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Баба — русское традиционное или простонародное название женщины.

Баба — русский разговорный синоним слова «бабушка».

Баба (иудаизм) — древнееврейский термин «дверь, ворота»; в переносном смысле раздел книги или трактата Цйфыву (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro line

What's the deal here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read mos:dab#introductory line? Ofcourse you have ... then why are you editing in defiance of it? It is not necessary to repeat all variations of capitalization, punctuation or spelling: "AU may refer to" is preferable to "AU, au, Au or A-U may refer to"; and "Saiyuki may refer to" is preferable to "Saiyuki, Saiyūki, Saiyûki, or Saiyuuki may refer to". This is very clear but you seem not to want to know. Abtract (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clearly given my reason here, but it seems you need to see a couple of samples. Take a look at Saiyuki and Arc. That should convince you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you have edited Saiyuki to your preference despite the clear guidance on MOSDAB means little. Arc and ARC, based on current discussions at MOSDAB, are allowable exceptions to the general rule for clarity. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sess, I know English is not your first language and I applaud your attempts to become proficient but really you must know what "initialism" and "abbreviation" means after watching the dabate elsewhere ... and I know you understand that minor spelling/diacritic variants are discouraged by mos:dab#Introductory line because you fought aginst the current guideline so please don't pretend ignorance. Abtract (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely need a dictionary Abtract. This was not constructive, and you know it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this edit by User:Bkonrad? Abtract (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Another person agreed with you. Only reason why I see you guys have a point is because there are three terms being disambiguated while the MoS suggests that only two should be mentioned in the introductory line. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I give up, you are absolutely beyond saving. I offered you the hand of friendship which you so stupidly rejected and now you show your complete ignorance of the English language and mos:dab in your normal uptight, confused way ... OK mate get on with it, it will all end in tears but that's your problem. Abtract (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault that you're being dense. I guess Collectonian was right, those "farewells" were simply a ruse. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection and Baba (mystic)

In case anyone might be wondering why this page is protected, the dispute is over User:Sesshomaru's repeated edits to include Baba (mystic) as a redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. As I tried to explain to him on my talk page and at Talk:Baba (mystic), this is an ambiguous reference because there are many persons known as Baba that were also mystics. older ≠ wiser 03:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm pretty sure we can make Baba (mystic) an exception. The individual seems to be the only person who is directly known as just 'Baba'. The other mystics that Bkonrad has disclosed to me appear to just have 'Baba' as part of their full name, but not as a pseudonym. For instance, take a look at Sabrina (actress). Of course, there are plenty of other actresses with the same name, but only one apparently just uses the name 'Sabrina'. I'd say that's a fine precedent to support the redirect, that, and the guidelines of course. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that is the only other person known as just "Baba"? Is that based on some sort of evidence? As I have tried to explain to you, apparently without fruit, is that baba is a common honorific term. Many of these people are referred to as simply Baba, and a few of the articles even explicitly indicate as much if you would have bothered to investigate. All of them could reasonably be called simply Baba and all are mystics. Baba is not actually part of the given or family name for most of these. The comparison with Sabrina is mistaken. A more apt comparison would be creating a redirect for Father (priest) and pointing it to a single person. older ≠ wiser 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have glanced at the articles you showed me, but none of them made a point of the name. Sure, it's an honorific, but this one is the guy's titular name. If there is a famous priest recognized by the name 'Father', then I see no compelling reason to avoid creating a purpose for that. BTW, if you want another similar precedent, see where the links Naruto (fictional character) and Naruto (character) take you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does "titular name" even mean anything? In Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, all it says about Baba is that Sarkar was affectionately referred to as Baba by his disciples. (Without any citation I might note, although I've no doubt it is true since the term is a common honorific among Hindu holy men.) Baba isn't even any sort of formal name or title for him. The point I'm making about Father, which you seem to be missing (perhaps being deliberately obtuse) is that many priests are commonly or affectionately known simply as "Father". To create a redirect such as Father (priest) would be uselessly ambiguous. It is the same with Baba (mystic). Many of these Persian and Hindu mystics are commonly and affectionately referred to as Baba. To single out one is misleading. older ≠ wiser 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep accusing me of being stubborn or ignorant or whatnot. I keep attempting to get through to you, but it's like I'm always wasting my breath. Oh well. I have notified my mentor about this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru, unfortunately you are wrong on the facts. Many Hindu mystics/ascetics/holymen use the honorific Baba (see also sri and -ji) and will often be referred by simply that appellation by their followers. See also the note I left at Talk:Baba (mystic). Abecedare (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare, I'd rather you wait until we got an agreement going. Now you made the link Baba (mystic) at this section redundant since it redirects back here. Can you undo this change, just for now? Or at least set up a Baba (name) and have the link target there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about circular linking. However since Baba is rarely the given name for the holymen, it may be better to start a page Baba (honorific). If that sounds ok to all, I can create one with appropriate references. Abecedare (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Give me a few minutes. Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superb ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<deindent>
I have created a stub at Baba (honorific) and pointed Baba (mystic) towards it. I guess this page can be unprotected now and a simple link to the honorific added. Feel free to expand the new page! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent resolution Abecedare. And one that could have been reached without all the drama if Sessh would have bothered to try and understand rather then blindly revert to his defective versions. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Bkonrad! I'm trying to turn this thing around and forget what you did. Do not instigate this matter further. I'm not afraid of initiating another thread at WP:AIN. In other words, drop it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are hardly one fit to issue commands of any sort. How about if you apologize first for being so hasty as to revert to your version without waiting for an explanation and then continuing to do so even after it was made very clear to you why your edits were mistaken. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIAL ALERT

The users Bkonrad and Matthew Peter Davis are removing a true brand. Proof? https://www.unilever.hu/brands/our-brands/baba.html Maybe if you can translate it. Maybe you admin can block those users create a page about Baba (hygiene products). (Sorry to threaten those users but that Baba, hygiene project company is ACTUALLY real.) PeterBaba1289 (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References and external links should never be placed on disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are only meant to facilitate navigation to existing Wikipedia articles that provide coverage of the topic. older ≠ wiser 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are meant to help readers find articles that cover the topic. They aren't ment to list all the meanings of the word. Sjö (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baba as grandmother?

According to Wiktionary, one definition of Baba is "grandmother: many Slavic languages (such as Bulgarian, Russian, Czech and Polish), Romanian, Yiddish, Japanese." Any chance of getting it mentioned here? Mprogers (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]