Talk:Fluier

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Romanian shepherd's fluier-whip

• ... that for Romanian shepherds in the Carpathians, even the staff and the whip could sing, as the fluier (flute) was sometimes built directly into them?

• Source: Original Romanian: Asemenea fluiere sînt uneori construite într-o bîtă («fluier în botă »), în care caz se taie în tub o deschizătură corespunzătoare găurii de jos a ţevii. Alteori, un fluier cu dop şi şase deschizături pentru degete se face în codirişca unui bici («fluier bici»).

English Translation: Such fluiers are sometimes constructed within a stick or staff (fluier în botă, literally 'flute in a stick'), in which case an aperture corresponding to the lowest finger hole of the pipe is cut into the outer casing. Alternatively, a fipple fluier (with a whistle mechanism) and six finger holes is constructed within the handle (shaft) of a whip (fluier bici, 'whip fluier').

Alexandru, Tiberiu (1956). Instrumentele muzicale ale poporului romîn [The musical instruments of the Romanian people] (in Romanian). București: Editura de stat pentru literatură şi artă, p.63

• • Reviewed:

Created by Iurii.s (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Iurii.s (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC).

• Article was new enough (created on the same day as the nom) and appears neutrally written. Copyvio is unlikely, and I see no problem with the sources (WP:AGF). Approving, since the hook seems pretty interesting to me, however, I would recommend adding some more wikilinks to the hook. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: Please add an icon.--Launchballer 22:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fluier cu dop (Hodac, 1965).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Europeana.eu-09102- RMAH 108307 NL-5a2188e8921fb5b4edc187aa3733301b.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Autochthonous

Moved from User talk:Викидим § Fluier

Did you search the page for "autochthonous"?

The word was part of the article before I formed it into a link to help those unfamiliar with the vocabulary. Of course, I only did this to one occurrence.

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I assume that we are discussing this edit of mine. In this case, the problem was with the target (as indicated in the comment): the link was pointing to WP:disambiguation (DAB) "Autochthon" with multiple meanings, none of which fit the intended sense ("manufactured in the particular area"). So, there were two issues: (1) the link to a DAB should be preplaced by a particular meaning and (2) the intended meaning was missing. Therefore, the link was not useful: a reader who would not know the meaning of the word will get no help from following the link. I preferred to replace the wording to a simpler one. But leaving the word unlinked was an equally valid option, as the reader could either infer the correct option or use a dictionary. Sincerely, Викидим (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Викидим,

You assume correctly. I formed the link because it was (and still is) helpful. I didn't want to change the word used as it was an apt choice. The WP:DAB covers several different situations, and autochthonous leads to the broad-concept of Indigenism. None of the articles on autochthon talk about indigenous cultural objects, but the broad-concept is clear, making the link helpful.

It is incorrect to say "with multiple meanings" as there is one over-arching conceptual meaning.

It is incorrect to say "manufactured in the particular area" as this is one small aspect of an indigenous cultural object.

• inspiration
• design
• creation
• use
• tradition
• development
• inspiration of other ico's

Your two issues are also incorrect;

• … should be preplaced[sic] … Wp:D does not mandate the deletion of disambiguation links
  Instead WP:D states ″In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles.″
• the intended meaning was missing. the intended meaning was the over-arching concept – only the specific was missing.
  • The link was useful
  • Any reader would get help from following the link

Leaving the word unlinked was not an equally valid option, as this removes the required navigation.
The link leads the reader to the concept, with several articles illustrating that concept in the particular.
Also, it has three links to a wiktionary*

NB * (other dictionaries are available)

Summary:

• Your assumption was correct
• Your dumbing-down of the original wording was misguided
• Your failure to treat similar occurrences of the word consistently was an oversight
• Your sincerity is appreciated, but I'd be more appreciative of your getting more than one thing correct.

One question has been left unanswered …

Did you search the page for "autochthonous"?

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear colleague, (1) None of the articles on autochthon talk about indigenous cultural objects is precisely my point: the link was not very useful (2) My change of the word conforms to MOS:INTRO: avoid difficult-to-understand terminology (3) Did you search the page for "autochthonous"? - yes. Викидим (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Then why didn't you change the second occurrence too? Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The second use was not in the lead. Викидим (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The first use was not in the lead.

It was in >> History >> Origin and early evidence Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the goal of this discussion. Can you point to a particular problem with the current wording? Викидим (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Very few of the statements you have made are correct.

You are now trying to put the onus on me, whereas the onus is on you to justify your edits.

I am trying to engage you in discussion as an alternative to reverting your edits.

