Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Who is helped by twodabs?: any objection to remove the "much" in "much more likely than any other?" for primary topic? |
Pmanderson (talk | contribs) →Who is helped by twodabs?: object to more disruption. |
||
Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
:::::Because we have left 51/49 splits without a primary topic, in theory. That's how I continue to interpret it. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
:::::Because we have left 51/49 splits without a primary topic, in theory. That's how I continue to interpret it. -- [[User:JHunterJ|JHunterJ]] ([[User talk:JHunterJ|talk]]) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::Do you really think we have the means to distinguish a 51/49 from a 49/51 split? If they're really that close, then we really can't claim that one is "more likely than the other". That is, the difference has to be significant enough to be discernible to be able to argue that one is "more likely than the other". So I still don't see the need for the "much".<p>Any objection to removing the "much" from "much more likely than any other" at [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
::::::Do you really think we have the means to distinguish a 51/49 from a 49/51 split? If they're really that close, then we really can't claim that one is "more likely than the other". That is, the difference has to be significant enough to be discernible to be able to argue that one is "more likely than the other". So I still don't see the need for the "much".<p>Any objection to removing the "much" from "much more likely than any other" at [[WP:PRIMARYTOPIC]]? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Yes; please leave our naming guidelines alone. This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda. |
|||
:::::::This post is incoherent; we make 90-10 splits primary topics but make 51-49 splits disambiguation pages in large part because it ''is'' hard to tell 51-49 from 49-51; so the end works against the beginnng. |
|||
:::::::The other part is because primary topic inconveniences a minority, who have to click twice, to help a majority get directly where they want to be. This inconvenience is more acceptable when the minority is 10% or 5% then when they are 49%. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Regarding "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." == |
== Regarding "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." == |
Revision as of 17:29, 31 December 2010
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Too much emphasis on "search term", to little emphasis on "refer to"
The recent changes by Born2cycle put too much emphasis on "being a search term" at the expense of "being referred to as". I have disagreed with this clearly and repeatedly over the recent explosion of topics, move requests, deletion requests, and other talking points. But I am taking a break at least for the Christmas season -- I'll check back to see what the new direction of "disambiguation" is to be on Wikipedia, whether it will include more unexceptional name holders, other partial title matches, other search destinations without risk of confusion, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, at least we can agree that this is at the crux of our disagreement. It is my understanding that the importance of "refers" is derived from the importance of "search". After all, what is the reason we even care about what refers to what if not to make "search" work better for users? That is, the reason Einstein redirects to Albert Einstein is because "Einstein" is often used to refer to "Albert Einstein", but the reason that's relevant is because that makes it likely for people searching for the article about him to be searching with just "Einstein". The first two of three aspects of disambiguation are mostly unaffected by this disagreement. Disambiguating article titles to avoid conflicts in titles and fixing links in articles to point to the correct article title has little to do "refers" or "search". After all, disambiguating Madonna by putting the entertainer at Madonna (entertainer) is not about "refers" or "search". But with respect to the third aspect, redirects and links on dab pages and in hat notes, that is all about searching. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think I have to agree with JHunterJ on this. The search term language brings us uncomfortably close to opening the door to disambiguating the Internet. This policy/guideline was originally and always has been an adjunct to policies about naming articles. I don't agree with JHJ about the treatment of surname-holders on disambiguation pages and primary topics, but I don't think that needs changing this to be based primarily on "search strings" rather than article titles. Seems there is are two different aspects that need to be considered, 1) inclusion on a dab page (and I think likely search terms should be included on dab pages and which is more the purview of WP:MOSDAB than this page) and 2) consideration for primary topic -- examples like Einstein indicate that surname holders can be the primary topic for a term; and so far as I'm concerned, surname-holders should also be considered when determining whether some other term is a primary topic. I don't think this page needs to be based on search terms instead of article titles for that. 21:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Above comment is from User:Bkonrad [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- R to Bkonrad: Examples like Einstein (examples for which you can find reliable sources that refer to the subject without ever using the given name, or using the surname for examples like Madonna) are the exceptional cases of people whose topics are actually in need of disambiguation from the single name title (what I would have called "ambiguous topics" before). The unexceptional cases, the normal cases (Freston or Cliburn, for example), since they are not ambiguous, have been separated to the anthroponymy project. In the cases where both the list is short and also there is no anthroponymy article yet created, MOS:DABNAME allows the list to remain on the disambiguation page but still separate from the list of topics in need of disambiguation ("ambiguous topics"). Only the topics in need of disambiguation should be considered to determine the primary topic for an ambiguous title; topics that might show up in a set of search results for the title, but that are not in need of disambiguation, would not be considered for the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is