Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Template names

I have noticed that some disambiguation templates have been renamed from their established "short" names to longer names, for example Template:Hospitaldis to Template:Hospital disambiguation. This seems pretty pointless to me, given that the established names are well known and listed places like Mediawiki:Disambiguationspage. At least one editor has gone so far as to wheel war today when I restored the original name of the fully-protected Template:Schooldis when it was renamed without any discussion.

Rather than having people randomly rename templates, which are not likely to be on watchlists, we should work out once and for all whether these moves should be done. The main argument for the moves is that editors are somehow not able to look up the meaning of a template when they see it used, but that seems like a very weak argument to me. For example Template:Schooldis has 1,800 uses, and it is not clear why the name that has been established for years is no longer adequate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it redirect to the new title? Isn't it better to have the more comprehensible name as the actual title of the template page when you view it?--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The documentation for the template is usually pretty clear when viewing the actual template; the template name at the top is never going to explain the meaning, unless we rename the template to Template:This is a disambiguation page about hospitals. But we have unlimited space in the documentation to describe the template at length. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And how is a newbie going to find that? They will at minimum need to know what a template is, that templates are listed at the bottom of the edit page, that they can click there to go to the template page, and that there will be documentation on the template page. The template name should explain its function in a sensible manner, in as near plain text as makes sense. Historically programmers have had to contend with laziness, memory constraints (I had programs that would only fit in memory with variable names stripped to the minimum), hunt-and-peck typing (and punched cards), tokenisers that don't deal with spaces and other such problems. The resulting shibboleths are not suitable for public consumption. Proof: if they were books would be written without vowels and spaces saving a fortune in paper. The intelligent newbie will correlate semantic hints with page content, the more obscure the hints the fewer will pass the filter "intelligent newbie". Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

How is a "newbie" going to have the idea to make a disambiguation page in the first place? New editors see templates all the time (think infoboxes) and they are quickly going to learn that templates have documentation. More likely, a newbie would copy one disambiguation page when making a new one. But changing one abstract template name to another is not going to help a new user in any significant way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In so far as I think it matters at all (which it hardly does), I agree with Richard. Since the shorter names still work as transparent redirects, all the advantages seem to be on the side of the more comprehensible name for the template page itself. --Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How could this possibly matter the slightest bit, when the redirects like {{schooldis}} still work just fine? There's been a system-wide strong trend over the last two years to consistently using plain-English template names ({{citation needed}}, etc.), even if shortcuts are available for using them ({{fact}}, {{cn}}, etc.). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"importance" versus "historical significance"

David Levy made this change (and some others) that I reverted. I think that makes the second clause of primary topic so narrow that the we'll be left with just counting hits to talk about usage, which already gets too much weight in my opinion. What do others think? David, explain what you're thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Both the text and the discussion behind it focus on historical significance (e.g. that "a currently popular actress is [not] primary over a person with centuries of enduring historical notability"). I seek to clarify this point.

My concern is that "importance" is too broad and will trigger inappropriate assertions of primacy based on the opinion that a particular subject is "more important" than others with the same name (e.g. that Patrick Lee (medical researcher) should be moved to Patrick Lee because the other Patrick Lees haven't worked on cancer treatments and therefore are "less important").

For a non-hypothetical example, see the many move discussions pertaining to Georgia. It's been argued that the country is "more important" than the U.S. state (and therefore should occupy the base title) because it's much older and has an independent government. Meanwhile, it's been argued that the U.S. state is "more important" than the country (and therefore should occupy the base title) because it's geographically larger and has a higher population and a far larger economy. I've responded to both arguments by pointing out that "relative importance" isn't a naming criterion. I'd hate to see the new text reignite that debate and others like it, especially given its basis on a specific, unrelated issue (long-term prominence vs. recent trends). —David Levy 03:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What "new text" are you seeing that you're concerned about? And why do you think "importance" should be as narrow as "historically significant", given the the longstanding text includes "enduring notability and educational value"? I think lots of things reach "enduring notability" status without being part of history, and these are sometimes being ignored when a title gets used for a new movie or something, because in usage stats the new movie get more hits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the text added in September (as a result of the discussion to which I linked).

That's when the phrase "enduring notability and educational value" was introduced. The operative word is "enduring". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so such a determination inherently pertains to history (past events).

I quoted the aforementioned discussion, in which it was noted that a currently popular actress shouldn't be deemed primary over a woman with "centuries of enduring historical notability". Your example of "a new movie" is comparable. The point is that one subject might be talked about more (and receive more page views) currently, but that doesn't automatically give it primacy over a subject whose prominence has endured for many years. This is what I seek to clarify, as the word "importance" is likely to be misinterpreted in the manner that I described above.

Please elucidate your reading of "historical significance", which apparently is much narrower than I intended. (In particular, what did you mean when you stated that some of the subjects in question aren't "part of history"?)

Perhaps we can come up with alternative wording that addresses your concerns and mine. —David Levy 19:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The "not a crystal ball" thing is for article content, where we don't make predictions; it shouldn't be a barrier to exercising editorial judgement. But I agree that we're talking about things in the past; we would not claim that a recent movie topic has "enduring notability", at least until it wins an Oscar or something spectacular. Movies like The Graduate that clearly have enduring notability might not be seen as part of "history" by editors who construe that term more narrowly than you intend, since it's unlikely to be mentioned in a history book, and that's the sort of thing I worry about. I think we are in agreement on the intent, but I see things being read too narrowly too often. Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that we agree on the section's intent. We also share a concern that it's likely to be misinterpreted ("importance" taken too broadly or "historical significance" taken too narrowly).

I haven't encountered the definition of "history" that you describe (and having studied radio/television/film in college, I'll note that that The Graduate is covered extensively in film history courses and textbooks, with this book dedicated solely to that film and its impact).

I'd be happy to use alternative wording, but I'm struggling to think of something suitable. Any ideas? —David Levy 20:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, not a good example of a film with enduring notability but not obvious "historical significance". Nevertheless, I worry that your wording narrows the applicability of this clause. I think the broad "importance" with some specific modes of importance as examples is best, leaving open the option for other ways it might be important. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You've acknowledged that the text in question refers specifically to a scenario in which a subject's enduring prominence over a long period precludes primacy on the part of another subject with the same name that happens to generate more mentions/page views today. "Leaving open the option for other ways it might be important" ignores the context of both the section and the discussion leading to its creation.

As noted above, some connotations of "importance" are not appropriate considerations when determining article titles. Nonetheless, they've been raised time and again in move discussions, triggering drawn-out arguments with no hope of achieving anything constructive. That was before the word "importance" was present, and it's safe to assume that inserting it won't help matters.

I disagree with your assertion that "historical significance" is likely to be misinterpreted, but I'm more than willing to brainstorm alternative wording. I want nothing more than to clarify the meaning that we agree is intended. —David Levy 05:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "long-term significance" as an alternative to "importance"? Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. If "historical" is subject to the sort of misinterpretation that Dicklyon describes ("found in history books"), "long-term" obviously isn't. —David Levy 07:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds better to me, too. Let's put a full sentence here and see if we can get others to agree. Will we have both "long-term significance" and "enduring notability" in it? Maybe that's OK. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The text would read as follows:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.

Of course, if other changes are desired, they can be discussed as well. —David Levy 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support that if you adopted the final sentence from the section above, so we would have:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, a disambiguation page is required unless consensus determines one article is the primary topic.

This is also consistent with what WP:TWODABS says. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than "required", which is a bit of a red flag for bull-headedness, I'd rather say a disambiguation page is recommended if there is conflict. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, phrasing as a recommendation is likely better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not proposing that such a statement be omitted (or included). Whatever decision is reached in the other discussion will apply. —David Levy 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that you focus our attention on those sentences, I can see why we sometimes have trouble: what if a topic is primary with respect to usage, but by the long-term significance criterion no topic is primary (or vice versa). This is not a case where only one in relevant, and it's not a case where there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. So what is it? I think it would be best to say that in cases like this, either clause might lead to a conclusion that no topic is primary. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This problem is one reason why I believe we should go exclusively by usage in reliable sources, and page view counts, and forget about the nebulous long-term significance criterion altogether, which was only recently added. Consider a case where, say, usage for A, B and C are about the same, but B seems to be primary per historical criteria. So now we're going to send everyone to B even though 2/3rd are not looking for it? How are our readers served by that? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This numbers game is contrary to your stated goal of naming stability. A new movie will also become primary this way. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Stability in naming is important, of course, but not more important than serving our readers. Presuming it's not for reasons of brief (a few weeks or months) high popularity, if there is a topic that readers are most likely to be seeking for a given term, then that article should be at that term (or the term needs to redirect to that article). If we have to move articles to achieve that, so be it. That's the best reason to ever move any article... to serve our readers better. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In the scenario that you describe, it might be sensible to determine that the primacy in one area is insufficient to overcome the absence of primacy in the other. (Therefore, no topic is considered "primary".) It depends on the specifics. No guideline can replace editorial judgement. —David Levy 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant." doesn't mean that only one of the two concepts (usage and long-term significance) is measurable; it means that only one establishes primacy.

If a comparison between/among topics establishes no primacy in area x, the question then becomes whether sufficient primacy exists in area y. As illustrated in Born2cycle's hypothetical example, if predominance in area x is split among three or more topics, this might not be the case. —David Levy 23:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Importance" is a nice idea, but not too useful in serving the reader. The goal should be to serve the reader the page sought where possible, and where not possible avoid serving the reader a page that does not make sense. Where there is agreement on the primary topic, it doesn't matter what criteria we set here. Where there is disagreement on the primary topic, the over-abundance of criteria here means that there are two possible answers: a primary topic (or none) that best serves the reader, or a primary topic that a group of editors is passionate about. I've found that editors all want to best serve the reader on general topics, but will passionately argue against that using whatever criteria are listed (or not) here for favored topics that are not primary. Titles need only be as stable as the readership; as the readership changes, the titles can and should change too. But where there's agreement for a primary topic, we should use it; where there's not, we should use a topic that when reached would not surprise the readership; and where there is no such unsurprising topic, we should use a disambiguation page at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed clarification: No consensus for primary topic means the page becomes a disambiguation page

The guideline current reads:

In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary importance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.

I propose we change it to:

In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary importance. In such a case, a disambiguation page is required unless consensus determines one article is the primary topic.

This explicitly (rather than the current implicitly) defaults to a disambiguation page if no one can agree which of the pages is primary. It says "if you can't agree, then clearly some readers are going to be quite surprised when they get here." It implies that the disappointment of a disambiguation page is preferable to the surprise and confusion of a wrong page (perhaps we could even throw that into the guideline). Josh Parris 22:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• I can live with that change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sensible suggestion. Bazonka (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• I support the general sense of this. Though I suggest that perhaps we need to qualify that the conflict needs to have credibility based on some sort of evidence. That is, a conflict where a small number of editors assert importance based essentially on ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKE arguments lacks credibility. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is by no means a clarification; it would be a major change to current practice for which there is no consensus. This was just proposed and discussed in September. Current practice with move requests is that where there is no consensus as to primary topic, the stable status quo prevails, whether that means an article or a dab page is at the title. This change would bias the outcome toward dab pages when there is no consensus about which topic is primary (as opposed to consensus that there is no primary topic, which is not the same thing). Those who favor dab pages would prevail in 'no consensus' discussions even if many editors agree that would not be the best solution. There is certainly no consensus that dab pages are always preferable to a "wrong page"; some people think dab pages are "wrong" pages. Station1 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, oppose, [Not necessarily opposed, there may be something in this if it's formulated right - see my later comments] this keeps being proposed and is really quite silly when you think about it. If there's no consensus, we default to no change (which at least provides stability, prevents broken links, and discourages time-wasting proposals about borderline cases). Declaring from our remote and uninformed position that some change should be made somewhere in spite of lack of consensus for it, just because it happens to be a change in a particular direction, is entirely contrary to the way we do things.--Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• To both Station1 and Kotniski, similar language (i.e, protracted disagreement may be an indication that there is no primary topic) was the standard before it was removed. I'm not sure when that was discussed, but I recall there was opposition to removing it, but it was pushed through anyways. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that said "may" be a sign, which is pretty meaningless. It "may" equally well be a sign that there is a primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. While I agree that "may" is pretty weaselly, I don't see how disagreement would be a sign that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, so disagreement in itself is not really a sign one way or the other. It "may" be a sign that the case is so borderline that it doesn't honestly matter which way it's decided, that's all. But it's absurd to say "disagreement about which of X or Y is true may be a sign that X is true" without making the corresponding statement about Y.--Kotniski (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The old language referred to extended discussion, which presumably excludes such borderline cases. Cases that generate extended discussion typically have participants who do care about which way it's decided. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that people care about something is no evidence that it actually matters. Or indeed that the position of those who care deserves to be given any weight. Arguments should count rather than passion.--Kotniski (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot dismiss quite as blithely as you cases where people care deeply about something that might seem trivial to others. Of course there has to be some substance beyond LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT arguments -- that is a given and really should be made clear in the guideline. older ≠ wiser 01:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support, although I feel it is a waste of my time to participate in these discussions because those users who dislike disambiguation pages will filibuster any proposed change to the guidelines. There doesn't seem to be any genuine effort here to reach a consensus through reasoned discussion and compromise, just endless repetition of entrenched positions. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? This proposal seems to be doing exactly what you criticize - instead of allowing each case to be settled on its merits through reasoned discussion, it tries to force through a particular answer "from on high". This isn't about who likes disambiguation pages and who doesn't - I presume there is no-one who believes there should always or never be disambiguation pages - but trying to judge the right answer in each case.--Kotniski (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The proposal doesn't change the guidance that where there is a consensus that a particular topic is primary, the article about that topic should be at the primary name. It's not dictating anything. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the proposal doesn't change the guidance where there is consensus that a particular topic is primary, but it does change the guidance where there isn't consensus about which topic is primary. In those cases it would dictate that a dab page is "required", and that is the objection. Station1 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) But surely you can see what it does change - it means that if there is no consensus, then one side (the "anti-primary-topic" side) gets its way. This is a fairly obvious attempt to bias the scales of discussion in a particular direction.--Kotniski (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that a particular topic should be treated as primary even if there is not a consensus to do so? I fail to see the logic there. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if the established status quo is that it's treated as primary. This is exactly the same logic as we always apply - if there's no consensus for a change, we leave things as they are. It's not a perfect solution, but we have to do something in no-consensus situations, and this one at least provides stability (which is another factor in reducing reader confusion), prevents the breaking of links, and helps discourage the making of proposals "for the sake of it". --Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the worst reasons presented. It contributes to the blight of first-created topics squatting on topic names with pretense of being the primary topic. A primary topic has a unique definition and status within Wikipedia and I don't think we should default to assuming that the "status quo" is necessarily legitimately established. older ≠ wiser 03:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there's no strong argument for keeping it there, it won't be. But what you seem to support can hardly be any better - you want us to default to assuming that there is no primary topic, even if the arguments that there is one are equally strong. Do you realize how much disruption this has the potential of causing? Thousands of long-dead lame move debates will be reopened once people see that the goalposts have moved (often these things are motivated by politics or personal interest rather than genuine considerations of primariness), articles will be moved for no reason, links broken, links that people have got used to making will not longer be correct - and all because of the attractive but manifestly faulty logic that "no consensus for X or Y implies X (but - aribtrarily - not Y)".--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that there would be any more disruption that there already is or that there there is any shortage of lame move debates. I think the proposal would provide a stronger resolution to such intractable disagreements (though as always with such disagreement, one that will not satisfy everyonw). older ≠ wiser 13:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; "the disappointment of a disambiguation page" is in no way "preferable to the surprise and confusion of a wrong page". Powers ^T 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I posit that treating similar situations consistently is preferable to leaving things hanging at random (and forever open to endless debates). What's more productive in the long run—having one clear way to deal with situations of the same type, or having to waste countless hours days debating which page is a more qualified "primary topic" candidate every time the situation arises? Those same countless hours days are better spent improving the actual articles (which, I realize, for some is not what they are here to do). In practice, it doesn't even matter which page is a dab and/or which page has a hatnote and/or which page is "primary"—there is always going to be a number of readers who end up on the wrong page (and that's regardless of which definition of "wrong" one uses). When it comes to slim margins this particular proposal addresses, I can't think of a more pointless exercise than trying to reduce that number by arguing each individual case.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 15:57 (UTC)

If the second sentence of the proposal were changed to read "In such a case, a disambiguation page is not permitted and the article with the most views must be chosen as primary topic", that would also treat similar situations consistently and address all the concerns mentioned, but I doubt we'd find agreement for that wording. Station1 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And if that were the proposal, I'd support it as well, for all the same reasons. It doesn't matter how this is handled, as long as the practice is consistent and reduces the number of unnecessary debates in the long run. The needs of the readers are best addressed by serving them quality content (which under any setup is super easy to find as long as a network of dabs/redirects/hatnotes is implemented—it's not like we don't have the tools!), not by arguing ad nauseam which page is more "primary" than the other and why. Some folks are apparently forgetting that in the heat of all those debates.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)

But still nothing is consistent. Sometimes we have primary topics, sometimes we have no primary topics. There will always be a dividing line, and there will always be debate about which side of the line particular cases lie. Biasing the discussions either in one direction or another is just silly - and will encourage more pointless debate, not less, as people are encouraged to make proposals in borderline cases knowing that they no longer have to gain consensus for their proposals, they just have to make enough noise to ensure "no consensus".--Kotniski (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A total consistency is, of course, hardly ever attainable. But this proposal is not at all about that. It's about following a certain course when there is no consensus on which topic is primary (and whether there even is one). Regardless of the volume of the debates, when consensus is lacking, I dare say it's pretty easy to spot. That's how the AfD, CfD, etc. processes work, and I don't see why the approach proposed above wouldn't.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 17:58 (UTC)

I don't see why you think the current approach doesn't work - it's the same approach that's used for other page-naming discussions, and is basically consistent with the approach used for *fD and all other decision-making really: proposals for action need consensus in favour, not just an absence of consensus against.--Kotniski (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The current approach doesn't work because of the endless discussions over the pages where two (or more) parties can't agree on the "primary topic" and neither party has convincing arguments overwhelmingly in its favor. Having a default course of action (such as one proposed here) puts an end to that (and hopefully channels the parties' efforts to something more productive, like actual editing). As long as there is no clear consensus regarding the primary topic, there is no "action"—the page simply defaults to being a dab.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 29, 2011; 20:48 (UTC)

In what way is that "no action"? If there was no dab before, then making it into a dab (and consequently having to fix all the links) is obviously an "action". And as I keep pointing out, this will cause more unproductive discussion, not less, as people who want to create dab pages everywhere (or who dislike dab pages on principle, depending on which version of the proposal were adopted) will now be encouraged to make large numbers of proposals for change knowing that they no longer even have to gain consensus for them to succeed.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Action", as I see it here, would be proclaiming one of the entries on the dab page as primary (which is fine when there is sufficient evidence and a consensus). On the other hand, when there is no consensus, the default course of action would be maintained. This proposal declares such a default, and having a default to fall back on leads to less unproductive discussion, not more.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 3, 2012; 20:12 (UTC)

• Oppose but I would support Station's excellent counter suggestion. I see no advantage in a dab page for two entries; hat notes are preferable because they will make life easier for some readers without making life harder for any reader. Abtract (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So would this be more acceptable?
    In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary importance. In such a case, a disambiguation page or disambiguated article names are required unless consensus determines one article is the primary topic.
    Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • What is the advantage of a dab page for two entries?Abtract (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The advantage is manifested only when neither of the two uses is the primary topic - see WP:TWODABS. That advantage is that a 2-entry dab page in that case avoids sending about half of all readers searching with that name to the wrong page. Yes, the desired page is still only one click away, but a 2-entry dab page is a much more reasonable and natural place to be than is the wrong page with a hatnote link.