You try to justify dumbing-down the wording by implying it was in the lead. It wasn't.

I have answered all your objections to the original wording.

Do you now understand the goal of this discussion?

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I do not. Is your goal to restore the link? Restore the autochthonous word? Something else? Викидим (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think you do, but you are being recalcitrant.

The link was helpful, apt and not in the lead. You should therefore respect the style of the original author, as I did.

My goal is for you to understand, you have to take responsibility for your own goals. Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, my goal was explicitly stated: to avoid a confusing link that was leading to a DAB page with none of the links matching the context (you have acknowledged the latter fact). If one thinks that the reader can be confused with a big word, it might be useful to either (1) simplify language, (2) add a new article on the meaning of "autochthonous" when applied to manufactured items and link to it, or (3) do nothing (revert to the text before your change and leave the confusion to be resolved between the reader and a dictionary). Redirect to a page that does not explain the meaning seems pointless to me, as it makes it harder for the reader to reach #3. I chose #1. I am also OK with #2 and #3. #3 is particularly tempting to me at this moment, as it stops a discussion on whether the change has lead to simplification or dumbing-down, it allows to respect the style of the original author in a very trivial way, and allows me to aovid accusations of being recalcitrant (incidentally, it pays to be WP:NICE when addressing one's colleagues, so I would appreciate a cessation of ad hominem arguments). Викидим (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I, also, am happy with #3.

• #1 I regard as dumbing-down, Preferred option for the lead, but a missed opportunity in the body of the article
• #2 Good idea in principle, but where will it end, applying the concept to everything? And I think it would be a very short article, or redundant

Types of disambiguation

The DAB page in question is not like Mercury (Planet, Element, Mythological character etc.) but instead a collection of links to different related things.

BUT 7 out of 8 of the factual links are all relevant. Choosing one over the others would also miss the opportunity, and also miss the three wiktionary links.

That's TEN relevant links! The other links would not confuse a reader, as one is a butterfly and the others are fictional.

Most of the "See Also" links are also somewhat relevant.

Pointless?

Therefore the link to the DAB page would not be pointless. On the contrary, it would facilitate the resolution of any confusion with links to Wikipedia and to a dictionary.

Misquotation

You have quoted me as saying "None of the articles on autochthon talk about indigenous cultural objects"

while ignoring the rest of my sentence ", but the broad-concept is clear, making the link helpful."

So I have not acknowledged the former and it is not a fact, without being joined to the latter.

The former talks specifically, while the latter talks in general. So most of the articles talk in general about autochthonous/indigenous, and can be applied to cultural objects.

NB "broad-concept" is itself a concept explained in Broad-concept_articles – Part of WP:DAB

Character?

PS I did not accuse you of being a recalcitrant person, but of being recalcitrant in a very specific instance. So accusations of ad hominem nature of criticism are unfounded. I don't expect you to like criticism, but I have restricted this to criticising your edits and your justification for them, ie "… the substance of the argument itself".

You were attempting to deflect the discussion, to argue against a stated goal, rather than defending your edits. An obvious Strawman tactic.

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I, also, am happy with #3. Perfect. #3 it is then. Викидим (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:SunloungerFrog § Fluier edit

Hi SunloungerFrog,

Do you realise that your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluier&diff=prev&oldid=1334092123 Edits per option #3 on the talk page discussion actually implements option #1 ?

My edits implemented option #3, as agreed – and the links provide the reader with the tools, provided by WP, to resolve the confusion mentioned by Викидим, and discussed at length on Talk page.

(the second link was added after Викидим removed the first link – implying it was in the lead – only one is needed) Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I think option three was revert to the text before your change and leave the confusion to be resolved between the reader and a dictionary, which I did. Autochthonous no longer has a dubious link to a DAB page. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

This is my first edit. – https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluier&diff=prev&oldid=1328948991

Note that autochthonous and indigenous (linked) pre-exist my edit, which only made the former into a link.

This was then edited by Викидим 2 weeks later.

PS move this to Fluier talk page if you wish.

Tc 13 17 19 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I had not seen your edit on 22 Dec, in which you originally and incorrectly introduced the wikilink to the DAB page autochthon. What had confused me was your re-addition of that wikilink on 15 Jan, against the consensus that had been reached on 14 Jan, that the wikilink should not be there.

In any case, I am content with the text that is in the article currently. If you would like to restore the word autochthonous to the first sentence of Fluier#Origin and early evidence, I won't revert, but please don't wikilink it. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I suggest that, if you'd like to continue the discussion further, you do so on the article's talk page where all may participate. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)