precisely where I disagree with you. Surname-holders are ambiguous under conventions of English usage. This guideline allows such lists of surname holders to be split off when the list becomes unwieldy OR when an anthroponymy article exists (and although I have done it on occasion myself, it is extremely lame to call a list of surname-holders an anthroponymy article). It is (or at least has been) common practice to create a redirect from the surname to a bio article where there are no other uses of the surname. In exceptional cases, one individual might be designated as the primary topic for a term that is the person's surname. That should not preclude consideration of persons with the surname when determining whether some other term is a primary topic or if the term should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then you disagree with the consensus that lead to the anthroponymy project (however lame or not lame the project's list articles may be), not just with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no. I think what I have said represents consensus. I think most serious participants in the anthroponymy project would agree that a bare list of surname-holders is a lame excuse for an anthroponymy article. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also believed they are lame lists, and should be deleted. My opinion was also not the consensus that resulted in the anthroponymy project, so at least the lists aren't masquerading as disambiguation pages any more. I don't believe any of the participants, serious or otherwise, in the anthroponymy project, have identified the problem you see or have an approach to clean them up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- But surely if you have a bare list, it shouldn't be deleted as such, but made back into a disambiguation page - so I don't understand your comment about "masquerading" - if it's a list with no historical or etymological information, then it is a disambiguation page (or part of one) rather than an article. Or do you really think Wikipedia should not allow readers to search for biographies by browsing a lightly annotated list of people with a given surname? --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Not all lists without information are disambiguation pages. If it's not a list of topics in need of disambiguation, no, it surely shouldn't be made into a disambiguation page. That would go for set index articles, lists of name holders, or any other lists that editors may find lame. If they are problem lists, then they should be cleaned up to meet the encyclopedia's criteria, not mislabeled to avoid the clean up. And lists of people who are not ambiguous with a title, even if the list lacks historical or etymological information, are not disambiguation pages. I was a supporter of and contributor to the non-disambiguation list of people by name, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name did not agree with me. But we have the lame anthroponymy list articles to allow readers to search for biographies by browsing, and (unlike disambiguation pages) can be annotated as editors have time and inclination.-- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- But surely if you have a bare list, it shouldn't be deleted as such, but made back into a disambiguation page - so I don't understand your comment about "masquerading" - if it's a list with no historical or etymological information, then it is a disambiguation page (or part of one) rather than an article. Or do you really think Wikipedia should not allow readers to search for biographies by browsing a lightly annotated list of people with a given surname? --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I also believed they are lame lists, and should be deleted. My opinion was also not the consensus that resulted in the anthroponymy project, so at least the lists aren't masquerading as disambiguation pages any more. I don't believe any of the participants, serious or otherwise, in the anthroponymy project, have identified the problem you see or have an approach to clean them up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, no. I think what I have said represents consensus. I think most serious participants in the anthroponymy project would agree that a bare list of surname-holders is a lame excuse for an anthroponymy article. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then you disagree with the consensus that lead to the anthroponymy project (however lame or not lame the project's list articles may be), not just with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is precisely where I disagree with you. Surname-holders are ambiguous under conventions of English usage. This guideline allows such lists of surname holders to be split off when the list becomes unwieldy OR when an anthroponymy article exists (and although I have done it on occasion myself, it is extremely lame to call a list of surname-holders an anthroponymy article). It is (or at least has been) common practice to create a redirect from the surname to a bio article where there are no other uses of the surname. In exceptional cases, one individual might be designated as the primary topic for a term that is the person's surname. That should not preclude consideration of persons with the surname when determining whether some other term is a primary topic or if the term should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would prefer to see the page rolled back to 23:33, 5 December 2010 per WP:BRD, and the subsequent edits discussed to gauge whether consensus supports their inclusion. The edits in question seem to me to alter the guideline in non-trivial ways (e.g., replacing references to ambiguous terms with "homograph"; shifting emphasis from article titles to search strings) and as such I feel prior talk page discussion to establish consensus is warranted. --Muchness (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've tried to be careful about not changing what the words mean in all of my edits, but only make the intended (or only reasonable) meaning more clear, so I'd like to understand why you believe, for example, changing "references to ambiguous terms with 'homograph'" amounts to a non-trivial alteration. After all, the definition of homograph is: "a word or a group of words that share the same written form but have different meanings" (Homograph) or "A term with the same spelling as, but a different meaning from, another term" [2]. Isn't that just a more precise definition of what was really meant by "ambiguous term"?