        For a good example of this, see Poison oak. Neither of the two types of poison oak is the primary use, so we have a 2-entry dab page, with links to each type. The alternative is to somehow pick one and treat it as if it is the primary topic, thus sending half the people to the wrong type of poison oak. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

        • In the case of poison oak, I think a disambiguation page is reasonable not just because neither topic is primary, but also because the two topics are so similar and difficult for the layman to distinguish. Powers ^T 03:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I oppose disambiguation pages for two entries for reasons that have been explained by others. I am also a fan of Station's counter-suggestion above. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We avoid dab pages for two entries when there is a primary topic - see WP:TWODABS. We do not avoid dab pages for two entries when there is no primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I have no idea who you think you're speaking for or what you think your point is. The question of whether we should avoid dab pages when there is no primary topic is exactly what I'm expressing my opinion on: I believe we should avoid such pages, I oppose a guideline mandating these pages, and I would support a guideline discouraging such pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? So you'd prefer it if people went to the wrong article, than met a signpost that helped them find the right one? Bazonka (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if a lot of people went to the right article immediately, and some other people went to the wrong page with a hatnote link to the right one, as opposed to sending everyone to the wrong page (that would be the disambiguation page, which we know isn't the page that anyone wants to be at) and forcing them to click the link for the right one. Are you people coming into this without any experience discussing this issue and without reading anything else on the page? Because this perspective is explained quite clearly right under the "Disambiguation of two topics" heading above (along with other places on this page, I believe, which is why I didn't feel the need to spell it out in my vote) and I'm baffled that you seem so surprised by it. You might disagree with my view, but I'm hardly the first to feel this way. Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that preference, but I don't agree with it. The concept of primary topic as currently framed is to send only relatively few people to the "wrong" article, in favor of sending more to a disambig page, which is informative, not wrong, and helps them find what they way. That agrees more with my preference. Picking more primary topics will send a lot more people to the wrong article. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Dicklyon - dab pages are signposts, not incorrect pages. Also, we should bear in mind that dab pages are short and quick to load, whereas articles are generally longer and full of images etc. That might not be a problem if you've got super-fast broadband, but not everyone has. Bazonka (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your disagreement with me in a manner other than a bizarre lecture about what "we" all believe should be done. Having registered my opinion, I don't intend to participate further in this discussion. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The question of primary topic should always be determined by consensus - a lack of consensus about which use is the primary topic means there is no primary topic. A move proposal centered on whether a given use is the primary topic or not should be resolved accordingly - if there is no consensus, a dab page should be at the base name. It shouldn't matter that there might have been consensus for a primary topic in the past... consensus changes. In other words, a lack of consensus about any one use being the primary topic means consensus support for "no primary topic"; the affected articles and dab pages should be created/titled accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We agree that the question of primary topic should always be determined by consensus. We also agree consensus can change. However, "lack of consensus about any one use being the primary topic means consensus support for 'no primary topic'" is not logical. Those are two separate possibilities; they are not the same or equal, and one does not cause the other. For example, if there are two unrelated topics with identical names, we have three possibilities: A) Topic A is primary; B) Topic B is primary; C) Neither is primary so a dab page is necessary. If nine editors make strong arguments for A and nine editors make strong arguments for B and two editors make strong arguments for C, it doesn't necessarily follow that the default should be the option favored by 10%. Perhaps B is the second choice of everyone favoring A and C. In that case, B should be the primary topic. That should only be decided through discussion of individual cases, not by fiat. Station1 (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd. It does follow that if there's that kind of a split then there's no primary topic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dicklyon that this is rather tortured logic. Also, the previously stated preference for the established status quo is actually illusory in many cases and enshrines a bias for "first to create" article naming as being the primary topic. I think that any claim of primary status should require substantiation if challenged and if there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, the default should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The tortured logic continues to be on your side. On what basis do you conclude that if there is no consensus, then one side or the other is more right? It's utterly absurd to try to make such a judgement. The "established status quo" rule is fairly arbitrary as well, but it's the one we use in all other cases, and here it has the great advantage (as I keep saying) of providing stability and discouraging proposals for unnecessary change. However, if there are genuine strong arguments (not just "we like it like this") for each of two conflicting positions, then it seems logically sensible for a closing admin to consider a middle solution and even imposing it without explicit consensus - the "no change" rule does have the disadvantage of discouraging the supporters of the status quo from engaging in compromise.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I simply cannot make any sense out of what you claim as logic (and I have put some effort into it). It truly seems to me to be nonsensical to claim that where a principled disagreement whether a primary topic exists (or which of a limited subset of topics is primary) in which both (or multiple) sides have valid claims can result in leaving the status quo (a "non-primary" topic at the base name) being "correct". older ≠ wiser 13:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's just as logical as leaving the status quo in any other situation. Some people say Burma should be titled Myanmar, others say keep it as Burma, both sides have valid arguments, the closing admin can't declare a consensus either way, so we leave it as it is. We could adopt some other random criterion (choose the shorter title, the first in alphabetical order, ...), but the status quo solution serves us well, as (I keep repeating) it provides stability and discourages pointless proposals.--Kotniski (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That may be an especially poor example in that there are no other topics that are ambiguous with either Burma or Myanmar (although that may be an oversight), so there is no disambiguation page to be the default. But in any case, if you are talking merely about disagreements about what title to use for a topic -- that is quite distinct from disagreements about whether there is a primary topic among multiple ambiguous topics. Even if there were a disambiguation page for Burma/Myanmar, I don't think anyone would dispute that the article about the country, whichever title is used, would be the primary topic. Even in other contentious cases, such as Gdansk/Danzig, few would dispute that the article about the city is the primary topic (although some might argue for splitting the article into separate topics). I continue to see no logic whatsoever to the claim that it is preferable to maintain the status quo by leaving a non-primary topic at the base name where there is legitimate disagreement as to whether there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if there's legitimate disagreement, we are not in a position to say that it's a non-primary topic. We can't say, from our position here as theorists, whether the cat is alive or dead. In a real situation, the closing admin would encounter a situation where there are valid arguments that there is a primary topic, valid arguments that there is not, and no basis for saying that either position has achieved a consensus. You seem to think that the default should be that there is not, but to me that seems arbitrary, just like saying the default should be Burma because that comes earlier in a dictionary (or something). My position is the default should be the status quo, just as it would be in a Burma vs. Myanmar situation - also somewhat arbitrary I grant you, but at least it provides certain identifiable advantages (stability, relative peace).--Kotniski (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to make even less sense. I see no reason at all if there are in fact valid arguments disputing whether an existing topic is the primary topic that there can be any conclusion possible that there is nonetheless a primary topic. And defaulting to the intertial position of maintaining the status quo merely enshrines such nonsense and gives the false impression that a higher standard of consensus is required to change the status quo than would ordinarily be needed. That is what I think is especially insidious about defaulting to the status quo. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we must have different situations in our heads our something. What I'm trying to say is perfectly simple and obvious. We are considering a situation where there are valid arguments on both sides, right? Some saying that X is a primary topic, and some that there is no primary topic, and more or less equal numbers of editors persuaded by each. In that case we cannot conclude either that there is or that there is not a primary topic, just as we cannot conclude either that the Burma article "should" or "should not" be called Myanmar. But we nonetheless have to do something, and it's established practice that what we do is to maintain the status quo (whatever that happens to be). In both cases, just the same. There isn't a "higher standard of consensus" required to change the status quo than ordinarily - the standard is exactly the same (or should be) in both cases.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well in the situation you describe here, I disagree. The claim that something is a primary topic is a unique status and should enjoy fairly strong consensus. If support is evenly split, I would take that as an indication that there is not a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But why?? Why not take it an indication that there is a primary topic? And what does "a unique status" mean? It's just one of two competing claims.--Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A primary topic should be relatively uncontroversial in that it should clearly satisfy the criteria for a primary topic. If there is legitimate disagreement about whether a topic meets the criteria, how can it be considered as "primary". older ≠ wiser 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You must surely see what your argument appears to be lacking? What breaks the symmetry? Why should a decision that there is a primary topic be "uncontroversial", while a decision that there is not a primary topic apparently needn't be?--Kotniski (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems so obvious as to be a tautology, but a primary topic is a recognition that a topic is generally considered to "the" primary for the title. Consider how two different scenarios can results in different results without any basis. Suppose someone happens to create a topic Foo, and at the time there are no other obvious articles competing for the title. People later create or discover other articles that are ambiguous with the term and make a disambiguation page. In an ensuing move discussion, the !votes are evenly split. Some editors believe the first Foo is the primary topic and have some marginal evidence to support the position. Other editors do not see that topic as primary and also have some marginal evidence to support the position. If I understand your position correctly, you think because there is no consensus to move the original topic, it appropriate for it to remain as the primary topic. However, if the Foo disambiguation page were at Foo, the same discussion would result in the disambiguation page remaining and no primary topic. That sort of inertial default to the status quo seems bizarrely inconsistent. I think the higher bar should be on those who claim that a topic is primary. Where a term might refer to multiple topics, the claim that one topic is primary is a somewhat extraordinary claim and should require corresponding demonstration of support. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it extraordinary - I don't have any statistics, but I would imagine the number of ambiguous terms for which we have primary topics is comparable to the number for which we don't. In any case, primary topic is a perfectly normal scenario. If there are two genuine contenders for primary topic, then as I've already said, I'm happy to default to no primary topic as a middle ground. But if there's only one genuine contender, then it can't be all that bad to leave it as the primary topic (the fact that it's the only contender in itself shows that it has a kind of primacy). And if some topic got its Wikipedia article well before the others, then that in itself - in combination with its assumed status as only genuine contender - is kind of evidence (given that we're grasping at straws anyway - in our scenario the usual substantive arguments have already proved inconclusive) that there's something primary about the topic. So I still don't see any reason to depart from the usual way of settling no-consensus situations. There are always pros and cons to having a given topic as a primary topic - we have to assume that if there's consensus either way then the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa, but if there isn't then the pros and cons are more or less evenly balanced and it doesn't matter that much which way we decide it, so we do best to decide it in the way which causes least disruption to the project. (Anyway, I don't think we're going to convince each other, so I probably won't continue this thread further after this.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes it is "all that bad" in that incorrect links to the "non-primary" topic are far less likely to be noticed and fixed and leaving such a non-primary topic at the base name implies that there is consensus that it is the primary topic, where in fact it is only that there was insufficient consensus to overcome inertia. You assume that there is "something primary about the topic" -- but that presumption is precisely what I find most disagreeable. We really need some concrete examples to explore the boundaries of where we agree or disagree. older ≠ wiser 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's theoretically possible that "no primary topic" is not the second most popular choice of those who favor either A or B, but, practically speaking, it's highly unlikely (dare I say it has never happened, and never will?). "No primary topic" is the natural compromise position in this type of situation, and that's exactly the point this proposal tries to capture.

Remember, the question at issue is not: would you rather have A, B, or a dab page, at the base name? The question is: Is A primary, is B primary, or is it neither?

The distinction matters because in the first formation of the question it's reasonably likely for someone who favors A at the base name to prefer having B there rather than a dab page, even though he doesn't believe B is primary (due to not liking 2-entry dab pages, for example). But with the second formation it's unreasonable for someone who believes A is primary to think it's more likely for B to be primary than for there to be no primary topic.

I mean, if a reasonable person is convinced by the relevant evidence that the ship appears to be the primary topic for "corvette", he is not going to believe the same relevant evidence also suggests it is more likely that the car is the primary topic (if the ship is not) than there is no primary topic for "corvette". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

But the problem is that there are two competing definitions of primary topic: primary usage and primary importance. This proposed change deals only with cases where there is a conflict between those two definitions. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to simultaneously believe that, say, Engelbert Humperdinck the composer is primary importance but Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) is primary usage. That person may think 'usage is more important but if we can't get consensus for primary usage then at least we should recognize primary importance'; in other words, one or the other is primary topic so better to have second best at the title than a dab page. Station1 (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow that argument. Surely if there is any ambiguity over which is the primary topic, even if that disagreement is in your own head, then then best approach would be to disambiguate. Bazonka (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We must disambiguate; it's impossible not to. But disambiguate by hatnote or by dab page? That is the question. As seen at Humperdinck, there is simply no broad consensus that a dab page is the best approach in all cases where "usage" and "importance" conflict. And because there is no broad consensus, it would be wrong to add it to the guideline as if there were. Station1 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support, more or less. I agree with Born2cycle's reasoning immediately above. However, I'm not sure this amendment is the best way to express it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm not crazy about the proposed wording either, but I figure we should get consensus on the proposal in principal first, and dicker about the nitpicks later. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
    • But to me, B2C's reasoning seems to suffer from the same defects as all the other arguments that have been presented in support of this. You're saying in effect "disagreement about whether X is primary is a sign that X is not primary". You might as well say "disagreement about whether X is primary is a sign that X is primary". Both are equally logical, and are therefore both entirely illogical.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No, that's a separate issue regarding where the burden should lie. That's about whether the burden should be with those who want to change the title, or with those who claim primary topic. That's not what this is about.

        This is about situations in which there is so much significant support for two different topics being the primary topic, that clearly there is no consensus that either is the primary topic. By the way, this is exactly why I opposed including consideration for "primary importance" in the definition of primary topic. Titling would be much simpler and less contentious if we did simply look at usage in reliable sources and page hit counts, and I don't think it would hurt WP one little bit. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have a couple concerns with the nature of the proposal, but not the underlying principle (no consensus what the primary topic is as an indication there isn't a primary topic). The first is this is a guideline and cannot require anything. Editors will be free to ignore it - replacing "required" with "recommended" will resolve that. Furthermore, if an admin closes a discussion as "no consensus" and doesn't move anything it is not a mandate for another editor to convert from a primary to a dab page.
• The proposal is about those cases where there is consensus that both A is primary with respect to usage and B is primary with respect to importance, and that this indicates neither is primary. There are a number of situations this doesn't address: Where there is consensus A is primary for usage, but no consensus B is primary for importance (or vice versa), or when there is only one candidate topic to be considered as primary - but no consensus whether it is or not. In these cases "no consensus" not meaning "maintain status quo" is a bigger difference from standard conventions, and may cause more harm.
• That said, the underlying principle is fine, and there are some similar cases elsewhere in WP. For instance WP:ENGVAR says try to use "neutral" terms if possible. Fixed-wing aircraft is not the preferred term in the US (Airplane) or the UK (Aeroplane), and both national groups could prefer their local variant as the most commonly used term in their own region. Fixed-wing aircraft, like a dab page, is the compromise that would be no-ones first choice but produces the most stable end result.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed-wing aircraft is an aberration which is not supported by practice or policy (except for WP:IAR), and should not be used as an example or precedent of anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • So all right, I guess what's being proposed here is that if there are strong and genuine arguments for A being a primary topic and for B being a primary topic, and neither position has clear majority ("consensus") support, then a good solution might be to "compromise" and not have a primary topic at all (presumably, in order for this not to be an empty statement, it means that an admin closing a discussion could impose such a compromise even if the participants haven't explicitly reached it themselves). That seems feasible. (But the arguments must be genuine, and it should be made clear - because people notoriously overlook this - that when removing something's primary-topic status you have to correct the links, otherwise you do more harm than good.)--Kotniski (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I agree about all your concerns, for the reasons stated. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      • @Kotniski, yes, and having a disambiguation page rather than a "non-primary" topic falsely occupying the base name makes it much more likely that mistaken links will be fixed. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• An example of a big discussion where this might have made a difference is at Talk:New_York_(state)/Archive_4#Should_New_York_be_a_disam_page. There was support for making New York City the primary topic for "New York" (because it is), and there was support for keeping New York State as the primary topic (for reasons of aesthetics and local patriotism, which the closing admin apparently considered to be genuine arguments). There wasn't much explicit support for having no primary topic (i.e. "New York" as a dab page). But should the admin have imposed the "no primary topic" solution anyway (rather than simply maintain the status quo)?--Kotniski (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, perfect example. In fact, that proposal was specifically about moving the dab page to New York, and every support !vote, which was the majority, supported that. Reminds me that it should be proposed again.... --Born2cycle (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • So the dead horse can be beaten yet again? Powers ^T 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No, to develop consensus, finally. Hey, if we can do with Yogurt, we can do it with anything! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Both: Oppose when there are only two articles to disambiguation, per WP:TWODABS; just pick one and use a hatnote. Support when there are enough entries for a DAB page (and, probably, one already exists) and two or more entries are vying in editorial minds and flamewars for primary topic. I can't think of a real example off the top of my head. Suppose that York in England, was supplanted by a New York next door (think Delhi and New Delhi). Then we'd have three notable New Yorks, and the pissing match, if still ongoing, between NYC and New York State being primary should be settled by a "STFU, it's a DAB now" result if it kept dragging out, even if the third NY is clearly less notable. Three is enough for DAB page, and that's that, thank you, please drive through, have a nice day. It's been my strong feeling that SingTFU and moving on and doing something productive is 100x preferable to continuing protracted pissing matches on Wikipedia, where none of this stuff is "fatal". No one is going to stop using Wikipedia, or get so confused they write their school paper about the wrong New York, or whatever, because they got the wrong page for a moment or because they went to a DAB page. But editors (good ones, too) do quit the project in frustration and disgust at an alarming rate over stupid, mutually tendentious editwars, flamefests and filibusters. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 00:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that often these matters don't really matter much, but we shouldn't negate the material consequences entirely. Having New York State as the primary meaning of "New York" (which by any normal standards it definitely should not be) might well mislead a reader into thinking that the state is the primary meaning of "New York" in real life, and consequently misinterpreting references to New York that they've seen elsewhere, or writing plain "New York" in a context where a better informed writer would have indicated "state" explicitly. A less familiar example is Kingdom of Sardinia, which a couple of editors have forced to be about a topic other than the primary real-world meaning of that phrase - now [depending on edit-war status] if you see the phrase used in a history book and come to Wikipedia to find out what it means, you're quite likely in practice to be misled. --Kotniski (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But, for good reason, WP:TWODABS says to use a dab page, even if there are only two entries, unless one of them is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dabs for Chinese/Japanese characters?

I came across 腹 while stub-sorting, and it seemed more of a dab than a stub, but I'm not sure it justifies its existence as either. Dab enthusiasts might like to have a look! PamD 18:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected it to Hara (tanden). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the most amazing DAB tangle to deal with, ever

FYI

 – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Games#A_question_on_naming_game_articles – one heck of a mess to sort out. I proposed a very stepwise solution to it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing! Please, when that discussion is over, enshrine it somehow in some sort of disambiguation Hall of Fame. Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to disambiguation pages: not OK if redirect?

In the section "How to link to a disambiguation page", I don't think we should consider that "There is nothing wrong with linking to a redirect instead of linking directly to the disambiguation page; redirects are cheap and are basically transparent to the reader." When you consider mobile access, it may not be always neutral (time, money). Stephane mot (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting is a server function, so I don't understand why it should make a difference whether the user is accessing Wikipedia through a mobile device or whatever device. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Wikipedia redirection is not URL redirection. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if Stephane has confused redirection with disambiguation pages. These pages do have an added overhead, but not as bad as that caused by going to an incorrect article and redirecting yourself to the right one via a hatnote. This is precisely why I feel that dab pages are valuable - see earlier discussions. Bazonka (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When arriving via a redirect, extra text at the topic of the article informs you of such. Thus, extra bandwidth and cost. But it's only a few dozen extra bytes. Josh Parris 14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And potentially balanced out somewhat by having fewer bytes on the referring page, since it didn't have to pipe the link. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Browsing through a redirect does not require excessive HTTP activity (see above) unless the redirect contains an anchor (and really we have many such, even to dabs). In that case, direct [[page-#-anchor]] links are really cheaper than redirects, but one unlikely will point a [[]]-link intentionally to a section of a disambiguation page. Irrelevantly to dabs, anchor-bearing redirect are preferred though for maintainability reasons. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

{{R from ambiguous page}} as a Primary Topic solution?

Template talk:R from ambiguous page popped up in the last couple of days. I saw it come up, thought "I really need to think about that" and ignored it. It's just occurred to me that the proposed change in it's use would allow:

Article -> Primary Topic -> Disambiguated Primary Topic

Napoleon -> Paris -> Paris, France

The reason {{R from ambiguous page}} exists at the moment is to help bots and others decide how to treat links. Using this template per Incnis Mrsi's suggestion would allow us to change primary topics with little impact at all. Existing tools might already support Category:Redirects from ambiguous pages that {{R from ambiguous page}} chucks a page into, and if they don't it's a cheap and necessary change. Disambigutors ought to have an easy time fixing the links, because linking to a Primary Topic is marked via {{R from ambiguous page}} as being unintentional. The only thing is discovering the Primary Topic (disambiguation) page, and one could make a guess as to its title just as I did now. A side note: WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply to redirects marked with {{R from ambiguous page}}, so editors ought not feel upset about "bypassing the redirect"; {{Redirect|Primary Topic}} goes at the top of Disambiguated Primary Topic.

So:

• We get to keep primary topics and all the yelling and frustration they produce.
• We get the benefit of war wheeling over where the Primary Topic redirect should point.

  No more administrators to facilitate a change of Primary Topic! When the tell-all movie about the time-traveling musician is released, Engelbert Humperdinck can finally point to the true primary topic, Engelbert Humperdinck (film). Protocol would suggest dabbing all links to the redirect first.

• In the meantime, articles previously camped out on ambiguous title are at an unambiguous title
• It becomes machine-detectable if a link is ambiguous even when pointing to a Primary Topic
• When appropriate the primary topic can be redirected to the Primary Topic (disambiguation) page

And none of this should affect readers. A win? Josh Parris 07:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, would this change involve moving Paris and making Paris a redirect? Such a move has advantages, but it would complicate the title displayed at the top of the reader's screen and might be seen as putting editors before readers. The Humperdinck editors !voted against a move, albeit one which would have left Engelbert Humperdinck as a dab rather than a redirect to the composer. Certes (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would complicate the title marginally, and throw in a "redirected from Paris" line. A dab wouldn't need to have been proposed to the Humperdinck editors if there was a redirect in place, because it would have been disambiguatable. The primary topic would have still been the composer, but disambiguators would be able to distinguish links to the singer and composer. Josh Parris 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW I by no way suppose any changes in articles’ names. There are many terms those primary meaning is defined and broadly used, such as "Paris". My proposal affects links which are frequently but incorrectly used. Another example of such is Special:Whatlinkshere/Hydrogen ion with many hundreds biochemists’ links to a target which for some misunderstanding is labelled "article", not a dab page as it has to be. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying the same thing I am, except you're expecting a larger proportion of erroneous links to the target. My reading of your proposed new the semantic for the redirect is "don't link to this, but if you do you'll be taken somewhere appropriate" (a dab page or perhaps Primary Topic) as opposed to the current semantic of "this is a synonym for an ambiguous term, but not the Term (disambiguation) redirect". Is that right? Josh Parris 01:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Term for what's inside the Parentheses?

Resolved

In Mercury(Element) and Mercury(Planet). Element and Planet are called what? I've used the phrase 'disambiguation term', but if there is a better term, I'd love to use it.Naraht (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:NCDAB, it is called a disambiguating word or phrase. A briefer term might be context. Bazonka (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, guess I'll have to be intelligent to use a different term in different contexts. 1/2 :)22:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB also uses the term context, which might work here. "What's the density of Mercury?" will get one answer in a chemical laboratory and another in an astronomical observatory. Qualifier is another term I've seen used. Certes (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I call them disambiguators. WP:NCB uses "qualifier". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a disambiguator. The key is that it needs to be a characteristic of this use that distinguishes it from other uses - so we need to know what the other uses are to decide what the disambiguator needs to be.

So we use city in Cork (city) because it's the only use of "cork" in WP that's a city. Similarly, we use film in 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) because that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the only use that is a film, but we use 1988 film in Godzilla (1998 film) because there are other films with the name Godzilla, but this was the only one made in 1988.

This is one reason I object to predisambiguation - using a disambiguator (or overly precise title) when it's not needed for disambiguation. Since there are no other uses, we have no other uses to look at to decide what the disambiguator should be. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is the guideline for this?