Where I think I might have come closest to actually making a non-trivial change is with the nutshell summary. It used to say:
- I've tried to be careful about not changing what the words mean in all of my edits, but only make the intended (or only reasonable) meaning more clear, so I'd like to understand why you believe, for example, changing "references to ambiguous terms with 'homograph'" amounts to a non-trivial alteration. After all, the definition of homograph is: "a word or a group of words that share the same written form but have different meanings" (Homograph) or "A term with the same spelling as, but a different meaning from, another term" [2]. Isn't that just a more precise definition of what was really meant by "ambiguous term"?
- "When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them."
- It now says:
- "When a search string could refer to any of several topics covered in Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers searching with that string can quickly navigate to the article being sought."
- It now says:
- At a quick glance the original version seems to be about titles since it starts by referring to titles. However, a closer reading reveals that it's really talking about what readers are likely to type in order to find an article, and practically speaking we know that may or may not be a title. Note that the latter part of the original nutshell wording -- "provide links or a disambiguation page " -- refers exclusively to what
the unidentified commenterUser:Bkonrad above says is "more the purview of WP:MOSDAB" (what is included on dab pages). I'm not saying the current wording is perfect, but I do think it's more clear about what the original wording could have meant. I suggest that the use of "title" in the original wording was a bit sloppy but understandable, considering how often the string used to search for a topic is a title.
- At a quick glance the original version seems to be about titles since it starts by referring to titles. However, a closer reading reveals that it's really talking about what readers are likely to type in order to find an article, and practically speaking we know that may or may not be a title. Note that the latter part of the original nutshell wording -- "provide links or a disambiguation page " -- refers exclusively to what
- But if anyone thinks this or any other specific edit of mine does amount to a non-trivial alteration, rather than merely a clarification in meaning which is what I was trying to achieve, I'd like to know what that is, and why it's believed to be non-trivial. If I did err and create a change in meaning, I would rather we fix that than rollback all the work that has been done (believe me, I put a lot of time and thought into understanding the original meaning, and how to make it more readily understandable). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- As to Bkonrad's (a.k.a Older/Wiser) concern about "bringing us uncomfortably close to opening the door to disambiguating the Internet", I believe the WP:PTM section continues to protect us from that as much as it did before. What it used to say:
- A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion.
- What it now says:
- A disambiguation page for a given homograph is not intended to be a comprehensive search index for that homograph. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the homograph, or a link that includes the homograph as part of a longer proper name, where there is no significant likelihood that anyone would search for that link's topic with that homograph.
- Is that really different in meaning? Again, if so, then I failed, because that's not what I was trying to do. Frankly, I was confused about about "confusion" was referring to in the original wording. But after I thought about it some, I realized it could only mean confusing one meaning to which a homograph could refer with another, and that confusion is only relevant to the decision of whether to put links to the meanings on the dab page in the context of search. No? Anyway, that's why I changed this wording as I did. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know that homograph looks, well, unusual or something, but I think it allows for much clearer explanation. The best alternative I can think of is "ambiguous term or phrase", and that's much more cumbersome, and doesn't as clearly convey "a term or phrase that may refer to one of several distinct meanings", especially considering how often the concept needs to be referenced here. Another problem with "ambiguous term" is that it is often conflated with "vague term" because "ambiguous" and "vague" are synonyms (i.e., "ambiguous" is itself a homograph that can refer to either "imprecise" or "one of several" - we mean the latter), but "vague" cannot be the intended meaning in how "ambiguous" is used on this page, but I know it's often (mis)interpreted that way.
If anyone can suggest an alternative to "homograph" that is better than "ambiguous term" and at least as precise as "homograph", I'm open to it. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I know that homograph looks, well, unusual or something, but I think it allows for much clearer explanation. The best alternative I can think of is "ambiguous term or phrase", and that's much more cumbersome, and doesn't as clearly convey "a term or phrase that may refer to one of several distinct meanings", especially considering how often the concept needs to be referenced here. Another problem with "ambiguous term" is that it is often conflated with "vague term" because "ambiguous" and "vague" are synonyms (i.e., "ambiguous" is itself a homograph that can refer to either "imprecise" or "one of several" - we mean the latter), but "vague" cannot be the intended meaning in how "ambiguous" is used on this page, but I know it's often (mis)interpreted that way.