I'm not sure how to interpret these guidelines with regard to occations in which you have two disambiguation pages, one for the word written normally, and one which is written in all caps. Shouldn't they be merged? I mean, are "Thing" and "THING" really partial matches, or exact matches? It seems to me that people who type in "THING" and the users who type in "Thing" should be sent to the same disambiguation page, as the fact that a seacher uses all caps or not can be due to many things and is not a good predictor of what they are looking for. Has this issue been decided before? Chrisrus (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This [1] may be useful. Abtract (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, as an immediate answer, yes, it's been decided, and the decision was that no one rule would cover the cases. Some cases are best merged, and some cases are best served by separate disambiguation pages. Sometimes the caps variations may different primary topics, or one might have a primary topic while another doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

But, just to be clear, usually they should merge, and to the non-CAPS page in most cases. In 6+ years I've run into fewer than a dozen cases that clearly shouldn't, and I think most of them were short and very common acronyms that coincided with real and common words/names, and in all of the cases the resulting merged DAB pages would have been very long and messy. If it would fit in one screenful, there's no real excuse not to merge. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is in the guidelines. The ones you encounter may usually already be merged, but I don't think that the unmerged ones you may encounter should be merged as a matter of course. Each should be evaluated without a particular outcome in mind. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interest in discussing this matter. However, as I read the above, it's hard to understand what each of you meant without examples. Please give some examples where it wouldn't be good to merge them, as it still seems to me that if an unknown user searches for "Thing", "thing", or "THING" (or even "THing" or "thING", for that matter) should all be sent to the same place on the grounds that disambiguation pages are for disambiguating referents called by the same or very similar names, and "Thing" and "THING" are just about as close a match as I can imagine without being an exact match. But perhaps an example of a clear case where they are separated into two pages would help me understand why that should be done in a specific case, and what you have in mind when you speak of outcomes to best help the user. Chrisrus (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

BiSL and BISL go to different primary topics, but Bisl goes to a dab page. This example is weird, IMO, because none of the topics are actually called "Bisl", but without a redirect at Bisl (which I just created today), searching on "bisl" case-folded to BISL in the Wikipedia technical implementation details. HP and hp have different primary topics but share a dab page HP (disambiguation). ABA and Aba are separate dab pages. Length is certainly a factor in the decision, but the amount of overlap can be as well -- are the sets of topics on the potential dabs fully distinct? Are users looking for elements in one set likely to end up on the other set first? If readers often have to jump between dabs, they should be merged. If there's little overlap and readers don't often land on the wrong dab first, they should be separate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting examples but you are correct that the applicablity is limited to this context. First of all, isn't BiSL in violation of the second paragraph of WP:TWODABS? Second, there aren't two separate disambiguation pages one for "HP" and one for "Hp". The other two, HP and Hp are redirects, not disambiguation pages. I was talking about is there any case where we have two disambiguation pages which differ only by capitals and lowercase spellings. So neither of these two seem to apply, and you do seem to understand this by seeming to wave them aside before you presented the Aba/ABA case.

The example of ABA disambiguation vs. Aba (disambiguation) is more to the point, and I would think that User:SMcCandlish could have used it to make his point clear when he spoke just above about the rare cases in which this is done, in order to show me why: First, both are very long, as there are many many meanings (American Bar Association, ....) that are pronounced "ay be ay" and spelled all caps. These things are known throughout the English-speaking world. The other one, "Aba" is the name of many foreign proper nouns; places, people and such. And so both are very different and both are very long. My guess it probably started as one and then someone advised merging because "ABA/Aba" was becoming huge. But McCandish wants us not to misunderstand. We should usually they merge caps/noncaps disambiguation pages, otherwise we "clearly shouldn't" unless they are:

1. Very long and difficult to use, as an ABA/Aba page would be.
2. Very common acronyms that coincided with very common words. (He didn't mention the factor that ABA and Aba are pronounced differently, one as three letters and one as a word. The American Bar Association isn't prounouced like the Sweedish Super group and Aba.
3. "...The resulting merged DAB pages would have been very long and messy. As a rule of thumb, if it would fit in one screenful, there's no real excuse not to merge."

I propose that these ideas should be edited properly and added to the guideline in an appropriate way. Where these or other considerations are not present, the default should be to merge disambiguation pages that differ only by arangement of capital and lowercase letters. Chrisrus (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, BiSL isn't in violation of any guidelines here. "BiSL" isn't ambiguous, so it redirects to its primary topic. Second, that's what I said about "HP" and "hp", so I'm not sure where the disagreement is. I would be very surprised if User:SMcCandlish or anyone else has memorized the list of disambiguation pages to the point where they would be able to summon up an example like ABA/Aba whenever asked. -- such mental faculties would be better applied to rocket science or brain surgery. And we still should not "usually" merge variants even if the lists are short. If two very short lists have mostly distinct sets of entries and little cross-confusion, they should still be kept separate and not merged into a still-short-but-not-as-short dab. They should be merged or not by weighing the benefit (fewer clicks if you use the "other" variant than the one you should have) vs the drawback (more entries crowding the one you're looking for). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

If, other than length, there are some other reasons why two such pages should not be merged, please feel free to add them to the guidelines. Please do not delete this reason on the grounds that there may be other reasons.

Second, I'm very sorry I made a mistake. It's BISL (disambiguation) which seems to be in violaiton of the second paragraph of WP:TWODABS. I typed the wrong one because the terms are so similar. When there are only two, we're supposed to use a hatnote method, not use a disambiguaiton page with only two items.

Next, I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood my point about the Aba/ABA example. I only meant to say that it serves as an example of what User:SMcCandlish was talking about: two pages that, combined, would be very long, and etc. that he was saying. I only meant that the ABA/Aba example was a very good example to bolster McCandlish's point. I thank you for providing this useful example.

To cycle back to my first point, please agree that being very long is at least among the factors that should be considered when splitting such disambiguation pages into two. You may be correct that there are also additionally other reasons to so spit/not merge even if it's short, but please agree that length is at least one consideration and do not delete this fact from the guidelines, but rather simply add to the reasons to split the article to include not only length but these other reasons you assert are also valid.

I understood you to be saying that the other reasons are

1. "mostly distinct sets of entries"
2. "little cross-confusion"
3. "the benefit of having them all on one page" do not outweigh "crowding" out the one the user wants.

These aspects do not seem to be in the guidelines as it stands as to when to split short DABs. Also, they seem quite vague to me and I reccommend making them more specific and clear, with examples if possible, before adding them to length as additional reasons why a split may be preferable. Chrisrus (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the guidelines do not have to provide hard-and-fast rules, and may indeed seem vague while still being the guidelines. In this case, we avoid a foolish consistency and (unless there's a new consensus to look at page size alone, which BTW is still imprecise, because one browser's screenful is another browser's two screenfuls) admit that each set of variations can be examined independently of the arrangements of any other variations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, you are correct that BISL (disambiguation) contravenes WP:TWODABS, which is why I included a comment explaining why that rule was ignored there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We, McCandlish and I, are mearely stating that length is one criterion. You seem to want to add more, but seem to be having a hard time stating what they might be. Are you or are you not saying that length is at least one criterion for deciding to split or not to merge? There is no reason to state specifically what "too long" would be, and we are not trying to do so, McCandlish's "screenful" was clearly vague, not hard-and-fast, clearly intended just to give a general idea, and no one has tried to add that word into the guidelines. Please just in a general sort of way, agree that length is one criteron for deciding to merge or split or not, without in any way specifying what "too long" might mean in a particular case.

Your objection seems to be that the way it was written, it seemed to be the only criterion, where as you seem to believe that there are other important critera as well as length. The problem is, you have not stated clearly what those are, only "mostly distinct sets of entries", "little cross-confusion" and "the benefit of having them all on one page not outweighing "crowding" the one that a user is looking for". It is not clear what these mean. Perhaps examples might help.

I will now wait an appropriate amount of time for your reply. Next, I plan not to revert back to exactly the way I left it earlier but to edit it a bit to clarify length is simply the primary reason, without implying that it must be the only one, although I still don't know what those are, in the hopes of a compromise that doing so will gain your acceptance. Next, if that stands, and if you or someone else do not after a reasonable period of time add what those other criteria are in such a way as to make the guideline more useful in helping to decide when to split, merge, or not, I will revert again to the wording that states that the vague, not at all hard-and-fast, not at all "foolishly consistant" term "too long" as being the only reason to split or not to merge because no one will have been able to think of any other reason not to merge two short disambiguaiton pages that differ only by capital or lowercase letters or such, and the other cases the guidelines roughly describe. Chrisrus (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. You've made a bold edit without consensus, it's been reverted, and now you build consensus. You do not make blanket statements and take silence as consent. I have said exactly what I meant, and do not want to add any criteria, and said so. If you feel that length needs to be listed as a criterion, do so, but without implying that shortness leads directly to combining variants. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I am encouraged by the last part of this, your post, the part where you say "If you feel...to combinging varients." I plan to try to, as you advise, "do so", using an edited revert of your last revert sometime soon. Please look it over in the meantime with this in mind and see if their really isn't anything you can do, perhaps using the ABA/aba example, to clarify this matter of when to merge/not split or split/not merge such disambiguaition pages. Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are primary topics bad?

There seems to be lots of talking to cross purposes in the two heavy discussions above. It might all boil down to:

Which is more important - article name stability or avoiding disambiguation pages?

also

Which is less desirable - internal links to dab pages or searches for ambiguous terms locating dabs pages?

WP:DAB talks about both, and it doesn't say that getting to a dab page is bad, it implies that recovering from an ambiguous landing should be quick and easy. Does it need to be re-worded?

My take is: Detecting internal links to either dab pages or primary topics is relatively simple. Maintaining unintentional internal links to dab pages is relatively simple, but for primary topics it's hard without a mandated redirect and a directive that one must not link directly to a primary topic. Primary topics, under current policy, are increasing the number of undetected, unintentional ambiguous links. Incoming links are linking to ambiguous terms and getting articles - not necessarily the right ones - rather than dab pages. As such, primary topics go against the core of WP:DAB. I don't think hatnotes are "quick and easy", unless you mean quick and easy to miss - they're small, they start before anything else on the page, they don't read your mind and detect surprise or confusion; they don't even use the <marque> tag!

Does WP:DAB need altering so that primary topics stay the result of a search or incoming link, but no internal pages link to these ambiguous terms? Or do we alter WP:DAB to force outsiders and the uninformed to acknowledge the ambiguity and only provide a disambiguation page for ambiguous terms?

Discuss. Josh Parris 23:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"one must not link directly to a primary topic." I don't get it. What's wrong with a link to a primary topic, like this? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently, nothing at all. But a few current and future links to Paris will be imperfect attempts to refer to Paris (mythology) or some other meaning. We have no way to record which links have been verified as relevant to the French capital and which links ought to be checked. Hypothetically, one way to solve this problem would be to change the verified links to [[Paris, France|Paris]] or some other unambiguous term which redirects to Paris, and to treat any direct links to Paris with suspicion, but as far as I know there's no consensus to adopt that policy. Certes (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably you're pretty safe with Paris, but not with The Artist, which we've just done a bunch of work to patch up. With the new movie out, some editors wanted a new primary topic; the old one wasn't really justified; in any case, making it a disambig makes a lot more sense. When I went to patch up the ambiguous links, most were directly to "The Artist", which was never correct; only a few of the links to "The Artist" were going where they were intended to go. Making it primary would have fixed some, broken others, and invited a recurrence of the problem the next time a popular work called "The Artist" comes out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've commented that we could compile lists of verified links (manually or in a semi-automated fashion) and set up a bot to report new incoming links (which then would be verified or corrected).

This probably is more feasible than mandating the use of redirects (which many editors instinctively "fix").

Additionally, I envision a scenario in which we go ludicrously overboard in the pursuit of perfect disambiguation (e.g. using Paris, France (city) because Paris, France might refer to a film and Paris (city) might refer to Paris, Texas). It's vastly preferable to permit links to the primary meaning and clean up the small number intended for something else. —David Levy 01:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The WikiMedia database doesn't record how many links there are to a page, just that there are non-zero links from page X to page Y. If one link to Paris was about the city (dab-patrolled and marked as such), and later another link was made mentioning that the city was named for the mythic figure Paris, a bot querying the database would find that subsequent to the latest edit no links to new dab pages had been made, so everything's fine (when it's not). The alternative is to check the full wikitext with each edit: expensive, and possibly prohibitively so - at least for every edit; daily checks, for example, might work. Josh Parris 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking mainly of new pages with incoming links, which are more likely to stem from error (particularly when a term's multiple meanings are unrelated). As you note, breaking down the individual links on a particular page would be much trickier (though it might be realistic for a bot to periodically report changes in quantity). —David Levy 06:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There might be a technical solution possible. Implement an "intentional" link syntax for primary topics. Not that it would be used, but let's say it would be Paris::, which would display just like Paris but be filter-able in the "What links here" and similar tools used for checking dab links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be impossible to prevent well-meaning editors from either removing the special formatting or emulating it when mistakenly linking to an article. —David Levy 01:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, and considering how hard it is for people to understand making intentional links to a disambiguation page through a redirect, I expect there would be a much greater outcry if editors were now also supposed to link to primary topics through special links or redirects. I'm more inclined to agree with Dicklyon that for true primary topics, even for those few mistaken links that are created, few if any would be surprised by such finding the primary topic at such a link. It is the largely undetectable mistaken links to the many non-primary ambiguous topics at undisambiguated titles that are a more significant concern. older ≠ wiser 02:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think what we need to concentrate on is making sure that whenever a title "X (y)" or "X,Y" exists, it is linked from "X" - either directly from a hatnote on the article at "X", or by an entry in a dab page either at "X" or "X (disambiguation)". When I'm stub-sorting and see a stub with a disambiguator in brackets, I always check it to see whether it has this sort of link, ie it is accessible from the base name. It quite often isn't. (And it sometimes doesn't need to be disambiguated anyway as there is no article at the base name but an editor has thought that the naming system required / approved a disambiguator in the particular case.) This seems to me to be a more important problem than worrying whether some readers to click once rather than twice to find their target article: without these links, the reader searching on the base name finds one or more articles but gets no indication of the existence of the article they are looking for so will assume it is absent. (And may well re-create it under a different choice of disambiguator!). PamD 08:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Other perspectives at Sundries

There's a disagreement at Talk:Sundries as to what should be at Sundries. It's been a disambiguation page since December 2007 and for most people, the term has no association with cricket whatsoever. However, one editor initially wanted to redirect the term to Extra (cricket). After a number of reverts, the editor created the self-admittedly useless article Sundries (miscellaneous items). I contend that the primary usage in this case is in fact the dictionary definition and the use described in the linked articles is more than sufficient to keep them on the disambiguation page rather than shuffle them off to a useless article. Discussion has stalled and other opinions are welcome. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As the other participant in the discussion, I wasn't aware that "discussion has stalled." But other opinions are of course welcome. My view is that disambiguation pages are for navigating the content in Wikipedia articles, and if content does not exist in Wikipedia articles, adding that content to the disambiguation page is not a good solution to the perceived problem. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has definitely stalled now; I just wanted to reiterate the request here for someone to come by and offer a third opinion, since I believe the next step would be to solicit such an opinion elsewhere, and I'd much prefer to get the perspective of someone with an interest and experience in disambiguation. Thanks. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll bite. Before I go there, I'm just saying I learned about this here and that's why I'm going. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Positioning of a new disambiguation category (townships)

Hello and happy new year. I've been feeding the recently created category Category:Township name disambiguation pages, which is located directly in Category:Place name disambiguation pages. Wouldn't it be more relevant to position it in the (sub) Category:Country subdivision name disambiguation pages‎ instead? Townships are country subdivisions, and could join similar entities (eg municipalities). NB: for the moment the overwhelming majority of the townships listed here are located in the US, but some pages combine Canadian with US twps, or Chinese with Taiwanese twps.Stephane mot (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not both? A category can have multiple supercategories, and both seem applicable here. bd2412 T 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Some clean-up issues

If anyone could help, I'm looking for ideas at Category talk:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup#Some issues. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary disambiguation

With the closure of the move request at Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts), we now have a case where the base title redirects to a lengthier disambiguated title. How can we resolve this situation? Powers ^T 22:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to resolve, really. It may not be ideal, but just leaving things as they are causes no real problem. Station1 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, let's have endless discussions about whether each of countless titles should be disambiguated even when it's not necessary for disambiguation, and about what that disambiguation should be. Nothing to resolve, indeed. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The article's topic either is primary (in which case it should occupy the base title) or isn't primary (in which case the base title should lead elsewhere). Redirecting "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)" (so that the base title leads to the article, but the article nonetheless doesn't occupy it) serves absolutely no practical purpose.

Without commenting on the move discussion's outcome, there are two reasonable courses of action:

1. Move the article to the base title.

2. Create a disambiguation page at the base title or redirect it to an existing disambiguation page.

The same goes for Catholic Memorial High School, which presently redirects to Catholic Memorial High School (Waukesha, Wisconsin). —David Levy 00:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely (I favored the move at the RM discussion). But we can't do "1" without overturning the decision (which I think is not worth the effort for this one article), and we definitely shouldn't do "2" because there's nothing to disambiguate among article titles on WP. Leaving the redirect in place is, as I said, not ideal, but as long as it's there, readers can search for and link to the Catholic Memorial School as easily as if it were the actual title. Station1 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not overturning this bad decision sets a bad precedent and invites similar mischief on other articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A 'no consenus' decision is never a precedent, and based on the discussion I don't think you'll gain consensus to overturn it, but if you can, great. Station1 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've challenged it on the grounds that saying there is "no consensus" on the questions of ambiguity and primary topic (which is the basis for the "no consensus" close) is nosensical when the term in question redirects to the article, and has so for years, not to mention that there is no dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless the moves are undone, Catholic Memorial School can disambiguate between the two schools that are apparently not sufficiently unambiguous on their own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be sufficiently unambiguous, especially if mutual hatnotes are used, so a dab page seems unnecessary. Station1 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This dab page seems pointy and a violation of WP:DPAGES to me. None of the criteria for combining terms on a dab page listed there applies in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was done completely in good faith, but I don't think there is consensus for it, so I've reverted. Station1 (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your revert, Station1, which I have explained here. By the way, "lack of consensus" alone is not a good reason to revert; at least you gave some reason for objection in your edit summary. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINTy? Please. Qualifiers are used to distinguish ambiguous titles. The discussion appeared to lead to the titles are insufficiently disambiguated by the presence of the word "High". Similar conclusions have been reached on differences in capitalization or other minor differences in long titles (see many of the longer NRHP-initiated dabs), resulting in DAB pages where unqualified but still possibly unclear names were possible. If qualifiers are needed, then the base name is not sufficiently deterministic and a dab page is needed. Yielding to consensus is not WP:POINTy, and you're out of line. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most here that the disambiguator in that article title is inappropriate, but I don't see that it creates any "new" problem - we have thousands of redundantly disambiguated articles already (American towns, kings, lords, ships...), and the redirects from the shorter titles exist without causing any navigational paradox.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Stylistically, there's a great deal of difference between "Name, natural elaboration" and "Name (parenthetical disambiguation phrase)".

Redirecting "Barack Obama" to "Barack Obama (United States President)" wouldn't cause any navigational paradox, but it wouldn't provide any benefit either. It wouldn't aid readers seeking the article on Barack Obama, Sr. (who still would arrive at his son's article and find the same hatnote). It would merely make Wikipedia look silly for appending nonfunctional disambiguation.

Obviously, redirects from Catholic Memorial School to Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) and from Catholic Memorial High School to Catholic Memorial High School (Waukesha, Wisconsin) are far less prominent than my hypothetical example would be, but that doesn't mean that their senselessness ought to be tolerated. —David Levy 10:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not really a disambiguation issue. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are no other schools anywhere in the world whose names are likely to be confused with either of the above (which seems a stretch to me, but beside the point), there is nothing in WP:D that indicates whether the article names should or should not include qualifiers. That would be an application of WP:AT. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the closing decision? I quote: "how ambiguous this name is; whether it is the primary topic or not; and which of the prior two questions is more important. I see consensus on none of these questions...". The "no consensus" decision was based on the view that there was "no consensus" on these two questions, both of which are within the domain of WP:D.

The first sentence on this page defines "ambiguous" as "refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles". There was no question about that; there was even no discussion about it. There is only one topic covered by Wikipedia articles to which "Catholic Memorial School" refers. Clearly it is not ambiguous by definition, and yet the closer found "no consensus" on this point.

Similarly, this page addresses the issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and there is no question that Catholic Memorial School redirects to the article in question, and no challenge about that, and, therefore, also by definition, is the primary topic for that article's topic. And yet the closer declared there is "no consensus" on whether the article's topic is primary for that name.

Of course this is a WP:D issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:DABN ?

There is WP:RSN. Is there also some noticeboard for DAB? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to ask about, but most likely this talk page to post on.--Aervanath (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But given that I was not aware of it after 5 years, maybe that should be publicized somehow with some icon of some type, etc. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Disambiguation. Probably, we may discuss specific problems there; BTW sysops, add this link to edit notice please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What does this mean?

How to link to a disambiguation page

To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.) This helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones.

In other words, in case some people make mistakes, program the entire thing in a heavy manner to further exclude regular joes from ever being able to contribute to wikipedia? It appears I cannot organize and straighten out the mess that is "transversality" and issues with caste articles without having to create disambiguation pages that include links to disambiguation pages that are redirects to disambiguation pages that aren't titled disambiguation.

In spite of my heavy sarcasm can someone provide an explanation in English that would actually lead me to be able to think about how to do it with the ultimate results of organized and navigable access to encyclopedic information, aka articles, without creating useless nonesense. Thanks, Pseudofusulina (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is extremely simple. If you make a link that you deliberately intend to link to the disambiguation page, the link should use the form with "(disambiguation)" in the title, even if that happens to be a redirect. Otherwise, links to disambiguation pages are assumed to be mistaken. older ≠ wiser 17:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably, I am extremely stupid, then. It's not extremely clear to me (being extremely stupid) what exactly is the purpose. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We know that people often accidentally make links to disambiguation pages which are at the base name for a topic, like John Smith. They sometimes deliberately make links to dab pages, often from "See also" sections of other dab pages. Editors sometimes work on checking incoming links to disambiguation pages, and sorting them out. It is very helpful for these editors if deliberate incoming links are easily distinguishable so that they can be ignored - and where the dab page is at the base name of the article, this is easily done by leading all deliberate links through a redirect from John Smith (disambiguation) to John Smith. If you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/John_Smith you can see a collection of random incoming links which probably need to be fixed, and a large number of links which go via the redirect. (Oh dear, on looking more closely, most of those are links which shouldn't have been made anyway, following the rules for hatnotes!) I hope this helps! PamD 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you deliberately create the link titled "Transverse (disambiguation)" but don't make it a redirect, instead send it directly to the page it will be going to, a page titles "Transverse" by using the code, "[[Transverse|Transverse (disambiguation)]]" and don't create the page "Transverse (disambiguation)", then you are still making it clear to the reader that they will be taken to a disambiguation page rather than an article, and you make it clear to other editors by your code that you did not inadvertantly include a disambiguation link. The purpose of creating the page merely to redirect someone so that the code doesn't take them directly there is not clear (in spite of implications by someone older although not necessarily wiser that I'm stupid for not understanding it.) Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2012‎ (UTC)

As PamD also explained above, "[[Transverse|Transverse (disambiguation)]]" only changes the appearance of the link. When you check Special:WhatLinksHere/Transverse you will see the page that you added the link to listed there. When the link is formed as "[[Transverse (disambiguation)]]" it shows up on what links here as going through the redirect, which indicates to other editors that this is an intentional link to the disambiguation page and not an inadvertent or mistaken link. older ≠ wiser 18:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Using your method, an intentional link would still show up as a direct link on the "What links here" list. Using the redirect allows for straightforward differentiation by both human editors and bots. For example, look at the current incoming article-space links for the dab page Maverick. I can see immediately that there are two articles linking to Maverick (disambiguation) (don't need fixing), and five articles that link directly to Maverick (mistaken links that need to be disambiguated to the correct article). ShelfSkewed Talk 18:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem to show that on transverse. When I click on "what links here" it lists only 1 redirect, not 2. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The number of articles using the (disambiguation) redirect to a particular dab page can vary widely. It was the case that Transversality was the only article-space page linked to Transverse via the (disambiguation) redirect. I have since fixed the link from Transversal so it is also now a redirect. There are also nine direct links that need to be fixed.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the argument that some of dab links explicitly appear as such even without a "(disambiguation)" target in irrelevant to the most heavy problem of our disambiguation system: thousands of links to a dab page (or to a wrong article) which appear to be links to articles. It is not an appearance of intentional dab links on a Web page or in internal links tables what is the problem, but to facilitate bad links detecting. You wrote about a reader, but actually forgot automated tools which fix inadvertent dab links.

I haven't forgotten anything. I don't know about the dab automated tools. I'm trying to undo the messes made of Indian castes and transverse in biology, and I'm trying to understand how to create redirects/dabs/etc., in a way that makes it clear to me (understanding), so I don't have to reread the directions with every working to make sure I don't create a bigger mess. Understanding is not possible from this statement that I quoted above. I'm getting more confused, rather than more certain about what to do.Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not push to talk pages such easter eggs as raw tildes in [2]. Even an experienced user may be confused when posting a followup. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

? I have no idea what you are talking about, but adding more confusing things is not helping. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to close the nowiki I used, someone did it for me. Now, that we've opened an entire discussion on a simple mistake, I see no hope for sorting the caste articles, as it is possible I will make mistakes. Maybe a bot can sort the caste articles on en.wikipedia without making any mistakes. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it is hard for me to tell why you are so confused and/or frustrated, or what you are trying to do. Why don't you provide us with a specific example of an article that you want to edit, and show us what you are planning to change; then we could provide more focused help. My one suggestion after reading the above discussion, however, is that you just focus on what WP:INTDABLINK asks you to do, and not worry so much about why. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to edit all of the articles on Indian castes, as they all have much information that is wrong, very wrong, misquoted, contradictory, incorrectly or insufficiently transliterated, but, starting at the top, I'm confused about some of the dab pages, specifically some that need to be created, or have their links changed. The caste articles are such a mess, that I thought I would start with a page that is much easier that I had already seen needed corrections from duplicate and incorrect dabs, so I went to transverse, and I changed the redirects, got reverted and referred to this policy, and I am trying to understand its purpose clear enough that I can follow it without having to explicitly reread it every time I attempt to disambiguate something.

So, this is what I finally see at transverse, but I cannot see what it looked like before:

• Transversality (disambiguation) (redirect page) ‎ (links)
  • Transverse ‎ (links)
  • Longitudinal ‎ (links)
  • Transversal ‎ (links)

And this sticks out in the what links here, and seems useful, but it does not seem related to the discussions above, and I am not really following the rest of this. And, if you are already familiar with something and it is clear as a bell to you, trying to discuss it with someone else by insulting them, does not usually clarify things. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

--rather, "transversality," Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from en.wikipedia. Thank you to those who tried to answer my question. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete disambiguation (again)

Sorry to come back to this topic so soon, but there is currently a debate here and here as to whether Halifax, Nova Scotia is an "incomplete disambiguation".

Take these other examples:

• Adams, New York
• Madison, New York
• Upton, Oxfordshire
• Lincoln College
• Lincoln County
• HMS Victory

Are these examples of incomplete disambiguation, so that the dab pages should be replaced by redirects to Adams, Madison, Upton, Lincoln and Victory (disambiguation)? Or are they legitimate cases of double disambiguation, which we are told is "relatively rare" in WP (a doubtful assertion)?

It seems to me that if the ambiguous term is a likely search term, the user is usually best served (to find the right article quickly), if the term is a dab page (or there is a dab hatnote on the primary topic) and not a redirect to another dab page (even to a section of another dab page).

Any views on whether the guideline should be clarified?--Mhockey (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they aren't incomplete disambiguations. IMO, incomplete disambiguations are pages with parenthetical qualifiers where the parenthetical qualifier isn't sufficient to identify a topic uniquely. "Natural" titles like Adams, New York or HMS Victory are legitimate, unqualified titles that users ignorant of Wikipedia's disambiguation titling might use to find information. There's no point in dumping them in an over-long disambiguation page. The topics might be duplicated on the less-specific title's disambiguation too (possibly creating additional work for editors, but that's OK), but they shouldn't be merged. I'd be happy to take a stab at clarifying the guidelines if my IMO there is consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) For Lincoln College, Lincoln County, HMS Victory, these are clearly not incomplete disambiguations as each term has a distinctive sense and is commonly used outside of Wikipedia. However, there is some overlapping ambiguity that would warrant linking to these pages from Lincoln and Victory. That is, in various contexts, these can be referred to as simply "Lincoln" or "Victory".

For the place names, I'd suggest that these are also not incomplete disambiguations. The village of Adams, New York is the primary topic over the town of the same name (though that may be a debatable point). Similarly, Upton, Vale of White Horse is the primary topic for Upton, Oxfordshire. And Madison, New York, is a disambiguation page for the term "Madison, New York". Of all of these, this might be considered by some to be an incomplete disambiguation, but unlike parenthetical disambiguators which are unique contrivances unique to wikipedia, the exact phrase "Madison, New York", has common currency outside of wikipedia and a reader looking for "Madison, New York", is poorly served by redirecting them to the much larger and less specific disambiguation page for Madison. And FWIW, I oppose the proposed merge of Halifax, Nova Scotia, for similar reasons.

You may be right that the statement regarding double disambiguation This kind of disambiguation is relatively rare on Wikipedia is not quite accurate. It is not exactly commonplace, but it is far from "rare". older ≠ wiser 13:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver outage

FYI, the Toolserver's replication of changes to the English Wikipedia database appears to be broken, and there is no ETA for when it may be fixed. This will affect all of the reports generated by JaGa's tools (such as //toolserver.org/~jason/disambig_links.php), as well as The Daily Disambig, which relies on those tools. Dispenser's various dab-fixing tools are still operational, but they are working off an increasingly outdated copy of the database. (Basically, the Toolserver is frozen at about 01:00 UTC on 25 January; any edits since then aren't being processed.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Toolserver seems to be coming back to life now, so perhaps things will be more or less back to normal by tomorrow. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Using a disambiguation term instead of a commonly used alternative title?

I was wondering what the rationale is in regards to using alternative titles for artitsic works as page titles. There is a discussion at Talk:Bande_à_part_(film)#Requested_move about moving Bande à part (film) to Band of Outsiders. Bande à part and Band of Outsiders are both commonly used titles for the film, but the French version is more commonly used than its English variant in English language literature so should be the correct choice as per WP:COMMON. However, Bande à part itself serves as a disambiguation page, so which title usage is then more consistent with WP:COMMON? The disambiguated form of the more popular title i.e. Bande à part (film) or the less common English title ie. Band of Outsiders? Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO: The proper title for an article should be first determined. In this case, the article on the film would normally be titled "Bande à part". Second check for ambiguity. The normal title would be ambiguous, so a qualifier is used: Bande à part (film). The two determinations (title and qualifier) are independent of each other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it depends on how close in commonness (among reliable English-language sources) the two names are. If "Bande à part" is only slightly more common, "Band of Outsiders" is an appropriate title for the article.

This is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. ("When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.")

If "Bande à part" predominates by a large margin, "Bande à part (film)" should be retained. —David Levy 20:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, having just examined the linked discussion, I'm not convinced that the name "Band of Outsiders" is sufficiently common to justify the proposed move. —David Levy 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a margin, but I couldn't say it counts as a 'wide' margin. If you take the two main English language catalogues, the AFI has it under the English title and lists its French title as its alternative title; the BFI does the opposite listing the English title as the variant. The IMDB goes with the English title, and lists the French title under it as "original title". The New York Times goes with English title listing the French title as an alternative title. Allrovi goes with the French title and doesn't list the English title, but does use the English title DVD cover as its image. The US and Canadian Amazons goes with the English title, and the British Amazon goes with the French title. In terms of Wikiepda usage, over the last three months Bande à part (film) got 9000 hits while Band of Outsiders got [4000 hits. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the relevant policy is at WP:PRECISE, not WP:COMMONNAME. Natural disambiguation is generally preferred to parenthetical disambiguation in article titles if a topic has more than one common name. Station1 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That advice pertains primarily to the choice between natural and parenthetical disambiguation of a particular name (e.g. "English language" vs. "English (language)"), not to the choice between a common name that requires parenthetical disambiguation and one that doesn't.

As noted above, the latter is covered at WP:COMMONNAME, which advises us that "when there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." (Ambiguity is one of the "problems" mentioned earlier in the paragraph.) —David Levy 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation Category question:Greek Letter Organizations

I think this is the right place to bring this up... I notice that there are disambiguation categories, but they tend to be large and general (roads, for example). At this point, from quick looking, I have found the following Greek Letter Organization (Fraternities and Sororities) related disambiguation pages: Alpha Delta, Alpha Gamma Sigma, Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity House, Beta Theta Pi Fraternity House and Delta Phi Epsilon. Is it appropriate to have a category for these, if so, would a template be appropriate and what would be an appropriate name. Also, in the event of a disambiguation page like Ceres where *one* of the choices is a Fraternity or Sorority, how would that be handled?Naraht (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any special scheme of categorization for these. In particular, the "Fraternity House" dab pages are for historic buildings, not the organizations themselves. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As a general matter, we don't have any policy about categories for particular subtypes of disambiguation pages. These have been created on an ad hoc basis by individual users who thought it would be useful for some reason to keep track of particular subsets of disambiguation pages. Personally, I don't see the usefulness, but I would suggest that we should deprecate the creation of new templates for this purpose, and instead encourage categorization by adding parameter options to Template:Disambiguation. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Could editors look at a couple of contentious pages?

Any comments at Monroe, Wisconsin (disambiguation) and Greatest Hits (Fleetwood Mac album) would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory redirects for primary topics

About a week ago I made a bold edit which I thought was reasonable based on past discussions, but it was fairly quickly reverted. So, I'm here, asking: given there's a good reason to use redirects for primary topics (fixing ambiguous links), is there a good reason why we shouldn't mandate the use of redirects (instead of articles) for primary topics? Josh Parris 10:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For one, it is a question with impact that goes beyond disambiguation. At minimum, I think you'd need to get support for the change at WT:AT. It might be well to use an RFC format and add notices at WP:VPP. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against that if there's a consensus here, but I think I'll wait to see if anyone who's paying attention here can come up with a decent counter-argument. There's no rush. Josh Parris 12:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not get how the redirects' problem appears as a part of article titles' problem. Titles have to be unambiguous and there are any objection to it from either side, but the disagreement is about the possibility of "ambiguous redirects" to articles. What did I miss? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It affects Article Titles, because, if I'm understanding your proposal correctly, you think a primary topic article should be at a disambiguated title and a redirect at the primary topic. This is a fairly big change from common practice and will require a lot of explanation and retraining of editors. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't. Is the work with dabs so destructive for users' attention and mutual understanding? Please, try again. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I conflated your comments with Josh's. My comments are directed towards the edit Josh made to the page. older ≠ wiser 14:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some recent participants have a destructive approach, but no, in general the work with dabs is unobtrusive. Your claim that "titles have to be unambiguous" (if you mean that no article can have a title that would be ambiguous with the possible title of another topic's article) isn't part of the guidelines or consensus. Wikipedia only technically requires that titles be unique -- this can be achieved by putting the primary topic at the base name, by redirecting any titles for which a topic is the primary topic to the article on the topic, and by qualifying any titles for non-primary articles that could have the ambiguous title. Please, try again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I never promoted radical changes to articles' naming. It is possible that in some relatively rare occasions an article will have to be moved, but my point (I am not sure about Josh Parris' one) is to introduce an intermediate grade of ambiguity of redirects only, an "ambiguous redirect to an article". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Me either. Can you give me an example of the application of your point? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently:

• NetBEUI → NetBIOS – usually means NetBIOS Frames protocol, but it is a historically determined misnomer.
• Memory model (computing) – persistent confusion between what is now called Memory model (programming) and Memory address #Memory models, and I am not sure that a dab will be a good solution.

Potentially:

• Code (computer programming) – persistent confusion between source code and machine code, currently is a dab redirect, but ambiguously redirecting to software also can be considered.
• Hydrogen ion – currently a disguised dab page (formally still an article), but ambiguously redirecting to hydron (chemistry) (by overwhelming majority of inbound links) or Hydrogen #Compounds (by literal sense) also can be considered.
• Linux – an iconic example of inherit ambiguity. Now there is an article about Linux-based operating systems (so named GNU/Linux, by Stallman and others), but it could be moved to give a way to an ambiguous redirect. This is the only example of 5 which involves moving a real article.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

In those cases, if there's an article where there should be no primary topic, yes, the article should be moved to a qualified name and the disambiguation moved to (or created at) the base name (or an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} created). But those can be handled with move requests under the current guidelines, since the proposal appears to be that the current primary topic isn't really a primary topic for the title. If the consensus is that the current base name is the primary topic, then the incoming links that don't intend that article should be updated. Is there a different arrangement of those articles that you're proposing? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm reading this right, but by saying the primary topic title should be different from the ambiguous term seems to imply that there will be no more primary topics i.e. all ambiguous terms will become redirects or disambiguation pages? Am I reading that correctly or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Betty Logan (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

More or less, yes. The concept of a primary topic still exists, but the primary topic doesn't sit on the ambiguous term; it gets all traffic pointed at it. Josh Parris 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on past discussions, I still hold that an article's "correct" title should be determined, and then a qualifier should be added if required by the "correct" title being correctly occupied by another article, one that is the primary topic for the title. It's possible that, in cases where two titles are comparable in correctness, the absence of need for a qualifier on one title can tip the scales in its favor (David Levy recently educated me on that bit of WP:COMMONNAME), but otherwise, there is no "should" for the title of the primary topic being different than the ambiguous term. The title only "might" be different if (a) its "correct" title is different and yet (b) it is the primary topic for the ambiguous term. If the "correct" title is the ambiguous term and it's the primary topic, its title should be the ambiguous term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to focus on a concrete example. The example we have near the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation of a disambiguation page with a primary topic is Rice and Rice (disambiguation). I take it that Josh's proposal is that, in any situation like this, Rice should be moved to a different title (although I'm not clear what that would be), so that Rice would be a redirect instead of an article. However, the disambiguation page would not be moved over the title of the primary topic. First, do I understand the proposal correctly? Second, am I correct in understanding that the claimed benefit of this approach is that it would be easier to locate and fix erroneous links that use Rice incorrectly (for example, when referring to the university)? If so, how exactly would this be easier if Rice is a redirect? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This matches how I understand Josh's proposed change. And this is a very big change in how primary topics are currently handled. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's only if someone runs around applying it retrospectively. But, that's the kind of thing people do I suppose... Josh Parris 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I propose. With Rice redirecting to the primary topic Rice (seed), there's now a way to distinguish between intentional links to the primary topic (i.e. those going to Rice (seed)) and unintentional links to the primary topic (those to Rice). Both end up on Rice (seed), but they are now segregated. Rice can be marked with a template indicating that the topic is ambiguous (this is a little beyond Incnis Mrsi's expected use of {{R from ambiguous}}) and then automatic tools can detect, count and assist humans in correcting links to Rice. Josh Parris 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal (and I don't know of any prior discussions that had any consensus for it). Other titles that would be impacted IMO for the worse: Cat, United States, William Shakespeare. I don't know if there's a technical enhancement possible for tagging links to such primary topics as "reviewed by another editor", but I don't think forcing every title to be qualified is the right approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not share Josh Parris' radical stand and think that for majority of cases the established system is adequate. So, there should be not mandatory, but situational redirects. I agree that inbound links to some especially dangerous words and word combinations should be discouraged. Hence, if such a term is occupied by an article (which occurs rarer, but is not uncommon, such as for "Linux" mentioned above, and names of countries and territories), then the article should be moved away of it, as Josh Parris proposes. But there are many such words as Moscow which, although are formally ambiguous, should not be declared as such and should be allowed to host an article. The primary concern should be not an existence of some different meaning, but a possibility of an inbound link made by mistake or ignorance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How is "Linux" dangerous? How are country and territory names dangerous? "United States" is a country and an ambiguous title -- should it be moved away as "dangerous"? Or are you talking about names like "Taiwan", "Georgia", or "Korea". Who's going to do the declaring of which names are allowed to host articles and which aren't? The primary concern should be the utility of the encyclopedia to the readership as a whole. Mistaken inbound links can occur (even to Cat), but mistakes can be corrected. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Linux" is dangerous because links bound to just Linux promote inaccuracy, which eventually blurs a distinction between kernel and userland, an important point in open software systems. There is an ongoing flamewar about "Taiwan", and I will not consider it specifically. Georgia is a dab and, hence, is not dangerous in the aforementioned sense. Korea is not dangerous at all: the article is dedicated to the most general meaning of "Korea" (similarly to recently introduced WP:CONCEPTDABs). "United States" is not dangerous in English, but becomes so translated to Spanish and Portuguese. Dangerous for en.WP are such totum pro parte toponyms as:

• California – an article about U.S. state, but really denoting larger territory, sadly, even without an article.
• Netherlands – similar condition, but with an article.
• Niger – there is not less known homonymous river.
• Luxembourg, Kuwait – small countries with homonymous capitals.

A user has to be completely unEnglish to link cat (Unix) as [[cat]]. But a physical geographer can link a river as [[Niger]] and a historian from, say, Great Britain can link [[California]] assuming the historical California, not modern U.S. state. The result is not just lack of precision – it is a link to related, but narrower topic, which can promote mistakes and confusion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's use "error-prone" instead of "dangerous" -- I think that's what you mean. The examples of California, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Kuwait are sufficient to illustrate the disagreement. I see nothing problematically error-prone in them, and believe the articles for them are correctly placed. I suppose redirects California (state), State of Kuwait, etc., could be used by some editors who wish to avoid reviewing the same links repeatedly (and other editors should undo them), but I don't see any reason to urge the editorship at large to use the redirects, and I definitely wouldn't want to move the articles to those qualified names. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For reasons put forth by others above, I also disagree with Josh Parris' proposal; it seems like a big change without a big enough benefit to justify it. (And I don't really understand his remark that it would be a big change "only if someone runs around applying it retrospectively"; if our guidelines say that articles should be titled by a particular scheme, that would seem to indicate that articles not titled by that scheme should be corrected.) I also disagree with Incnis Mrsi's proposal, which as I understand it would be applying JP's proposal but only to some articles without clear rules as to which articles it should be applied to. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The "santorum rule"

An interesting case has come up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santorum (disambiguation) (2nd nomination), whereby there's conflict between WP:TWODABS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. The first two are quite clear; WP:UNDUE has room for interpretive difference. Concerns have been raised that strict following of WP:TWODABS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC leaves Wikipedia open to gaming.

The concern is the hatnote required by WP:TWODABS is unedifying; it draws WP:UNDUE attention to an embarrassing problem.

This might be resolved by a change to WP:TWODABS to say that it never applies to WP:BLPs; those mustn't have a primary topic, the term goes to the dab. Either that or we leave the rules as is... and get inconsistent application, making us look partisan.

Is there support for changing our rules to resolve problems of this specific nature, is there another avenue, or should we allow WP:IAR to be used in this one case? Josh Parris 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think guidelines should be changed just to accommodate one anomaly, that is basially what WP:IAR was created for, so the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, WP:TWODABS doesn't require a hatnote anyway. It says 'it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article', but we don't have to use one or a disambiguation link. It might nonetheless be a good idea to state this in policy, something like: 'where there is a primary topic, it is not always necessary to provide a hatnote link to the secondary topic, e.g. where: (i) linking to the secondary topic would raise BLP/UNDUE issues, (ii) the secondary topic is very obscure and unlikely to be searched for directly, or (iii) the secondary topic is already linked from the primary topic.' At least two of those are true in the Santorum case. Robofish (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WP:TWODABS does not mandate that a hatnote must be used instead of a disambiguation page. In fact, there is very little that is mandated -- It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply -- although literal-minded wikilawyers frequently mistake a literal reading of the letter of the guidelines as being sacrosanct. older ≠ wiser 13:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think my memory of WP:TWODABS is faulty. On re-reading it, it doesn't exclude a dab page; it permits a hatnote to the alternate term rather than the dab page.

I will take the wikilawyer comment as an admonishment. Josh Parris 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you're quite reasonable. There are some others that mistake these guidelines as laws to be rigidly enforced regardless of any consideration of how best to serve readers or Wikipedia in general. older ≠ wiser 22:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"This might be resolved by a change to WP:TWODABS to say that it never applies to WP:BLPs; those mustn't have a primary topic, the term goes to the dab. Either that or we leave the rules as is... and get inconsistent application, making us look partisan." I have always advocated for option #3: we stop being partisan and apply it consistently, in this case by using the hatnote on Rick Santorum rather than kowtowing to those who are offended by the link. I recognize that this is unlikely to become the consensus opinion, but it's still true we're not absolutely limited to the choice of whether to change the rules to encourage censorship of the link, or continue to censor the link regardless of the rules. (And I do also recognize, as discussed above, that a hatnote isn't mandated, but in my opinion there's been no good reason presented not to use one.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I like this idea. Ironically, calling it the "Santorum rule" may make the term "Santorum" qualify for a DAB page, as it would at a new potential listing to one. (I find it funny calling it that - Santorum was once my senator - I didn't vote for him though, as I am a Democrat). Tatterfly (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Title of diambiguation pages

Should evey disambiguation page have "XYZ (disambiguation)" as its's title? Its better to do it that way. But didnt find it done so for all pages. Few pages have it so. Do we have a system for this? Or will it vary case by case? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate and WP:DABNAME which should clarify how disambiguation pages are titled. France3470 (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well..... thanks! I am sort of guessing that the final aim of the WikiProject Disambiguation is to have no articles linking to the Disambiguation pages. Unless ofcourse if they want to. Is that right? So wouldnt it be better to have all disambiguation pages titled with that word in it? Is the project doing this already? Or is it that the project cant do it as many articles link to the bare word already? (I am not sure what i am asking.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No. If there is no primary topic for an ambiguous title, the disambiguation page has "XYZ" as its title. Only if there's a primary topic reached by "XYZ" does the disambiguation page have "XYZ (disambiguation)" as its title. See WP:MALPLACED and WP:DABNAME. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Revolutionary War

Hello, Someone can help me making the Revolutionary War redirect a Disambiguation page? There are plenty of wars that can be considered Revolutionaty, and even the American Revolutionary War don't considered themselves the primary topic as the title says. -Ilhador- (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote to disambiguation page – is piping ok?