It might be helpful here to consider the deleted contributions of SpringSummerAutumn, an editor on Australian wine topics who, in their first days of editing, created numerous redirects to Howard Park Wines. For example, since the article discusses the joint venture Marchand & Burch Wines, SpringSummerAutumn created redirects from "Machand and burch wines", "Machand and burch", "Machand burch", "Marcharnd burch", "Marchand burch", "Marchand and burch wine", "Marchand wine", "Machandburch", "Marchburch", and even "Mandb". These are legitimate search strings, but not legitimate names.
Perhaps even more relevant to this discussion, SpringSummerAutumn also created redirects from search terms like "Biodynamic wine great southern", "Burgundian australian wine" and "Riesling western australia". These were problematic because various companies offer products related to these search terms, so it is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia to redirect them to a specific one. My question, then, is whether, rather than deleting the redirect from Riesling western australia, we should have converted it into a disambiguation page listing all the topics relevant to that search string? It seems to me that the old version of this policy would firmly answer "No", whereas B2c's new version offers a "Yes". Hesperian 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you very much. This is why I asked you to review. I now understand the problem and agree 100% that is not what it used to mean, nor is it what we now want it to mean. It seems like what we want is to mean something in between "title" and "search string". Let me think about it.
Anyway, do you think the problem is inherent in all/most of the edits I made, or only in the nutshell summary and maybe a couple of other spots? Without checking the text I'm expecting to find the latter to be true. Thanks very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- You could argue that when someone employs the search string "riesling western australia", they aren't specifically searching for Howard Park Wines. Possibly they doesn't know precisely what they are looking for; possibly they want multiple results; possibly they are after more general discussion on the overarching topic. This may be a solution to your dilemma: disambiguation pages list all of the topics that users of a search string are specifically looking for when they employ that string, as opposed to all relevant topics. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's an idea. Hesperian 10:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, this problem was brought up above in the example of ""Kilgore prodigy pianist". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Kilgore prodigy pianist" illustrates why Hesperian's suggestion is not water tight, because use of this search indicates a specific search for Cliburn. Below I've proposed the wording "reasonably likely to be an article title" as a hopefully more robust solution to this problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- And even though the use of that search indicates a specific search not for Cliburn but for Van Cliburn, we would not create Kilgore prodigy pianist and redirect it to Van Cliburn. So it illustrates why your search term language is to be avoided -- what was Hesperian's suggestion that you think this illustrates a problem with? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- "Kilgore prodigy pianist" illustrates why Hesperian's suggestion is not water tight, because use of this search indicates a specific search for Cliburn. Below I've proposed the wording "reasonably likely to be an article title" as a hopefully more robust solution to this problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
If unexceptional surname holders are ambiguous, they should be listed on disambiguation pages regardless of the existence of an anthroponymy article (lame or full) -- the two pages would serve different functions. If unexceptional surname holders are not ambiguous, they should not factor in to the determination of the primary topic for an ambiguous title. So far, since the formation of the anthroponymy project, unexceptional name holders have not been considered ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that surname-holders should be treated similarly to other borderline partial title matches. For example, a disambiguation page for Foo would typically include articles titled Foo Township or Foo University because these entities are frequently know as simply "Foo". In cases where there are many such entities sharing those names, there would be separate disambiguation pages for those terms that are linked to from the main Foo disambiguation page. I think it is much the same with surname holders -- they are ambiguous by conventions of English usage where people are commonly referenced by their surname -- but when the list of such surname holders grows unwieldy they can be split off into separate pages, which currently are perhaps misleading classified as anthroponymy pages. They might be more accurately described as surname set index pages. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I and most people agree with that approach, and from my experience I believe it's what generally happens. I don't think it's possible to divide people into two distinct groups - the Einsteins that can be referred to by their surnames alone, and the Frestons who can't - the great majority of notable people are in a big grey area in between, and it's reasonable to expect some readers (though not all, of course) to be searching for those people by surname alone. --Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with treating name holders as other partial title matches, and including them when they are frequently known as simply "Foo" (this is the exceptional case of Elvis or Shakespeare) and not when they aren't (the usual case, as with Freston and Cliburn). It's easy enough to divide them into the two groups through reliable sources that refer to the people without using more than the ambiguous title (Einstein, Elvis, Shakespeare) and those that have to use another name to introduce them (Freston, Cliburn). And this is what is generally happening. The hypothetical readers who search for Van Cliburn by surname alone will be able to find him regardless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they will if we include him. What do you mean by "including...and not"? Are you still arguing that most biographical articles should not be listed on the dab pages for their surnames even if the list is short and unobtrusive, as