WP:INTDABLINK recommends linking to PAGE (disambiguation) even when it is a redirect to PAGE. Is it ok to pipe the link (as in [[PAGE (disambiguation)|PAGE]]) in a hatnote? I ask because a bot did something along those lines at Keyboard instrument. Thanks, Several Pending (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is sometimes done, but I don't see the usefulness of it. The bot does it because the bot leaves the appearance alone and fixes the intentional dab link. I don't edit page just to undo that piping, but if I'm editing a page otherwise, I remove that piping as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally do so. We occasionally get complaints about the ugliness of the result if (disambiguation) is visible in the hatnote. bd2412 T 19:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If the assumption or claim that WP:Disambiguation outweighs WP:Primary topic is true, then, shouldn`t Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) be followed

Violation of policy as discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the discussion, but the outcome is absolutely ridiculous! The scientific theory is regularly identified as The Big Bang Theory so it is clearly the primary topic for it. The TV show takes its name from the theory. Betty Logan (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The scientific theory is not regularly identified as "The Big Bang Theory". The scientific theory is regularly identified as "The Big Bang theory" or "the big bang theory". Also "takes its name from" is not a criterion for primary topic-ness. But of course all of this has been discussed and rehashed in the several forums, and proved not be be utterly ridiculous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It may well be true that this form of capitalisation may apply more commonly to the TV show but that is not the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All the capitalisation permutations can in truth apply to either topic as alternative spellings, and the guideline states A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. So the pertinent question here, is not what The Big Bang Theory is more commonly applied to, but what a reader would expect to find by searching on this term. I would wager that someone searching on that particular capitalisation would still be seeking the article on the scientific theory rather than the TV show, even if scientific research never captitalises it. If you conducted a street poll asking what such an article with that title would be about I suspect the over-whelming majority would choose the scientific theory. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to wager or suspect, however. The relevant move request was proposed and no consensus for that conclusion was formed. (And I would wager and suspect the opposite anyway.) Hatnotes on the articles suffice to give the readers the navigational assistance needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Information theory criterion for splitting DABs

The current guideline advices that "If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the different spellings into separate pages." I'm propose a clarification that for this split of DAB pages, splitting by topic should be preferred (such as music, arts, technology...) and that splitting by spelling should be usually discouraged. In summary, this proposal is for separating rules for for article titles, which are created for identification purposes, and titles for DAB pages, which are created for navigation purposes.

There are solid scientific principles of navigation supporting this clarification:

• People typically use two-word or three-word-length queries in search engines (see here), don't include articles and prepositions, and don't care for capitalization. A query without articles nor caps could refer to any of the topics that have different spellings. Splitting those disambiguation pages is forcing the user to land on one of those pages at random, since usually there's no direct one-on-one correspondence between the search query and the intended topic.
• When navigatin web sites, the primary criteria to select the next link to follow is information scent, the principle that people follows the information which is labelled as more relevant to what they're looking for. With this in mind, it makes sense to split the linked articles by area. Differences in spelling are not as much informative for the readers as subtopics with a clear header or a See also link.

An example of this is the recent conversation above about the Big Bang theory articles. The Big Bang (disambiguation) page has sections for Music, Film and television, "other uses" and "see also". When the page is loaded there's no hint in sight that a separate disambiguation page exists for the term Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), which was split following the same spelling rules that make sense for article identification; but that don't make sense for navigation. A reader looking for the current The Big Bang Theory TV series is more likely to follow the path:

• "Film and television"->The Big Bang (TV series) (for a wrong article), than the "right" path:
• "See also"->"Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)"->The Big Bang Theory.

This is because the first step of the first path has a much better scent ("television") than the second one ("see also").

Note that the above sugestion is exclusively for disambiguation pages, not article titles. The purprose of article names is to identify topics, and there are many cases where small differences in spelling are vital for identification. Top hats on articles would provide proper navigation hints. On the other hand, the primary purpose of DABs is navigation, so disambiguation pages should be structured by the well-known navigation principles that are the basis of information architecture. Diego (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with splitting by topic is that it yields incomplete disambiguation titles like Victoria (geographical disambiguation). I think that to the greatest extent possible, we should avoid splitting disambig pages, and where the differences are trivial (pluralization, a leading "the", certain minor spelling variations) we should combine them. I think the problems of length can be addressed in some cases by using collapsible sections, so the reader can decide for example whether they really want to look at all of the albums titled "Victoria". bd2412 T 20:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem with splitting by anything. I wholly agree that it's best to have one single per search string/substring/combinatorics of spellings. But since the current guideline is giving advice to split long pages, it should be done by the terms that readers actually use to navigate (topics) - which are not the same that are used by Wikipedia editors to identify different articles (different spellings).Diego (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You assume that people use Wikipedia's search box like they use Google's search box, but Wikipedia isn't a search engine, but rather an encyclopedia. Without begging the question, you'd can't just assume that the behavior on a search engine is the behavior here. "Big Bang" and "Big Bang Theory" differ by more than just spelling -- the difference there is not trivial. Each title also has a primary topic, and that primary topic has hatnotes to help readers find the right disambiguation page the first time. This is a solution in search of a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking in terms of having multiple disambiguation pages for similar titles, not the titles of the articles themselves. However, as for The Big Bang Theory, I think I would go with the principle of least surprise. There are probably many people who have heard of the theory, but not the show, while it very unlikely that people who have heard of the show have not heard of the theory. Someone typing in "The Big Bang Theory" to look up the show, and instead coming upon an article on the theory, would probably not be surprised or nonplussed to find it at (or redirected from) that title. bd2412 T 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A primary topic question

Anyone interested in weighing in on whether Republican primaries should redirect to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or to Republican Party presidential primaries per WP:RECENT? See Talk:Republican primaries. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation #Hatnotes

[3] this is not a "copy edit and clarify". The previous edit was partially reverted, not just edited over. Reverts are not inherently wrong, but using the edit summary for deception (actually, some essential content was removed, not just "edited") is wrong, and more such instances by this particular user can undermine the trust in his (other) actions. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no. Your disagreement of my other actions may undermine your opinion of my edits here. My edits here were not reverts, but copy editing and clarifying your edit. This incomprehensible statement was fully removed "Disambiguation hatnotes belong to the title, all article below hatnotes – to the topic.", for instance, but that is a clarifying copy edit (and the text is certainly not "essential"). The rest of the edit built upon your work. But since you object, I did a full revert and then reapplied the clarified and copy edited text with fresh edit summaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Automated disambig notices

Dear Disambiguators: The automated disambig notices are a stroke of genius. Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "ambiguous" mean?

The meaning of "ambiguous" is being discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Proposal:_Clarification_of_ambiguity. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Firestarter discussion

The bot keeps removing my addition of Talk:Firestarter#Move? to the alerts about dab-related move requests. I'd welcome input from other project members. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic threshold

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that a topic is primary if it is "much more likely than any other topic... to be the topic sought." Discussion at Talk:Inverter_(electrical)#Requested_move has exposed that the quantified difference, as assessed by page views, is subject to interpretation. Specifically how many times more often must a topic be sought in order to qualify as "much more likely" sought? I advise that we have a quantified standard to avoid repeated disputes on this point. I further propose that such a standard be 2 to 1, so that a topic sought twice as often qualifies as a primary topic. ENeville (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For the debate you've cited can you not use the second definition of primary? Which 'inverter' has had or is likely to have the greater long-term significance? In response to your general question: IMHO 2:1 seems a bit too low - it's pretty easy for page views to be inflated simply because a topic is made temporarily popular by internet coverage (e.g. a movie would almost always supplant the book it was based on if we used this criterion alone). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

2-to-1 seems plenty. I'd even think 50% more than any other (3-to-2) would suffice to serve the readership best. But I think incorporating a number into the guidelines would not solve more problems than it creates. I agree with Wiki-Ed that the pageviews should be taken from a "neutral" time period, either avoiding inflated periods or expanding to reduce the statistical relevance of those bumps. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ, you said Opting to set the bar lower than "100x" or "overwhelmingly" is not the same as setting the bar at "small majority" – in the discussion leading to the current wording in 2010. Now you're picking a point very much closer to "small majority". Why the shift? Anyway, there's good discussion there, well worth a review; I particularly liked the comments of Bkonrad. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"But I think incorporating a number into the guidelines would not solve more problems than it creates." No shift. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed that 2:1 is way to low to represent what we meant by "much more likely", and to use as an excuse to leave a title ambiguous. If you want a number, being an engineer, I'd go with an order of magnitude (10:1). Then readers will be bamboozled by it less than 10% of the time. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, getting stats for 90 days would buffer the problem of stat spikes. Maybe the problem should be better defined, so that we are building on the same foundation? The existence of hatnotes and primary topics seems well-established, so I don't think that there's an issue of readers getting "bamboozled". Is the primary goal at stake not to facilitate readers getting to their desired article as quickly and simply as possible? If that is the case, then something like a simple majority of total page views would seem to suffice, or somewhat more for the sake of compromise. If incorporating a number would not reduce problems overall, is there a better way to proceed here? Hopefully, we are not collectively doomed to repeat the same arguments endlessly. ENeville (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Splitting disambiguation pages is delicate

The intent of disambiguation pages is helping readers find all articles related to a term. The section Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Combining terms on disambiguation pages is intended to achieve that purpose by keeping a single page for all terms with related spelling or meaning. But then, the current recommendation to split them when they get too long defeats that purpose. Pages split by spelling get the same problem that were originally intended to be solved by that paragraph as it was discussed and agreed at this talk page; pages split by spelling make it difficult to find which of the various subpages contain the sought topic.

The existing consensus for the paragraph was decided here (where the split-by-size clause was not mentioned) and implemented here, has never been modified since. Let's discuss what the criterion for splitting disambiguation pages should be and build a consensus on what the guideline should say to fully achieve the goal for which it was created. Points for refining the guideline can include clarifying when the page is to be regarded as "inconveniently long", and what is the better way to navigate between the split pages that don't hurt the reader trying to find the desired topic.

For full disclosure, I participated at a relevant discussion going on at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Editors interested may want to review the arguments given for splitting as they apply to that practical case. Diego (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not "all articles related to" but "any topic ambiguous with". My arguments at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Primary Topic RFC hold: the topics at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) are not ambiguous with "Big Bang", and you do the readers seeking those topics a disservice by combining the different titles into one disambiguation page when the only topic ambiguous with both titles is the primary topic for "Big Bang" (and "Big Bang theory"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A) I don't agree with your attempted edit of the section. B), while you found the right archive, you linked to the wrong section. The revision made by Kotniski was proposed and discussed here and in the several following sections. IT is true that there was no explicit discussion of splitting by size there, however it did seem to reflect current practices and raised no objections. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that this is common practice doesn't address my concerns but amplifies them; that's why the recommendation is disputed, as there are several reasons why it's not optimal. The case of Big Bang disambiguation is a good example; many editors have found that the string "Big Bang Theory" is ambiguous with the theory of the Big Bang; failing to recognize that view won't make it go away. One particular question where it should be easy to build consensus: when should a disambiguation page be considered too big? I find that the criteria at Wikipedia:SIZE are a good starting point (Wikipedia:SPLITLIST in particular, since they already have consensus and were thought with readability in mind. Diego (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Trying to make a generalization based on a difficult case rarely results in good results. I don't see that the article-related guidance at Wikipedia:SIZE or Wikipedia:SPLITLIST have much of specific relevance for disambiguation pages. The specific issues relevant for disambiguation is 1) whether the list is so long as to make it difficult for readers to find a particular ambiguous topic and 2) if such a long list co-mingles related terms or lists of partial title matches that are only marginally ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't the forum to re-hash BBT, but many editors have "claimed" that "Big Bang Theory" is ambiguous with the theory; there aren't any findings to support that, however. Failing to recognize that won't make the claims true. Disambiguation pages aren't articles, so not everything that is good for articles is good for navigation pages, and vice versa. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to generalize from the BB case - in fact the problem I stated above will affect any disambiguation page that is split following the current recommendation, that was not well thought out and was never discussed before; that's why I recommend removing it if there's no consensus on what it should say as it happens now. You're both right in one thing though - this shouldn't be decided solely by editors that were involved at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation).

(Findings to support what? Every editor that found "Big bang" ambiguous with "Big bang theory" does so by personal experience; being disoriented by a bad navigation structure is a matter of subjective perception not objective measurement, although a bad structure can be quantitatively assessed with the proper procedures.) Diego (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I recommend keeping it if there's no new consensus for changing it. Obviously there was consensus for what it says now, that's why it says what it says now. Since we disambiguate by title, changes in title (aka spelling) is a well-thought out way to split long disambiguation pages. Splitting by topic area would make set index articles. Ambiguity isn't a personal experience, which helps us keep two- and three-letter dab pages from being overrun by entries for bands and persons who happen to have the initials even though some editors might have a personal experience with using those initials. And this still isn't the forum to rehash BBT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"Since we disambiguate by title, changes in title is a well-thought out way to split" is a non-sequitur. The reasons why articles are named with variations of capitalization are not made for navigation but for identification; browsing pages have different requirements than naming them, and "not everything that is good for articles is good for navigation pages". Diego (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

dab page where all entries but one are red links - what to do?

What if every entry, or every entry but one, on a dab page is a red link? It's one thing if at least some of those are notable, but we just don't have articles yet, but what if they're not sufficiently notable to be in WP? Should they be entries on the dab page? Should we delete them, and, thus, in the first case, delete the (empty) dab page, and, in the second case, change the dab page to a redirect to the one real link, or move that article to the base name?

Example: Collins Street

I think we should delete it and move Collins Street, Melbourne (apparently the only notable Collins Street) to Collins Street, but want to make sure I'm not missing anything before I propose the move. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, totally agree with you. You might want to consider a bulk nomination, though, as there are quite a few more like that at Category:Streets in Melbourne. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If the disambiguation page were cleaned, and that cleaning reduced the red links to none or otherwise left only one link on the page, I would start by so cleaning it (save the edit) then edit it again to change it to a redirect to the last link. If that bold edit remained, and if the target of the redirect would be better titled by the move, then I would move it. Or immediately start the move discussion after making it a redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are entries blue, black, hashed or red, but I vehemently oppose to deleting such pages, because this would hide a useful data from all users not having the sysop privilege. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with you (except for the vehemence) -- any such dab page with at least one valid topic on Wikipedia would at most be reduced to a redirect to the only valid entry, not deleted. But other cases, in which dab pages were created without any valid Wikipedia topics for which the ambiguous topic applies, those dab pages should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In cases like the above, the manual of style for red links recommends unlinking the red word and linking to an existing article in the description. In the case of streets, this will almost always be a link to the town where the street is located since most towns and cities are guaranteed to have a Wikipedia article. This will allow the interested reader to find a Wikipedia page with information contextually relevant to the place they're looking for, even if the street is not notable all by itself. Diego (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare these unlinked Collins Streets etc with unlinked Maggie Andersons above. I'm getting quite confused as to what level of "mention" is required for entry on a dab page. And the related thought: If any actress in a cast list, or minor character in a musical, is appropriate to add to a dab page under WP:DABMENTION, should there also have been a redirect from that name if it was a unique mention in the encyclopedia?(Eg the rest of the actors in Corpus Callosum (2007 film) such as Sarah Nagy and the other characters in Brigadoon like Tommy Albright.) If not, why not - should the fact that no-one else in the encyclopedia has the same name (or no street does) mean that we don't provide access from that name, while we would do so if it happened to match a name which has, or might have, an article? Then there's "How to do a hatnote to provide a link which would have been a legitimate redlink on a dab page?". I feel there should be a levelness here: if a person/thing mentioned in an article meets criterion XYZ then there should be a redirect, a hatnote, or a dab page entry as appropriate, to provide access to that mention (which may be one of several in different articles, of course!) from the name, and if not, then not. But there seem different rules for different cases. PamD 14:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a very clear and easy to evaluate threshold established by WP:V: if Wikipedia contains verifiable information for a topic name, the disambiguation page for that name should point to the article where that topic is covered with the most detail. This justifies the entries for Maggie Anderson characters, since they are mentioned in their respective host articles. For street names I think it's an IAR situation since many location articles are kept anyway without proper references, so streets could use the same exemption. Two rules of thumb are "will this help readers locate encyclopedic content that is already at Wikipedia with this name?" and "would I create a redirect to that article with this term?". Non-significant or passing mentions would be exceptions to this rule, since they can be located with the search engine anyway. Diego (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves of 30+ Melbourne street names

Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:

These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.

Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.

Noetica^Tea? 12:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably input from WP:AT, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, and/or WP:VPP would be useful. From a disambiguation perspective, if the street is the primary topic for the name-without-city, then it doesn't matter which one redirects to the other. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral, but keep in mind that if any other Wikipedia article contains information about a street with the same name, then the base name (e.g. Collins Street) should point to a disambiguation page (e.g. Collins Street (disambiguation)) unless the street with an article is a primary topic (i.e. any reader in the world looking for that name is most likely interested in that one street with the article - such as Broadway Street or the Fifth Avenue - and not the one near them). Diego (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Primary topic does not currently mean "any reader in the world", but rather "the readership as a whole". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  No, I think you've got this wrong.

  You say: "if any other Wikipedia article contains information about a street with the same name, then the base name (e.g. Collins Street) should point to a disambiguation page (e.g. Collins Street (disambiguation)) unless the street with an article is a primary topic (i.e. any reader in the world looking for that name is most likely interested in that one street with the article - such as Broadway Street or the Fifth Avenue - and not the one near them)."

  I think the correct version is: "if any other Wikipedia article contains information about a street with the same name, then the base name (e.g. Collins Street) should be a disambiguation page (and a redirect at Collins Street (disambiguation) should point to this dab page) unless the street with an article is a primary topic (i.e. any reader in the world looking for that name is most likely interested in that one street with the article - such as Broadway Street or the Fifth Avenue - and not the one near them)." PamD 14:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  And, looking at your examples, Broadway Street is a redirect to Broadway which is a disambiguation page which links to a lot of streets including Broadway (New York City), so you seem somewhat confused here. PamD 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  I concur with PamD - the only relevant fact about a basename that redirects to a dab page at "Basename (disambiguation)" is that the dab page should be moved to the basename.

  As to the proposed move, I object to the group move, as each one needs to be considered separately. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Well yes, my point is that if Wikipedia contains content for several streets, the base name shouldn't just point to one of them only because it has a whole article and the others don't. Broadway Street pointed to Broadway Street (San Francisco) when I wrote the paragraph above, but then I edited it to point to the disambiguation page following my own advice but mudding my argument. You're right that the disambiguation page doesn't need to have "(disambiguation)" in the title in such case. Diego (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  It was quite correct for Broadway Street to point to the San Francisco street, as this appears to be the only Wikipedia article on a street of that name. It could have a hatnote pointing to the Chicago Broadway which apparently (there's a redirect) is also known as Broadway Street, and also pointing to the Broadway dab page. (Though, looking at (a) the text of the article, and (b) the talk page, it seems rather doubtful whether the street in San Francisco is actually called "Broadway Street" at all! PamD 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  You are correct that the primary topic for an ambiguous title might be part of a larger article. I am not aware of any such sections of larger articles that cover roads, but they could certainly exist. OTOH, a road that appears in Wikipedia only in a list or mention without exposition in another article would be IMO no contention for primary topic, and if only one road had exposition somewhere on Wikipedia, that road would be the primary topic over list appearance or other passing mentions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  Since I started the section above, the Collins Street dab page has been updated[4] so that now one more entry is no longer a redlink. Collins Street, Hobart is now a redirect to (get this) David Collins (governor)#Legacy because there is a mention of the street there: "Collins has given his name to Collinsvale in Tasmania, Collins Street, Melbourne and Collins Street, Hobart, Tasmania."

  So the article at Collins Street, Melbourne remains the primary topic and should be at Collins Street, while the dab page currently at Collins Street should be Collins Street (disambiguation). And this is only one of the cases in the proposed group move. I'm going to propose a speedy close so that a group move of only those that should be moved, like Collins Street, Melbourne → Collins Street, can be proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a general comment, I've never been particularly fond of multiple-page move requests because something always seems to be mangled in the process.
  Generally, I think that it's a good idea to add some sort of localization disambiguate to place name article titles, simply because within the structure of Wikipedia it's almost always useful information. This is an exception to the general rule of "don't disambiguate unnecessarily", but there's a good reason for it. The discussion above, about Broadway Street/Broadway, is an excellent example of the structural issues that we run into constantly with place names.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To quote what I just posted on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic_names)#WP:USPLACE, What harm is done to the readers by having article names that are clear and concise? Having to read paragraphs or other articles to find out what the article is about (yes, this does happen) for some places does not serve anyone except for those who support obfuscation. Heck maybe we can eliminate much of these debates and reduce confusion by banning obfuscation in the naming! That seems just as appropriate here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

    Probably useful for a naming convention on roads (e.g., to use the city or other geographic location as a natural, unparenthesized part of the name). Once the appropriate name has been determined (with or without a comma-attached portion), then if it's found to be ambiguous and also is not the primary topic, then an additional parenthesized qualifier can be added. No harm done. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking to a DAB page

In the following scenario, what should be done? A page includes the complete list of all chapters of a Fraternity both active and inactive and all of the school names are linked to the appropriate page. However, one of the chapter was at Foobar College is New York and the school is now closed and does not have a wikipedia page at this time. Wikipedia already has a dab page for Foobar College because there are Foobar Colleges in California, Scotland and Cuba. Should the link from the Fraternity chapter list be linked to the dab page (with the addition of information on Foobar College, New York in the dab page ??), should it be redlinked to Foobar College (New York) or should the entry be left without a link?Naraht (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What article or disambiguation page listing these chapters are you referring to? I'm having a hard time visualizing the scenario. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

One such case is Dominican College in List of Alpha Phi Omega chapters. I think the best answer depends on whether the College is notable enough to deserve an article (and hence a redlink until an article appears). That seems marginal. Certes (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I think I understand. IMO, no, no such list articles should link to a school dab page. If the entry is warranted in the list, it should be added to the list either unlinked or red linked, but I agree that that determination is as Certes says (and per WP:REDLINK): is it notable enough for its own article if any editor feels like created it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If the referenced Dominican College in Racine, Wisconsin is not notable enough for an article, the link could be piped to Racine, Wisconsin#Higher education, and a line could be added to that section identifying Dominican College as an institution there. According to this alumni website, the college in question closed its doors in 1974. Alternately, we could pipe the link to Dominican College (Racine, Wisconsin), and make that link redirect to the aforementioned article section, so that it will point somewhere until an article is made to replace the redirect. bd2412 T 17:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Certes, I was trying to keep it general, but yes, that is one of the two on the page that I was wondering about. (the other is Durham College in North Carolina, Similar situation) Both of the school are now closed, but in some form Dominican was open for more than 30 years and I think Durham more than a decade, so I think the entries will be warranted.Naraht (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Then I think they deserve at least a redlink along the lines of [[Dominican College (Wisconsin)|Dominican College]]. Better still is to turn the redlink blue: either create a stub article, or mention the college in a more general article and create a #REDIRECT to the section as BD2412 suggested. Either way, you'll certainly be improving the current link. Certes (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Davis (disambiguation)

Could people please contribute to this page's AfD? It keeps having a speedy tag put on, and without informing the creator (me) or responding to my message. It seems to me to be a simple and very valid page, but whatever people's opinions, please add your comments to the AfD. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One Happy Day

One Happy Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yes, before redirect to Kate Ryan album, Different, there were partial matches. However, they are beneficial for this page, and I don't see WP:DAB#Partial title matches saying that "Just One Happy Day" does not risk significant confusion. I don't see how "One Happy Day" is intended as just one song. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They aren't beneficial for the encyclopedia. There is apparently no other topic on Wikipedia that could have been the subject of an article titled One Happy Day. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

National sports teams

These are known by the country name, within the context of any match or tournament. Should there be a link from the country name disambiguation page to the teams?

Examples:

• [[5]] - links to several major teams and to a list of national teams
• Old version of Northern Ireland (disambiguation) - link to category
• Samoa (disambiguation) - no sports teams
• France (disambiguation) - no sports teams

Any thoughts on whether/how they should be included or linked? PamD 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt there's risk of someone looking for a sports team by searching WP for "England". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

England is a popular metonym for various sporting teams. The treatment there seems about right to me: England is about the obvious primary topic but has a hatnote to England (disambiguation), which lists a few of the most popular uses such as England national football team and links to List of national sports teams of England for a fuller list. Similar treatment for France, Samoa, etc. would seem perfectly reasonable. Certes (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Only if encyclopedia users or Wikipedia users expect to find an article about a sporting team titled with its metonym. Which I don't think is likely. Otherwise it's just a list of things that's fun for editors or for exploration, but not useful for navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambig lengths

Is there some sort of sensible for the length of disambiguation pages? I've been bold and split Ranger into different pages because it was long and had disparate terms, is this the wrong thing to do? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In general sense, yes, it is undesirable to force readers looking for something called "ranger" to traverse multiple pages (something termed "Incomplete disambiguation"). older ≠ wiser 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The current guideline suggest creating that kind of splitting, though (and splitting by spelling, no less). I recently tried to remove that recommendation, following the same principle that everything's best together (or at least make it so that all related meanings stay together at the same subpage, like the current Ranger DAB does) but you disagreed then. What should be the desired treatment of a very long DAB page in your view? Diego (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The current guideline does not suggest creating the kind of splitting described by the OP. In cases where pages have been split as you describe, what invariably happens is that other editors come along later and add individual entries back to the main page creating both partial duplication and entries existing on the main page that are not on the sub-page. In other words, it results in both maintenance problems and unsatisfactory user experience. Entries on long pages should be grouped into reasonably-sized sections and subsections (and trimmed of any unambiguous partial title matches). older ≠ wiser 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the military units (which constitute the largest section of the page), perhaps these could be moved to a page at List of military units called rangers. This would be particularly appropriate if there was some common reason for these units being so named. bd2412 T 23:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@Bkonrad - Then we agree that having one single long DAB page is the preferred outcome. But the guideline does say that a long page should be split, even if not following the same criteria used by GimliDotNet at Ranger. In that case, my previous suggestion to remove the recommendation to split is consistent with our both opinions as it doesn't reflect the best practice. Diego (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you are conflating different types of splits. In general though, I think there may be some common ground between us to clarify the guidance on splitting. I think in most cases that splits based solely on plural vs. singular or on all caps vs mixed case are unhelpful (although that last is ultimately based in the Red Meat vs. Red meat cannard in WP:AT. I don't agree (at least not entirely) with your analysis of Big Bang, Big bang, Big bang theory, Big Bang Theory, and The Big Bang Theory. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a safe criterion for splitting a disambiguation page is when there are enough entries to create a set index, like bd2412 above suggested for military units - see how Ranger (surname) makes sense as a target article from Ranger. Terms that differ only by caps or articles are already covered by WP:DPAGES; they belong together at DAB. Actually the Red Meat vs. Red meat example is exactly how I think it should be done; you can disambiguate by caps at article space (as the string identifies the topic), but all links for disambiguation should link to the same disambiguation page (since the topic names are ambiguous for navigation). Diego (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivial hatnote links - the case for two-term disambiguation pages

I have proposed a change to the hatnotes guideline at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. In it I raise the problem that we have articles about serious topics, yet which have hatnote links to other non-serious articles. I give some examples, and suggest that we use two-term disambiguation pages with a standard otheruses hatnote, to hide any trivial links. I point out also that most two-term disambiguation pages can easily be made into three-term disambiguation pages sometime later. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia distinguishes between notable and non-notable topics. If a topic is not notable, the article should be deleted. If the article is not deleted, and the topic is ambiguous with another article's topic, disambiguation is needed. If there are only two such topics, and one is primary disambiguation can be handled through a hatnote. We do not need to inconvenience readers who are looking for topics that some editors find trivial to avoid embarrassing the editors who are looking for topics that some editors find serious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with JHunterJ. If there are multiple terms, we have a hatnote pointing to a disambiguation page. If there is only one other term, why have a hatnote that forces the reader to go to a disambiguation page with only one other topic, instead of going directly to that one other topic? On a side note, in my experience the more prominent the primary topic is, the more likely there will be multiple other uses of that name, if only because some later users will have tried to capture some of the prominence of a famous earlier user. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary topic criteria in move requests

My application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in closing move requests is generating drama at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#‎Two queried move discussion closures, including a speedy resubmission of Talk:All That Jazz#Move? (2). These are just the most recent instances of what appears to me to be a problem in the move discussions. If the criteria suit an editors opinion of whether a topic "deserves" to be primary topic, the criteria are used, but if they don't, the criteria are dismissed summarily. There seems to be an inclination to raise the bar to a certain level of general usage before any primary topic can be observed, although I can't figure out what the threshold is, and none of the editors who are against using the usage criteria for topics without long-term significance have taken my invitation to propose changes or additions here. Any ideas for updating the guidelines or addressing the move churn? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the current criterion that the primary topic should be decided by consensus is good enough. The problem seems to be that neither of the discussions achieved consensus, neither strong nor rough; closing the discussions as no consensus would have avoided all drama. No primary topic should be the default result in all cases where there's a dispute about the primary topic, unless the number of visits is overwhelmingly higher for one single article above all the others sharing an equal or approximate spelling (which also didn't happen in the above cases).Diego (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Decided by consensus" means that we should replace the current guidance on the criteria with "It's up to the discussion at each title's talk page to decide which if any of the ambiguous topics is primary." I have no objection to that, if that's the consensus for determining primary topic; it will save some trouble from trying to apply the guidelines after discussions that have ignored them. "No primary topic should be the default" is also a change. Your last claim that the visits weren't overwhelmingly in favor of a primary topic is incorrect for All That Jazz. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a different way to interpret guidelines; for me the current redaction of PRIMARYTOPIC already makes "no primary topic" the default for every case where usage and historicity do not match: "[if] there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance,[...] consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic." And I wouldn't call a factor of 3x to 6x "overwhelming" - in special for such low number of visits; any fluctuation in page views by a TV rerun would skew the comparison. No, I was thinking along the lines of at least 100x more visits so that we can begin to approach "overwhelming" (and only when the less visited does not have higher historical significance). Diego (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, 6x is "much more than any other", the current guideline. 6:1 odds seems good enough to overwhelm things in general. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That could be true if Wikipedia pageviews were an accurate measurement of the usage of a particular topic, are you claiming that they are? Even then, you would be creating a disorientating situation for at least 16% of the readers; that's too high a false positive rate. Failure rates should be kept at least under 5% (a 20:1 rate), and preferably under 1%. Diego (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm claiming the Wikipedia pageviews are an accurate measure of the Wikipedia readership's viewing of the pages, and yes, I am claiming that Wikipedia usage follows Wikipedia readership viewing pages. Hatnotes are not disorienting unless they are surprising -- someone looking up "apple" may be disoriented to find an article about a tech company (and thus the criteria for long-term significance). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But the guideline is not about Wikipedia usage, that's why "Google web, news, scholar, or book searches" are also suggested as indicators and why no single measurement is singled-out. Real world usage may greatly differ with the number of visits at any particular time; the number of page views at the particular time that a Wikipedia editor decided to create a disambiguation page can be really misleading with respect to the needs of people wanting to learn about the topic (it could be increased by a lively discussion at talk page, for example, or a few dozens of readers from a small region where the topic is temporarily popular could skew the results for the rest of the world). Also the wording ("highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined") is an extremely strong indicator that this criterion only applies to exceptional cases - sorry but a one-in-six difference is definitely not exceptional. Diego (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The guideline also says: "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors". This means that if there is no consensus, there can't be a primary topic; following rules alone is not enough. Diego (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I know the current wording (although I'd suggest that if there is no consensus, WP:STATUSQUO). That's why I initiated the discussion, since that clause is used as an escape hatch for anyone who disagrees with it, and makes the rest of the guideline so much wasted space. Which I think I predicted when it was so edited. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

STATUSQUO would be the default result if all discussions are closed as no consensus; it's also a direct application of wp:consensus ("an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns"), not something specific of PRIMARYTOPIC. If you were aware that the guideline supports keeping the status quo, you shouldn't have supervoted when closing the discussion but waited to see if a strong consensus could evolve with further discussion. Diego (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. I applied the guidelines referenced in the discussion, which was WP:NOTVOTE. It's only if you render the guidelines here moot, ignore the criteria given entirely by over-emphasizing the language around them, that you'd end up with having to fall back on WP:STATUSQUO in the absence of a consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. The guideline for PRIMARYVOTE makes explicit warnings not to rely overly on trafic statistics or Google hits, and to define primary topics only either in extreme cases or by explicit consensus. Guidelines are intended to be used as good arguments that should be considered at talk, not as the only points valid during discussion. Treating them as checklists for items to be evaluated at closing discussions is contrary to the WP:Consensus policy and the WP:Ignore all rules pillar. If several editors find that the arguments in the guideline are not convincing in a particular case (and provide reasonable explanations) it's not the role of the closing admin to second-guess all the discussion participants; a closing decision should be a summary of the whole discussion, not a quality !vote that dismisses the arguments of half participants. Consensus is supposed to take all legitimate concerns under consideration and not discard any of them without explanation, that's why one single person (the closing admin) can't achieve it with a supervote.

To keep this on topic: you asked what should be the level of prominence required to determine a primary topic. I've stated my opinion on the required number of visits if one's to use the unreliable number of article visits; forcing one in six visitors to find a surprising page and follow two links to correct the mistake is unacceptable. You can have a different opinion, but you shouldn't be forcing that personal criterion through the power that closing discussions grants you; that's not how the consensus policy is expected to work. Diego (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we not conflate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with WP:CONSENSUS. The closer's job is to ultimately determine the latter; evaluating the former is part of that process. Just because there is no agreement among, say, 5 or 6 or even 12 or 20 participants in a particular discussion does not mean there is no consensus. It could very well be that one side is well ground in policy and guidelines (which are presumed to reflect consensus), while the other side is nothing but JDLI rationalization. If a few participants choose to ignore PRIMARYTOPIC because following it indicates a resolution with which they disagree, then, frankly, their input needs to be discounted if not totally dismissed, IMHO. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the general analysis, but in the discussions above I found rational arguments both for and against the merges (some of them policy-based, like "no clear primary topic, the song and film are both popular" at All That Jazz). In this case, the global consensus in PRIMARYVOTE is that a primary topic must be decided through discussion and there are not general firm rules to decide when a topic is primary (i.e. this particular guideline just refer to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and provides some non-binding general advice to take into account); if discussion doesn't reach rough consensus (which can have some disagreeing positions, but then others should have considered and taken into account the points of disagreement - and possibly alleviate them), then the discussion should be closed as No consensus following the procedure described at WP:DGFA#Rough consensus. My view is that formal discussions should be closed much more frequently as "no consensus"; that would force all parties to compromise and find a real consensus that reflects all concerns and not just half of them. Diego (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If there is no primary topic, then the dab page should be at the main name space. However when there are only two contenders, some editors object to a two entry dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Having reviewed the discussion here, I can summarise my position as close to Diego's:

"No primary topic should be the default result in all cases where there's a dispute about the primary topic, ..."

That is a fine and robust principle, respecting the purpose of RM discussions – which is, I think, to apply good sense in the interests of Wikipedia's hugely varied worldwide readership. Good sense, informed by (but not constrained by) fallible, flawed, and often partisan provisions in policy and guidelines. Of course this robust principle itself could be overridden: if the dissent were badly argued, founded in political concerns (broadly construed), or overwhelmed by a clear consensus after wide consultation. Of course, it is very rare for there to be wide community consultation in RM discussions. The current multiple RM at Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne is an exception; I advertised it widely, specifically to get some fresh air into what has virtually become a closed shop – closed by intimidating and implacable legalism, and sheer complexity.

So I do not go along with Diego's continuation:

"... unless the number of visits is overwhelmingly higher for one single article above all the others sharing an equal or approximate spelling (which also didn't happen in the above cases)."

This might be a consideration that would sway some of the "jurors"; but it is unnecessary and unhelpful as a hard principle. Such cases will vary. In the current RM at Talk:Big, it is almost certainly against the interests of the readership to argue that way, even if the rapper article clearly wins in the numbers game, or the film comes out overwhelmingly on top. So what, in either case? The word "big" is so deeply settled as common currency in English that it is only by an obsession with rule-following that we would want it appropriated by a film, a rapper, a video game, a song, an album, or a novel.

So it seems to me, anyway. This discussion needs to be taken very seriously.

☺ Noetica^Tea? 23:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That second part was not intended as a hard limit, just a clarification of the current "primary with respect to usage" criterion trying to make it more strict so that it's not commonly used as the only defining factor. I actually agree with you that the guideline shouldn't be interpreted to place the film above the other articles; that's one case where my "overwhelming" criterion above was clearly not met (it's not even the most visited article in the disambiguation page!). There's no clear winner and the meaning of the plain English word is prevalent, so no article should get the Primary topic treatment. Diego (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

the other elephant

The other problem here is the strong presumption among some that if an ambiguous term has a PRIMARYTOPIC, then that ambiguous term should be used as the title, in preference to a less ambiguous title. WP:D doesn't require that, but what it says about redirects is pretty confusing and leads some to prefer that. Why not make it clear that a less ambiguous title is often a good thing, and let the ambiguous one be a redirect, when there is reason to claim a primary topic? Dicklyon (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that. The guideline could be amended to say that only Broad-concept articles get to stay at the disambiguated string. If the primary topic is specific (a film, a song...) then the title should retain the WP:PRECISION disambiguation parentheses and the plain string should redirect to it. Diego (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. A primary topic where usage and long-term significance coincide would also be a good candidate for occupying the raw string even if the article is not broad-concept; this is what one usually understands by "primary" if you step out of the current wording in a Wikipedia guideline. Diego (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're saying that if a subject is deemed the primary usage of a name but doesn't meet the above criteria, we should redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)". For example, Big should be moved to Big (film), with the former redirecting to the latter (unless it's determined that the film isn't the primary usage).

What, in your view, would this accomplish? How would readers benefit from this enormous addition of complexity? —David Levy 17:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it's not an "enormous addition of complexity" - having PRECISION terms is something usually done for hundreds of thousands of articles. Second, it would recognize that we have several articles about one single term, and that none of them has any particular prevalence among the others, thus satisfying the principle of least surprise for the highest number of users (e.g. that a significant percentage of readers searching using the Big string may be looking for Big (song) or Big! the TV series and would be surprised to find a film). Where the least surprise is finding the William Shakespeare article under the William Shakespeare string, no added complexity is needed; my suggestion is for those cases where there's no reasonable expectancy of any particular topic under the base string. Diego (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

First, it's not an "enormous addition of complexity" - having PRECISION terms is something usually done for hundreds of thousands of articles.

I was referring not to the titles themselves, but to the process through which we determine them.

Under the current setup, if we know that a subject is usually called "foo", we need only determine whether it's the primary usage of that name. If it is, that's what we title the article. Otherwise, we use a different title ("Foo" with natural/parenthetical disambiguation appended or an alternative name with less ambiguity).

Your proposed setup would add the additional step (and additional opportunity for dispute/debate) of determining whether a usage already deemed primary fits the criteria that you describe above.

Under the current setup, when an editor encounters an instance in which "Foo" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation term)", it's safe to assume that this should be fixed. Under your proposed setup, one would need to seek out past discussion (and if it doesn't exist, either initiate it or attempt to determine the proper course of action and risk triggering a dispute/debate).

Second, it would recognize that we have several articles about one single term, and that none of them has any particular prevalence among the others

If "none of them has any particular prevalence among the others", there's no primary usage.

thus satisfying the principle of least surprise for the highest number of users (e.g. that a significant percentage of readers searching using the Big string may be looking for Big (song) or Big! the TV series and would be surprised to find a film).

I don't follow. If the film isn't the primary usage of the name "Big", that's a valid reason to move the article. But if it is the primary usage, how would redirecting Big to Big (film) help anyone? Users typing "Big" would continue to "find a film". Why would one accidentally arriving at Big (film) be less surprised than one accidentally arriving at the very same article without parenthetical disambiguation in its title?

Where the least surprise is finding the William Shakespeare article under the William Shakespeare string, no added complexity is needed; my suggestion is for those cases where there's no reasonable expectancy of any particular topic under the base string.

If "there's no reasonable expectancy of any particular topic under the base string," there's no primary usage. "Foo" shouldn't lead to an article (directly or as a redirect) unless that article's subject (or an element thereof) is the primary usage of the name "foo". —David Levy 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my point would be that PRIMARYTOPICs should be used much less frequently that they currently are, mostly only for topics with long-term significant or with 100x number of pageviews over all the other combined. A situation like Big, where the film has less hits than another article in the disambiguation page and which lacks enduring historical significance, should never be treated as primary and placed directly under a no-precision title. I suggested as a compromise the "Foo -> Foo (precision)" redirect for articles with simple (less than 50x) majority of pageviews but without long-term significance, because it's commonly used anyway and because it would be easier to achieve consensus for that change, not because I find that it's the best solution in most cases. In any case I don't think the criteria should be based on what it makes it easier for Wikipedians to maintain as you suggest ("when an editor encounters an instance [...] it's safe to assume that this should be fixed"), but what makes it easier for readers to navigate. Diego (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my point would be that PRIMARYTOPICs should be used much less frequently that they currently are, mostly only for topics with long-term significant or with 100x number of pageviews over all the other combined.

I strongly disagree with that threshold, but that's a separate matter. Whatever the threshold, we need only one. For our purposes, a usage either is or isn't primary. I see no benefit (and a great deal of detriment) to establishing a third, intermediate state.

A situation like Big, where the film has less hits than another article in the disambiguation page and which lacks enduring historical significance, should never be treated as primary and placed directly under a no-precision title.

If that's so (I'm not opining one way or the other), it should be moved to Big (film) and Big (disambiguation) should be moved to Big.

I suggested as a compromise the "Foo -> Foo (precision)" redirect for articles with simple (less than 50x) majority of pageviews but without long-term significance

And I'm opining that such a "compromise" would be unhelpful. Either leaving the film's article at Big or moving the disambiguation page to that title makes sense, depending on whether the film is considered the primary usage of the name. Redirecting Big to Big (film) is the worst of both worlds (the ugliness of parenthetical disambiguation, without the navigational distinction).

because it's commonly used anyway and because it would be easier to achieve consensus for that change,

By "commonly used", I assume that you're referring to parenthetical disambiguation in general [not to redirects from 'Foo' to 'Foo (disambiguation term)']. I doubt that it would be easier to achieve consensus for such a change, for the reasons noted above. Any consistent threshold (even one as extreme as "100x number of pageviews") makes far more sense than creating an additional source of argumentation across hundreds of thousands of articles, purely for the sake of adding parenthetical disambiguation with absolutely no impact on navigation.

not because I find that it's the best solution in most cases.

It isn't a solution at all. It's splitting the baby.

In any case I don't think the criteria should be based on what it makes it easier for Wikipedians to maintain as you suggest

That isn't what I wrote (or what I think).

but what makes it easier for readers to navigate.

Agreed. That's why I asked: "How would readers benefit from this enormous addition of complexity?". If there were some benefit, a reduction in editor convenience might be justified. I see no benefit. —David Levy 23:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also always agreed with that, Dicklyon. There is never any need for a parenthetical qualifier to be added to the primary topic for the title the topic already has (WP:PRECISION), but it is often the case that the primary topic for one title is better titled with another title (either with a natural, unparenthesized qualifier, or with an entirely different title). The two questions are (or should be) indepedent: what's the correct title for this topic? and what's the best topic for this title? If the answers are the same, the article on the topic should go at the base name. If the answers are different, then the base name of the ambiguous title should redirect to the correctly-titled article. I definitely disagree with Diego Moya's suggestion that only broad-concept articles get to stay at the disambiguated string. William Shakespeare, Russia, War and Peace, and The Beatles do not need to be moved to more-fully-qualified titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:D is long, and we can't shorten it much without omitting something important. Maybe we need a short preamble, based on JHunterJ's two questions above, with links to WP:D, WP:AT and elsewhere for the minutiae. Something like:

1. work out the best title for the article per WP:AT, almost ignoring other articles
2. if the title is free then put the article there; if not then apply WP:D
3. for each alternative title
   • if the title is free then put a redirect there; if not then apply WP:D

Certes (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@JHunterJ I later updated my inicial proposed criterion for getting the unqualified base name so that "historical significance" (a criterion external to Wikipedia) is the main requirement, instead of the Wikipedia-dependent "how does the topic compare with other existing Wikipedia articles?". Articles like William Shakespeare, Russia, War and Peace, and The Beatles definitely merit occupying the base name, but a Hollywood blockbuster like the Big film wouldn't qualify - it just doesn't have the same weight as the above, so it shouldn't displace the pure meaning of the word "big". My criterion suggest a simple rule by which this difference can evaluated.

@Certes I'm not sure about the process you describe; it seems dependent on the order you create articles (at least how I read it literally), since the first created article would get the base name (which is "free" at first) and any other contender for the title should be disambiguated. Unless by step 2 you mean "if there's only one article for the name place it there, else disambiguate both titles", in which case the steps are fine but then I can't see how it differs from current practice - do you intend it just as a clarification? Diego (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just a clarification of current practice, though maybe not quite as clear as I'd hoped. I'm trying to separate "picking the best title for the article" from "picking the best article/dab/redirect for the title". That way, our brains don't overflow by trying to juggle both policies at once (with exceptions like "natural disambiguation" per WP:PRECISE, hence the "almost" in step 1). By the last part of step 2, I simply meant "apply existing policy as summarised in WP:D", which may modify the new title, usurp it from another article or require a dab. It doesn't depend on the order the articles arrived (unless an inconclusive debate closes as WP:STATUSQUO). Feel free to ignore this idea if it's not helpful. Certes (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's clearer now. It's just that I didn't now how to make sense of it without enough context on what it intended to accomplish. Diego (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be OK as long as "work out the best title for the article per WP:AT, almost ignoring other articles" is sensibly interpreted. Too often, the "best title for the article per WP:AT" is taken to be the most concise and ambiguous title, since the provisions for recognizability and precision have been so eviscerated over recent years. If we can admit that many titles (e.g. Big, Cane, Nice, Collins Street) are ambiguous, independent of consideration of other WP articles, and that the provisions of WP:AT would be better satisfied by titles less concise than these, then ""work out the best title for the article per WP:AT, almost ignoring other articles" might work. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this has been pointed out before, but I think the name "primary topic" is probably not ideal, perhaps even unfortunate, because it has certain connotations of "importance" that are irrelevant to the purpose of the underlying mechanism on WP.

The underlying goal is to arrange our articles with respect to titles, dab pages and redirects in a manner that minimizes the number of clicks users who are searching with a given term have to make to get to the article about the topic they are seeking. In order to accomplish this, for each likely search term, among all the uses of that term that have articles on WP, we try to identify whether one of them is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". If there is a such a topic, we have traditionally referred to it, for better or for worse, as the "primary topic".

But, like I said, when people see or hear "primary", they seem to think "most important", and that derails the process, because the role of "importance" here, if any, is implied and secondary. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is not responsive to the topic of this subsection, which has no bearing on numbers of clicks nor on what you want to call it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

But the subsection topic does suggest an example for the "AT then D" approach. Suppose I want to write about Alexandra Burke's recent song Elephant. A brief look at the likes of Eleanor Rigby and My Generation suggests that Elephant might make a good article title. It is at this point that I find my path blocked by a large grey mammal. I consider moving it to Elephant (animal) but it refuses to shift. I wonder whether it might like to share a disambiguation page with me but it's clearly too big for that. I settle for Elephant (song), and give my "other elephant" a plug at Elephant (disambiguation). Job done.

The main case where this approach may fail is when the prospective title clashes with a common word such as big which hasn't (and shouldn't have) a Wikipedia entry. Should the fact that the word or phrase has such a dictionary meaning disqualify a less common meaning (the film), which does merit an article, from being its primary topic? I don't know. Certes (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick, indeed, I was responding to some of the commentary within the subsection, and the premises they seem to be based upon.

Anyway, if you want to me to answer this, Why not make it clear that a less ambiguous title is often a good thing, and let the ambiguous one be a redirect, when there is reason to claim a primary topic?, I will. If a title is ambiguous, then it should not be a redirect either, but a dab page. If a title redirects to one specific article, then it's not ambiguous, by definition. That is, if Big redirects to Big (film), then Big is just as unambiguous as is Big (film); neither is less ambiguous than the other.

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept your non-Wikipedian usage of "ambiguous" -- in which Big is "ambiguous", even though it redirects to one specific article, because of usage outside of WP title space -- to interpret your question. The answer is the same every time you ask: it raises the questions that many including David Levy (talk · contribs) have asked you repeatedly [6][7], and you refuse to answer. I've made this point in terms of saying the "devil is in the details". David does it by asking where you draw the line. We make these points and ask these questions because we do not know the answers, but realize they must be addressed and answered in order to answer your question. Your refusal to even acknowledge this, much less address it adequately, but repeatedly asking your question never-the-less, is quintessential disruptive WP:IDHT behavior.

The bottom-line is this. Given two pre-selected titles, one more concise and the other more precise/descriptive, it's just as easy to select between the two by either criteria (more concise or more precise/descriptive). But the reality is that the only reason we usually are choosing between two titles, is because of our traditional strong inclination to go with the more concise. If we drop that, as you favor, then that opens the flood gates for any number of titles. This is because concise is self-limiting - if you get too concise, then the title is unworkable, but you can't be too precise/descriptive. Precision/description is open-ended. If Big (film) is better than Big, then why not Big (1988 film) or Big (Tom Hanks 1988 romantic comedy film), etc. etc.? That's why we have "only as precise as necessary to disambiguate from other uses": to manage that problem. You're saying we should drop that, and replace it with nothing. At least you're not proposing anything in its stead. This is what David's questions are getting at. This is what I mean by "the devil is in the details". Please stop dodging this issue, or at least stop raising your question without first addressing this. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

revised for clarification --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION already answers that. Big (film) is better than Big (1988 film) if there are no other films with that title, but if we have two film then the later is preferred. Similarly Big would work if there were no other articles with that word in the title (which is not the case). The existing criteria is working, no need to drop it; you just have to apply it as intended; you know, to disambiguate. When several articles have the same reasonable claims to be called with "the less ambiguous name", none of them should have it unless one of them is overwhelmingly recognized as primary topic (much more likely to be sought that all others combined, and preferably a term with long-term significance). "Big" is ambiguous because there are many articles that could be placed at Big, not just the film. Maybe I'm missing part of the conversation, but I don't see how Dicklyon is asking to drop the current guideline. Diego (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I was not suggesting dropping any guidelines, just maybe interpreting them more sensibly, and maybe adding some words to help encourage a more sensible interpretation. A nonsense interpretation is like "If a title redirects to one specific article, then it's not ambiguous, by definition" as Born2cycle puts it. He seems to be saying that if I can't provide an algorithm that draws the line in tradeoffs between precision and conciseness, then he is justified in claiming that I just didn't hear him that conciseness should always win. Wherever the community rejects that idea of his, he invokes policy; and then he says we can't change policy to be better, because it reflects community practice. He's been running around this loop for 6 years, and unfortunately has made some "progress" in remaking title policy the way he wants it. I hear it, and I think the effect is horrible. Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on guys, we have enough to work out with regard to where we actually disagree; no need to pile on imaginary stuff. I didn't say anything about anyone dropping a guideline; I said, in a context of discussing choices between titles that are "ambiguous" in a broad sense (but don't conflict with other uses on WP, or meet primary topic criteria) and more descriptive titles, Dicklyon is suggesting dropping "our traditional strong inclination to go with the more concise", but he doesn't indicate at all anything about where we draw the line on how descriptive the title should be.

Similarly Big would work if there were no other articles with that word in the title (which is not the case) That's not true. The criteria is not whether there any other articles with that word in the title. By that reasoning Paris should be disambiguated, since there are other articles with "Paris" in the title. Unless that's what you're arguing... are you? What about Nice?

If you want to keep the part of PRECISION that says Big (film) is better than Big (1988 film), then you want to keep the part that says than Big is better than Big (film), because that's the same part: When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided and Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. That, in conjunction with PRIMARYTOPIC, is why we have articles at Paris, Nice, Top and Sniff; and redirects at Paris, France, Nice, France and Spinning top (there are no redirects to Sniff). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems to be saying that if I can't provide an algorithm that draws the line in tradeoffs between precision and conciseness, then he is justified in claiming that I just didn't hear him that conciseness should always win. No, I'm saying if you keep saying X, and we keep responding with Y, then without addressing Y you assert X again, repeatedly, then you're not hearing Y.

In this case your X (paraphrasing) is "titles should be more descriptive in some cases, like Big", and our Y is "in what cases? how descriptive? what criteria do we use to decide? (note that I'm saying nothing about algorithms)". That's what you're not addressing. That's what you're dodging. That's why I'm saying you're being IDHT disruptive. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "Y" is (paraphrasing) "show me the algorithm". I hear that, and no matter how you phrase it, no "criteria" are going to work as well as applying the existing titling principles with some intelligence and empathy for the reader. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea that moving an article like Big to Big (film) is an indication of intelligence and an expression of empathy for the reader causes me to spit my tea (cream, no sugar) on my monitor. Why you think it matters to the reader at all, is beyond me.

The "show me the algorithm" element in "Y" is entirely a figment of your imagination. The fact that I also do happen to favor algorithmic approaches to resolving issues like this is besides the point, because it's not at all part of this discussion. Nor is it part of David Levy's repeated challenges to your position, which you also ignore. What is your excuse for that? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why you think it matters to the reader at all, is beyond me. That's because you didn't read the whole discussion. I explained to David Levy what could be gained by that move at this very thread. You may disagree with my explanation, and I won't say that "recognizing it is an indication of intelligence", but please at least recognize that several editors share that view and it has a rational explanation behind it - namely that it would provide the least surprise, while keeping some of the navigational advantages of a primary topic. Diego (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You noted that "readers searching using the Big string" might seek an article on a different subject and "be surprised to find a film". I pointed out that under your proposed setup, they'd still "find a film", and I asked you why a reader "accidentally arriving at Big (film) [would] be less surprised than one accidentally arriving at the very same article without parenthetical disambiguation in its title". I await your explanation. —David Levy 09:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference being that the title "Big (film)" (in big bold letters, since the disambig parentheses is part of the page title) provides instant recognition that they're not at the article they were expecting, while if the article is named "Big" they should read the intro section and recognize that it's not explaining what they thought it would contain. This reading a whole sentence or paragraph ("Big is the fourth studio album by American recording artist Macy Gray" or "Big is the first single by Australian rock band Dead Letter Circus from their debut studio album" or "Big is a 1988 romantic comedy film directed by Penny Marshall and stars Tom Hanks") requires much more heavy processing and thus generates more surprise than the instant recognition of the word in parentheses (film), (song) or (album). Diego (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I see no significant difference between the two scenarios. A few pixels below the page's title is the sentence "This article is about the 1988 film.", followed by links useful to someone arriving there accidentally. Said individual must read this in order to understand how to click through to the intended article.

A hatnote, of course, does not replace the need to establish that the relevant usage of a name is primary. (If it isn't, that can result in unnecessary surprise.) But as noted above, for our purposes, a particular usage either is or isn't primary; there is no intermediate state, nor should we create an additional source of argumentation across hundreds of thousands of articles by inventing one (let alone one established purely for the sake of adding parenthetical disambiguation with absolutely no impact on navigation). —David Levy 11:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference is this: Big (film) vs This article is about the 1988 film. If you don't find it significant nor having impact on readability (which is also important, not just navigation), you have a different brain than me. As I stated before, I'd find acceptable forcing a disambiguation page every time there's no strong agreement of a primary topic; but that is not going to happen soon, so at least the intermediate state is an improvement over the current "Big" title for pages that are not really primary but a weak local consensus treat as such. Diego (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Except that Big really is primary, by the non-local consensus usage criterion here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The non-local consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that there must be a local consensus, and there wasn't (PRIMARYTOPIC says "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic" and "consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic" when there's no clear primacy of one article for all the relvant criteria). That you forced your opinion over the closing discussion with a wp:SUPERVOTE doesn't mean that it should take prevalence over the other wikipedians; there were good arguments against it being a primary topic that were not taken into account. Anyway, the arguments above are generic, not just for the case of Big. This reinforces my view that this will happen much more often than what David Levy recognizes and thus a patch is needed. Diego (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And here's where we are reading "In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article..." differently. At Big, there is no conflict between usage and long-term significance, and the guidelines do not render themselves moot by saying local consensus determines everything. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to go to the sub-case to find that the guideline was not met. The page for The Notorious B.I.G. has more visits than Big (the film), so Big doesn't have more visits that all the other but you didn't take that argument into account in your closure. And we don't know how many of the visits of Big where looking for an article other than the film, and you didn't take into account that either. Guidelines are always intended to be interpreted by people discussing them; saying that you can apply some interpretation of them while wholy disregarding people making a different interpretation is not just wikilawyering, it's disruptive when it's done in a systematic way. Diego (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I did take that observation into account, along with the observation that The Notorious B.I.G. isn't ambiguous with "Big". We do know how many went to the dab page, which is very useful if you don't already have a conclusion in mind when looking at the numbers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is still your own analysis of the situation, not a summary of the conversation as exposed by others. If you wanted to express your personal view you should have commented at the talk, not closed the discussion. This is the cause of the complaints that recently arised at every discussion you have closed and that you disregard as drama. Diego (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a different understanding of the move closure process Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, which does instruct the closing admin to evaluate the situation. The cause of the complaints is that my evaluation of some of the arguments and "giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions" does not suit some vocal editors. But if I had closed it as simply "no consensus to move" (and there wasn't), the result would be the same. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Then why didn't you do just that? I'm afraid that you can evaluate that discussion and say that it meets rough consensus, saying that one side of the debate agrees with the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general, when both sides are making policy-based arguments and the policy or guideline is not enough to clarify between both positions. This was true of the three discussions that I've seen you close. Your evaluations in them have sistematically biased the whole discussions to the guideline interpretation that is closer to your personal view; that is not "attempting to be as impartial as is possible" (the definition of rough consensus, which is part of WP:CLOSE.) Neither your explanation of the closure did "transparently explain how the decision was reached". If you know the process why ain't you following it? Diego (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am following the process. I evaluated the discussion and closed it based upon that evaluation (not WP:STATUSQUO from no consensus, but an actual conclusion based on the discussion and the applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions). If I hadn't bothered to evaluate but instead just observed that there was no consensus, then the result would have been the same. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Then your evaluations aren't neutral, and you shouldn't be doing them. They have too much of your interpretation of PRIMARYTOPIC and too few of the reasonable comments in the discussions that don't agree with your opinion. Diego (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, my evaluations are neutral, and have just enough of my understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC coupled with sifting through the reasonable (or otherwise) comments that don't reflect an understanding of the relevant policy, guidelines, and naming conventions. The editors who make those comments don't agree with my conclusion, but that's hardly surprising. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If the closure was improper, it should be overturned. If the criteria used to determine whether a particular usage of a name is primary are inadequate, they should be improved (and perhaps made stricter to some extent).

It's entirely possible that a problem exists. Splitting the baby isn't a solution. —David Levy 12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the difference in text size. I disagree that the placement of "(film)" in the title line has any meaningful impact on the reader's experience. Upon seeing it, he/she still must read the hatnote in order to click through to the intended article. The end result is exactly the same, even if the word "film" is noticed a second or two sooner. The "surprise" arises upon arriving at the wrong article, which occurs either way.

It's reasonable to argue that our current standards for determining primary usage should be changed. You believe (and I agree) that the community would reject your preferred threshold, so you suggest a "compromise" in which articles meeting the current standards (but not stricter ones) lose the base titles but remain directly accessible from them.

This, in my view, is analogous to a scenario in which someone wants to change a house's color from blue to red, believes that the other family members won't agree, and proposes that only the left half of the house be repainted. Technically, it is a "compromise", but it isn't one with a result beneficial or desirable to those involved.

You haven't addressed my point about the enormous amounts of complexity and argumentation stemming from a sudden (and permanently ongoing) need to evaluate articles' titles and determine whether they comply with an additional set of criteria.

Additionally, a great deal of confusion would arise among users unfamiliar with said criteria (who would have no clear understanding of when a redirect from "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)" is/isn't called for, likely resulting in frequent misplacement of articles by well-intentioned editors unaware that such a distinction exists). —David Levy 12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

By the time the user notices and reads the hatnote, surprise and disorientation has already happened; that's why the size of text is important. Confusion does not follow rational arguments; a user landing on a page takes less than 5 seconds to form a general impression of the page (see [8] [9] for some explanations) and visual scanning of the page, not detailed reading is what generates that impression. Sure, the user can recover from the surprise and yes, the criterion for when those pages are created should be well explained (for example, "number of page visits that is not higher than all the other topics combined"). This doesn't mean that a strong visual cue would help to avoid the initial confusion. But I'm too conscious that arguments based on usability principles do not tend to convince wikipedians (and I suppose it's my fault for not making convincing ones), so I'll concede your point. Diego (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

By the time the user notices and reads the hatnote, surprise and disorientation has already happened

Agreed. In this instance, most readers probably first notice the photograph of Tom Hanks (and are surprised if they sought an article irrelevant to him).

The question is whether seeing the word "film" before reading the hatnote would substantially affect their overall experience. In my view, it wouldn't. They might discern the "wrong" subject's nature a second or two sooner, but this wouldn't alleviate the surprise of arriving at an unexpected article or assist them in resolving the issue (as they still would need to read the hatnote to know what to do).

that's why the size of text is important.

It's important in the context of information presentation in general. But in this case, presenting the information "This article is about a film." an extra time isn't significantly helpful. Whether it's conveyed once or twice, this follows the surprise of arriving at an unexpected article and precedes the resolution of learning how to navigate to the one desired.

Sure, the user can recover from the surprise and yes, the criterion for when those pages are created should be well explained (for example, "number of page visits that is not higher than all the other topics combined").

A good explanation won't help those who haven't read it (hence the frequent use of titles inconsistent with our naming conventions). This is true of all such policies and guidelines, which is why we should avoid creating new ones (i.e. increasing the system's complexity) unnecessarily.

And even a criterion as simple as "number of page visits that is not higher than all the other topics combined" wouldn't prevent disagreements. In the case of Big, the argument would center on whether The Notorious B.I.G. counts as one of the topics. Such disputes would erupt across the encyclopedia.

But I'm too conscious that arguments based on usability principles do not tend to convince wikipedians (and I suppose it's my fault for not making convincing ones), so I'll concede your point.

For the record, I'm quite concerned with such issues. I simply disagree that the difference in question would improve usability. —David Levy 17:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Diego (or Dicklyon), we're talking about a user searching for the rapper entering "big" and clicking on Search. A second or so later he arrives at the article about the film. Regardless of whether the article title is "Big" or "Big (film)", within a few seconds he will realize he is not at the article about the rapper. We're talking about a matter of seconds, at most, for when this exact same realization occurs. How can such an insignificant difference matter at all? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It matters because 1) those few seconds are the first seconds, which are the most important at figuring out the page's navigation and content structure. If the user is disoriented at arriving, it will take more time to recover from the error that if the user figures it out quickly that "this is not the page he's looking for" - even if the rest of the task (reading the top hat) is the same. 2) Those few seconds are multiplied among all users arriving at the wrong place, at all articles throughout Wikipedia with this structure. Every bit that can help improve navigation and reduce those few disorientation seconds will have a big impact in the overall site efficiency. 3) A navigation structure that relies in the user making an error and recovering from it is not an elegant design, to say the least. But as I said, I concede the point. You have rationalized the behavior that a user should follow and will believe it even if user's navigation is not a rational process. To convince you I would have to perform some user tests to prove the actual behavior of people when arriving to the page, and I don't have the resources to do that. Diego (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While in general I agree with the importance of good design, I think your hypothesized disorientation of readers over the size of the text of the title versus the recognition of other very prominent clues is vastly overstated. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In the Big case yes, there's one prominent clue in the film poster. But in other articles without an image, where are the prominent clues? A top hat and the first sentence are not prominent enough to be noticed in the first three-to-five seconds. The top hat is indented and written in a difficult to read italicized font style; and the first sentence can be whatever, so it's no guarantee, and will take time to read into. Were you referring to any other clues? Diego (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"the first sentence can be whatever": it shouldn't be. When stub-sorting I regularly clean up first sentences so that they are of the form "xxx is a ....", so that within the first few words the reader knows where they are (often adding date, geog context, etc where appropriate). (It's also important so that anyone Googling sees these first few identifying words in their list of ghits.) If you find an article where the first sentence doesn't identify the topic clearly, then WP:SOFIXIT. PamD 07:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many legitimate cases where the lead sentence is not in the form "xxx is a ....". For example, "In areas A, B and C, xxx (also spelled yyy or zzz) is a ...". In any case, the first sentence has to be read to be understood, whereas the page title can be merely scanned. The effects of reading vs scanning a webpage produce well known differences on how users navigate a site; while browsing, user's won't read text blurbs unless absolutely necessary, so relying on users actually reading the text is usually a bad navigation design. All the relevant information for navigation should be located at section titles, hyperlinks, and hierarchical page decoration and layout - those are the parts of the page that users see while browsing, as demonstrated by eye tracking experiments; items that are smaller ore not highlighted get ignored by perceptual blindness (see how the possible causes in particular work against the user noticing the arrival to the wrong page). Diego (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Diego:

This discussion is a conflation of multiple issues.

The possibility of readers accidentally reaching a page other than the one intended always exists. For example, someone seeking an article about one of the non-bold subjects from Winston Churchill (disambiguation) might arrive at Winston Churchill. We could move the disambiguation page to the base title, but this would be counterproductive; a vast majority of the page's visitors seek the article about the UK Prime Minister (the primary topic), so this would result in far more hindrance than help.

I believe that we're in agreement on the above. The disagreement lies in where to draw the line when determining what constitutes a "primary" topic. You believe that the community's standards are too lax, but you doubt that it could be persuaded to adopt criteria as strict as those that you advocate. So you've suggested a "compromise" in which some articles are assigned a hybrid setup (losing the base titles, but retaining direct access from them). As noted above, this combines the worst elements of the two formats, misusing parenthetical disambiguation for an unintended purpose of highly dubious value (and generating enormous amounts of work and disagreement).

If our current criteria need improvement, let's discuss improving them. If the community disagrees with you (or agrees only partially), please accept the outcome and move on. You've proposed a setup that you know isn't ideal (as you acknowledge above) because you distrust the community to do what's best. —David Levy 14:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Primary topic - Arbitrary break I

Must I say something? Obeying and interpretting policies and guidelines are two things. However, linking to my proposals to prove JHunterJ's point about causing "drama"... I did what I have to do: contacting User talk:Anthony Appleyard, and that's all. In fact, Talk:All That Jazz#Move? (2) is getting more supporters, while only two opposed, one day or less after the closure on first proposal. In Talk:Lovin' You#Move discussion II, five supporters and five opposers at this time; even the closer voted at this time, which would take another uninvolved administrator to figure this out. By the way, WP:IAR I must have improperly used; in fact, I realize that there is no criteria for primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, even when two criteria (usage and long-term significance).

As for the tools to determine how to find a primary topic, should Google be always used? There are other search engines, such as Bing, Yahoo, and Open Directory. Another thing: there are concerns about biased navigations in these search engines. Also, the statistics are very confusing to interpret if there are two topics with same numbers. --George Ho (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

the Big mess

And now Talk:Big#Requested_move is closed; no move due to PRIMARYTOPIC, which was a big debate between Kauffner and Born2cycle. But either way, Big (film) would have been a better title, since it's precise enough to say it's an article on a film, where Big is pure ambiguity. If most traffic through Big is for the film, that can still be accommodated, with no extra clicks, by letting Big be a redirect to Big (film), as WP:D allows and several suggested at that RM. But the closer apparently didn't consider that part of the question, being stuck in the usual rut with Born2cycle on that issue. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Either that, or you're stuck in the usual rut on that issue. Just for clarity: there is never any reason for "blah" to redirect to "blah (qualifier)". Find out the right title for a topic. Once you've got it, qualify it with a parenthetical if and only if it's not the primary topic for the right title. See WP:PRECISION -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Dick, I know that you want us to do things that way (and you aren't alone), but it isn't consistent with our naming conventions.

Your assertion that "WP:D allows" us to redirect 'Foo' to 'Foo (disambiguation term)' appears to be based on the fact that it doesn't explicitly proscribe it. There are many things that our polices and guidelines don't explicitly proscribe (such as writing an article in Comic Sans), simply because they're widely accepted and understood. (And yes, I actually did encounter an editor who argued that she was permitted to write an article in her preferred font because no policy or guideline stated otherwise.) —David Levy 23:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

As I commented after that ridiculous closure, at which Orwell himself would marvel:

Deplorable. Closed by an admin who clearly favours conciseness over precision – even when that precision can easily be shown to help most readers, and hinder hardly any. He himself has drafted such a mechanistic provision for naming of films, and inserted it as a guideline with little evidence of consensus through discussion, and no wide consultation. That needs addressing.

This thoroughly flawed closure needs to be taken further, and examined in a proper forum. At least it provides some of the best evidence we have seen: of the wretched state of RM procedures, and plainly non-consensual provisions in policy and guidelines, badly interpreted.

Wide community consultation is desperately needed.

Time for a huge, comprehensive, widely promoted RFC, to settle just how robust or fragile the present hot-housed and artificially nourished provisions are? I'd take bets on how it would go, if anyone's interested.

Noetica^Tea? 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I had forgotten that I was the one who recognized that consensus and helped clarify those guidelines too. Oh, and comparing this situation to the subject of Orwell's attentions? Priceless. Instead of taking bets, have you made and "widely promoted" the RFC? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

O sure. You recognised that consensus, and clearly it stands to this day, unchallenged. Now show us where consensus was demonstrated for that provision you inserted. How many editors were in that chorus of consent? Noetica^Tea? 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Noetica, can we take it down a notch or two? Regardless of whether the closure was appropriate, there's no need for this level of drama.

For the record, I was neutral on the subject of whether to move that article, provided that Big not redirect to Big (film). (The proposed move would have made sense only in tandem with a move of Big (disambiguation) to Big.) —David Levy 00:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't neutral, myself. I was dramatically in favour of a blindingly obvious move to make a comprehensible title. Starkly stupid refusals to look at the evidence, or to critique garbage evidence with care and an open mind, call for voices to be raised in protest. So I raise mine; and I'm not alone.

Noetica^Tea? 00:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Referring to the proposed change as "blindingly obvious" and dismissing others' views as "starkly stupid" is even more unhelpful than your "Orwell" comparison. These needless insults undermine any valid points you're trying to make. —David Levy 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even really smart people make really stupid decisions. We have ample evidence for that. Some blindingly obvious proposals are blindingly obviously blindingly obvious. Note the basic meaning of "blinding", yes? A proposal can represent such clear and untrammelled good sense that it takes a truly absurd provision to counter it. And then, it helps if: 1) there is a contrived and artificial "consensus" attaching to that provision; 2) it is mechanically and thoughtlessly applied; 3) fresh ideas and evidence are dismissed out of hand; and 4) tired old "evidence" based on crass and defeasible pageview stats is accepted, no matter how deftly it is demolished in discussion.

My valid points are made. No "trying" about it! If people don't see them for what they are – along with the powerful argument from others in all their precision, eloquence, and accuracy – you may expect them to be made again. And again. With increasing rhetorical force added.

Better if admins do their job fairly and competently in the first place, so that elevations are less likely.

Noetica^Tea? 00:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Even really smart people make really stupid decisions. We have ample evidence for that. Some blindingly obvious proposals are blindingly obviously blindingly obvious.

Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.

Note the basic meaning of "blinding", yes? A proposal can represent such clear and untrammelled good sense that it takes a truly absurd provision to counter it.

You're begging the question, but that's beside the point. I'm not asking you to stop expressing your opinions. I'm asking you to tone down the rhetoric. It's just a Wikipedia article title, for heaven's sake.

In my seven years as a Wikipedian, no matter how strong an opinion I've held, I've never deemed others' actions Orwellian or their positions "starkly stupid". Your core arguments, on which I pass no judgement, would be far more persuasive if you were to abandon such tactics. —David Levy 02:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Here I make forceful statements. I'm not begging the question in an argumentative context at all. That's where it would matter. In that context (an RM discussion) my arguments were duly put forward; but my arguments were not duly evaluated. Same for arguments of others in support of the RM. That is the problem: clear evidence, sound argument, efficient demonstration that certain submissions were unsatisfactory – these were ignored. An unequivocal numerical majority showed, with argument and evidence, how it was ridiculous for a key word like "big" to be appropriated by a film, as the sole element in a title. Show us how the response to Kauffner's pageview evidence was properly taken into account, if you think otherwise. In fact, JHunterJ singled out Kauffner's evidence as persuasive! Don't call for restrained submission of plain vanilla points to counter other points. That didn't work!

In my seven years as a Wikipedian I have done what I judge necessary – to call it as I see it. I use argument and evidence, and sometimes that is admired. But argument and evidence only carry the day if those who make the decisions do so reasonably. If they do not, I will call for a remedy. Sometimes I will endorse such remedial action, sometimes I will lead it. That is all a part of how Wikipedia works. If you behave otherwise, David, good for you! The Project would not have succeeded as it has if we all took the same stance in the same style.

When those entrusted with power cannot or will not respect any reasons except those confirming their opinions, rhetoric can legitimately come forward as reason's auxiliary. As a sharp reminder that something important is amiss. Live with it; and apply remedies to the cause, not to the effect.

Noetica^Tea? 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not attempting to counter your assertion that the closure was inappropriate. Perhaps it was. Maybe your arguments weren't properly considered. You obviously believe this to be the case, and I certainly don't seek to silence your complaints. In fact, I encourage you (and anyone in your position) to make them known.

But there's no need for insults and Orwell comparisons. They're inflammatory and don't help your cause.

You seem to believe that JHunterJ's actions justify this harsh response. But it isn't his input that you've deemed "garbage". You've attached that label to the views of several good-faith participants whose only misdeed was disagreeing with you. No matter how right you believe yourself to be (and how wrong you believe them to be), such comments are unconstructive and uncalled-for.

I read the debate, and I believe that both sides advanced reasonable arguments. (I don't believe that either position is "ridiculous".) From your perspective, my failure to see things your way is "starkly stupid" (or perhaps only half-stupid). You refuse to respect any reasons except those confirming your opinions. —David Levy 05:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no "cause" to advance. It is not mine. Safeguarding rational process is our common Wikipedian cause. WP:IAR exists to serve that cause, against mindless and insensitive legalism. Nor do I, for my part, advocate mindless use of IAR; but I understand the motivation for it.

The misdeeds that I disparage are not simply disagreements with me. That would be fine, of course! They are stupid refusals to work with rational dialogue, and evidence that we are invited to present at RM discussions. They are refusals to answer challenges fairly, or to respond to fair questions fairly. That is how many RMs have been going lately. It is a serious problem, and no one should be surprised if voices of concern are raised stridently against it.

This assertion of yours is unfounded, and as much an affront as anything you allege I have said: "You refuse to respect any reasons except those confirming your opinions." Not so! A simplistic mirroring of what you take me (inaccurately) to be saying.

Sometimes one side is wrongheaded and irrational though; sometimes strident and no-longer-patient opposition to it is appropriate. If only the world were more even, and everyone were in fact equally culpable! That cosy assumption is too often a cop-out. Search for the root causes of difficulties, and deal with those. A misplaced and delayed evenhandedness is of no use. Let there be evenhandedness in the first instance, about the root problems that several of us have discerned.

Noetica^Tea? 07:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The misdeeds that I disparage are ... refusals to answer challenges fairly, or to respond to fair questions fairly. ... Sometimes one side is wrongheaded and irrational..." --Noetica

Oh, the irony! --Born2cycle (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, you've responded with the argument that you're right because you're right. And you've again described others' behavior as "stupid" (as well as "mindless" and "irrational"), insults that you believe are justified because you're right (making them wrong). I'm sorry that you feel this way. —David Levy 07:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

B2C:
Yeah yeah. I know what you have in mind, B2C. Well, we could traverse the issues involving you here. But I am not inclined to undergo yet another series of threats from you, nor actions at WP:AN, WP:ANI – and ArbCom. There YOU, in the end, were singled out, along with sockpuppeteer User:Pmanderson, for special mention: warned to say less, and by your silence allow more voices to be heard. As I have been doing (and you have not) at Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne. By widely advertising an RM at truly relevant forums. That community input is what RMs lack, and what they desperately need.
But let's not go down those old paths. You have your opinion of me; and you have what I, for my part, characterise as your own naively algorithmic style of approaching complex issues in communication. Don't try to draw me into that game. I'll say this, but then I don't want to go on about it: That mechanical approach is detrimental to the Project; it has caused enormous disruption, despite the veneer of civility over the cascades of undigestible text to justify it.
And to avoid similar cascades, I propose to say nothing more here. Just as I stay away from the toxic talkpage WT:AT, where against all advice you continue to dominate proceedings. No more from me here, at least until something genuinely new and circuit-breaking is offered for consideration. Noetica^Tea? 08:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

David:
That is unworthy of you. I had no dispute with you, but you seem to want to make one. And now I say this: Your diagnosis is as glib as you claim mine is. You do not address detail, but respond with a broad brush. It is easy to pick out the peevishness in others' remarks, and censure them for that. It is harder to see what might motivate that peevishness, and deal fairly with that. In effect, I have made this point already; and you have ignored it. That is unworthy behaviour (as some of mine has been, also; of course!). There is no point continuing any of this here. I have voiced my deep concerns; people will notice what they prefer to notice. If they want to claim there is no substance, fine! I can only say what I have to say, the best and most honest way I know. The rest is out of my hands.
Noetica^Tea? 08:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC) ☺

You're missing my point. I "do not address detail" because my objection has nothing to do with a belief you're wrong about the move debate. Even if you're right, this doesn't justify hurling insults. That's my point, to which you've continually responded with further insults, again justified via the assertion that you're right.

Please look back to my second message in this thread (and first addressed to you), comprising nothing more than an explanation that my position regarding the proposed move was neutral, the statement that "there's no need for this level of drama", and a request that we "take it down a notch or two". Somehow, this had the opposite effect, evoking claims that your opinion's correctness was "blindingly obvious", that contrary arguments were "garbage", and that others' failure to see things your way was "starkly stupid" (a criticism that evidently applies to me, given the fact that I saw merit in both sides' arguments instead of yours alone).

I'd honestly expected a response along the lines of "Sorry, I got carried away." This was a misjudgement on my part. —David Levy 09:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, David, why don't you let just Noetica be crabby if it makes him happy. His reasons are always good ones, if you take the time to consider them. And the movie "Big" is the primary topic. It just is. So all's well that ends well. Neotarf (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that there are "good" reasons for Wikipedians to hurl insults at each other. But if I felt that the comments in question were purely inflammatory in nature, I would ignore them. It's because they aren't (and Noetica is perfectly capable of conveying the underlying criticisms in a civil manner) that I've responded. —David Levy 17:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see insults hurled at anyone. Are we reading the same thread? And I don't think it's reasonable to try to get people you disagree with to use lame arguments. Not gonna happen. But now that I have taken my own advice and reread this section a little slower, it seems that Noetica's concern is about conflict of interest in RM closures, a matter of ethics, and one that can affect the integrity of the project. It is not proper to try to cover this up. The matter needs to be explored openly and any problems corrected. Neotarf (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Noetica, his insulting harangues, and his hypocrisy. A decision is only reasonable if it agrees with Noetica's argument and evidence, all contrary arguments and evidence are obviously mechanical, thoughtless, ridiculous, legalistic, partisan, Orwellian, stupid, crass, unfair, incompetent, mindless, or insensitive. Please do read the thread. From above: "partisan provisions in policy and guidelines", "intimidating and implacable legalism", "that ridiculous closure, at which Orwell himself would marvel", "Starkly stupid refusals", "it is mechanically and thoughtlessly applied", "crass and defeasible pageview stats", " Better if admins do their job fairly and competently in the first place, so that elevations are less likely." "But argument and evidence only carry the day if those who make the decisions do so reasonably", "mindless and insensitive legalism", "stupid refusals to work with rational dialogue", and then I grew bored again with his rhetoric, so there are probably more. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

He objects strenuously, to be sure, and much of it must not be easy for the recipient to read, but I don't see hypocrisy; his approach is almost mathematical, and he never crosses the line into personal attack. It's mostly opinion though, and "if the shoe fits" stuff, except for the part about pageview stats and the "Better if admins do their job fairly" conflict of interest issue. Maybe more important is how you yourself characterize your actions.

Many people who seem intractable will unbend a little if you show you have paid attention to what they say and can find at least some part of it to agree with. Don't assume the noetic missives are all tl:dr, try unpacking them and following the links. Neotarf (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I did unpack them and follow the links, at first. The links haven't changed, and reasonable responses did nothing to unbend, and I've agreed with everything agreeable he's said. You don't see hypocrisy because you agree with him, which is apparently blinding you to the insults, even when quoted separately. What he means is "better if admins do their jobs in agreement with my conclusions", not "fairly", since there is nothing unfair in the actions. That the views of his words splits along the agreements with his desired understanding of the guidelines is unsurprising. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, the argument that your decision was based on a careful reading of the evidence was a lot stronger before you accused me of not telling the truth because I supposedly support Noetica's position. In fact, I did not support Noetica's position. In fact, I did not even participate in the discussion, a discussion that you closed, and now wish us to believe that you read carefully before making a decision. As I state clearly above, "the movie "Big" is the primary topic", a view that Noetica even now continues to argue strenuously against. Not the first time you have misidentified my position, or commented on who might be voting the same way, rather than commenting on the substance of the discussion. More importantly, the guidelines for who can close requested moves call for someone who might not be seen as unbiased to recuse themselves from closing a move request. Issues have been raised about whether you have a conflict of interest in closing RMs that deal with issues you have been actively involved in arguing for and even writing policy for. These issues you have not addressed. Neotarf (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be involved in previous old discussions between wikipedians overarching several talk pages; but I support the idea by Noetica to have a community-wide RFC to clarify how PRIMARYTOPIC, PRECISION and all the other sections at WP:AT and WP:D (and Wikipedia:Redirect, and WP:SURPRISE, and Wikipedia:Hatnotes...) are supposed to work together. I've recently seen too much of what amounts to arbitrary decisions that don't match what the guideline is supposed to recommend as best practices, and too much disagreement on how they should be applied. If the RFC decides that some sections should be expanded and clarified, and that some others should be trimmed because they don't reflect consensus, so be it. IT's clear that the current guidelines are not working as well as they should, at least not smoothly; they don't reflect what little wide consensus may exist about naming, disambiguations and redirects. Diego (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as the RfC is constructed neutrally and has a truly community-wide scope, and it's not dominated by the usual ideologues on both sides, I'm all for it. If it devolves into the usual sniping back and forth, it'll be worse than useless, and in fact detrimental. Powers ^T 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

My "Oh the irony" comment above was misunderstood to be a reference to Noetica's behavior in the past elsewhere. Not at all. It was entirely in reference to Noetica's behavior in this thread (engaging in exactly behavior he criticizes others of doing in the part that I quoted), which I thought was obvious. My bad.

As to the RFC idea, I suggest interested parties (without prejudice regarding who is or is not one of the "usual ideologues") collaborate on a subpage draft proposal of what the RFC is to say, get consensus on that, and then create the actual RFC, if we are to do it at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Diego, yes, I would support such a thing, whether or not "the usual suspects" showed up or not, and whether it degenerates into sniping or not. You don't know what will happen until you try it, there is no point in inaction because of fears that may not be realized. Quite a lot can come out in these things, people start defining issues that you don't know existed. And if it goes the way this thread has gone, that will tell you something too. Neotarf (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

While not disambiguation directly, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closure review. You can join the discussion on the talk page if you are so inclined. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Big mess - Arbitrary break I

Why is calling Neotica a hypocrite necessary and the feel-good thing to do? Sometimes, Neotica has good words to say, evidence or no evidence. Anyway, I wonder if closure on requested move on the film starring Tom Hanks is the right thing to do. Must "usage" and "long-term significance" be the only criteria? --George Ho (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is calling editors who disagree with you, or their edits, obviously mechanical, thoughtless, ridiculous, legalistic, partisan, Orwellian, stupid, crass, unfair, incompetent, mindless, or insensitive necessary and the feel-good thing to do? Burying good words among those makes them hard to find. Yes, closing requested moves using the guidelines for closing requested moves is the right thing to do, otherwise nothing would get done. What other criteria should be used? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no requirements to define a "primary topic". Familiarity could do the trick. As for the name-calling thing, why interpretting those words and calling them this way when Noetica hasn't done much name-calling yet? And have you copyied-and-pasted those comments instead of typing? I don't know whether "Big" would be treated the same as Bing, but... really, Bing (website) as Bing? I thought: Chandler Bing or the doorbell. Nevertheless, I seem to agree that "Big" is ambiguous, yet the film is "primary topic" because navigation to the film is more comfortable with the ambiguous title than the disambiguation page; same for Bing. Nevertheless, I wonder if the rules are either misinterpretted or flimsy. --George Ho (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And what makes you right, especially after more people, such as administrator Anthony Appleyard, are more concerned about your closures on more ambiguous titles and your comments in Talk:It's Great to Be Alive? You said "anecdotal familiarity" is not part of criteria of primary topic, but the guideline says there isn't a true criterion/criteria. By the way, the film is not that popular as it appeared before, and the album is as equal as the film (probably). --George Ho (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with some of the guidelines, but when I'm closing requested moves, I treat the consensus guidelines as right. And I explain them civilly and without insults. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What guidelines do you disagree about? --George Ho (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Lists of people by name. Set index articles. Ordering red links within blue link entries, instead of putting all of the red links after the blue links. Etc., etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's continue this in #Guideline (dis)agreements, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I have said that I would stay away form this poisonous page; but you have taken advantage of my absence and maligned me with misrepresentations, as if I had not had the grace to withdraw and let others deal with things here. I do not say that editors themselves have any of those attributes – with the exception of "partisan" and perhaps "incompetent". You are a prime representative of the type. Do not pretend that you are a dispassionate assessor of arguments.

Do not pretend! You work vigorously and selectively to conclude RMs in your areas of interest – notably, those where you have the opportunity to cut down precision by the strictest most legalistic interpretation of guidelines available. Sometimes you enforce provisions that you yourself have drafted, and grafted in as if they were consensual. Challenged, you do not show where consensus for those was reached. Do not pretend that you ignore arguments that directly respect the needs of readers, or arguments that demolish evidence favouring your predetermined decision.

Do not pretend that you show probity and stay away from confrontations where they are entirely predictable. You could not pass up the opportunity to stamp your judgement on the RM at Talk:Collins Street, Melbourne, though any competent admin could have done it instead. I had proposed that RM, so you might diplomatically have stayed away and let the thing run unhindered. I held back, and did not vote in the RM (which I did not support as proposer). Instead, I worked against all odds to maintain orderly process, and to encourage new voices to be heard. Successfully. But you came in with a decision that sought to minimise the obvious result from the community. You could not allow that the discussion so decisively set at zero the faulty provisions and crumbling precepts you cling to. Instead you invoked a sophistry, in your closing remarks, that reflected nothing in the consensus that had been so resoundingly delivered.

Others have suggested that you take a break from RMs. I now suggest that also. If my withdrawing from this present forum is no precedent for you to follow, and you continue your abuses, I may have to stay and counter them – distasteful as I find that prospect.

As to the slim content of your post above, note once more: if you ignore evidence (as you do), if you ignore rigorous argument (as you do), if you ignore the reasons offered by a majority of non-partisan editors from the community when they are called to an RM (as you do), then expect increasingly rhetorical responses. Tight and economical reasoning will be deployed instead, when you show that you are ready to respond to it.
Or capable, for that matter.

Noetica^Tea? 14:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC) ♥☺

Slow down, Noetica. If you are concerned about JHunterJ, why not using WP:RFC/USER then? You can report about him if you want. --George Ho (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just keep out of this, George. You add nothing but more waves. If there are fights to be fought, fight your own. We agree on some matters of substance; stay with those. I know what I'm doing, better than you understand. Noetica^Tea? 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC) ☺

No advantage taken, Noetica. I only quoted your poisonous words, no misrepresentation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right. Dealing with detail is not a strength of yours, is it? ☺ Noetica^Tea? 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If you mean reading through everything you write, no, it's not a strength. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Guideline (dis)agreements

To JHunterJ: Examples? You said "search index", "list of people", etc. And explain your reasons. --George Ho (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. The archives exist, and I only disagree; I accept the consensus that I disagree with, and I am not advocating for its change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)