you did at Cliburn? If so, then I don't think we yet agree at all on that point, nor have I seen any argument as to why your approach might conceivably help the reader. But if you mean listing them but under a separate section of the dab page ("People with the surname...") then that (except in the case of the very short dab pages, where subsections look silly) is fine by me. --Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem I had with Cliburn was the errant conclusion that a topic that wasn't in danger of confusion (Van Cliburn) could be the primary topic for the title (Cliburn). Including on the disambiguation page a list of name holders not in need of disambiguation as a convenience is fine, as long as editors realize that it is a convenience, not a creation of ambiguity where none exists. Since there was confusion on that point, I tried to solve it (within the guidelines) by taking on the inconvenience of separating out the anthroponymy list to the surname list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is precisely the disagreement, I think. Surname holders ARE ambiguous by conventions of English language usage. There are some exceptional cases where the surname holder might be the primary topic for the term (e.g., Einstein), or might merit specific mention on the disambiguation page even though there is a separate page with list of surname-holders (e.g., Isaac Newton on Newton). In cases such as Cliburn, if over time evidence shows that a significant proportion of readers are going to the disambiguation page from the village article, that would be a strong indication that the village is not the primary topic. In a case like Freston, even leaving aside the likelihood of the two minor celebrities with the surname being the desired target of readers, I don't think the village article even begins to rate as primary topic -- Freston Tower, which appears to be the only thing notable about the place is arguably more a likely target for readers searching for "Freston" than the village and it is appropriate for the disambiguation page to be at Freston. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)JHJ, by "errant conclusion that a topic that wasn't in danger of confusion (Van Cliburn) could be the primary topic for the title (Cliburn)", are you suggesting that if there were no other uses for "Cliburn", or the only other uses were other lesser known persons with that surname, that it would be inappropriate for Cliburn to redirect to Van Cliburn? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bkronrad, yes that's the disagreement. If you are correct about the conventions of English language use, the conventions of Wikipedia currently disagree with it (which sometimes happens -- Wikipedia consensus is not English language consensus, for instance). I don't think that you are correct about the conventions of English language use, though, which is why persons that would not be in the Wikipedia disambiguation are introduced in English language sources with more than the surname, while person that are "Wikipedia ambiguous" are introduced without more than the ambiguous title. B2C, if there were no topic that could be titled "Cliburn", yes, "Cliburn" could redirect as a {{R from surname}} (which is not a disambiguation redirect); this is similar to the case where if there is no topic for a title that could be a misspelling for another topic, it can be an {{R from misspelling}}, but if there is a correctly-spelled topic, then the title goes to it, even if the other spelling far outstrips it in hits, and we use {{distinguish}} to link them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Except that I think what I have described is current practice on Wikipedia. I'm not able to parse what you mean by which is why persons that would not be in the Wikipedia disambiguation are introduced in English language sources with more than the surname, while person that are "Wikipedia ambiguous" are introduced without more than the ambiguous title. Do you seriously dispute the notion it is a convention of the English language that persons are commonly referenced by surname? Really? older ≠ wiser 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note the subtle switch in his wording from merely "referred" to "introduced". The implication is that because non-exceptional persons are virtually never introduced in sources with surname only, that means they are not "commonly referenced" by surname only (never mind that is how they are referred once they are introduced with full name in most of those sources!).
And I don't see how any of the wording at {{R from surname}} supports JHJ's argument that his position reflects policy. No one is suggesting anything other than what that template calls for. Of course a redirect from a surname to an article about a person is not a disambiguation redirect; disambiguation redirects take you to disambiguation pages. Not sure what the point is there either. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note the subtle switch in his wording from merely "referred" to "introduced". The implication is that because non-exceptional persons are virtually never introduced in sources with surname only, that means they are not "commonly referenced" by surname only (never mind that is how they are referred once they are introduced with full name in most of those sources!).
- Except that I think what I have described is current practice on Wikipedia. I'm not able to parse what you mean by which is why persons that would not be in the Wikipedia disambiguation are introduced in English language sources with more than the surname, while person that are "Wikipedia ambiguous" are introduced without more than the ambiguous title. Do you seriously dispute the notion it is a convention of the English language that persons are commonly referenced by surname? Really? older ≠ wiser 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- The problem I had with Cliburn was the errant conclusion that a topic that wasn't in danger of confusion (Van Cliburn) could be the primary topic for the title (Cliburn). Including on the disambiguation page a list of name holders not in need of disambiguation as a convenience is fine, as long as editors realize that it is a convenience, not a creation of ambiguity where none exists. Since there was confusion on that point, I tried to solve it (within the guidelines) by taking on the inconvenience of separating out the anthroponymy list to the surname list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, they will if we include him. What do you mean by "including...and not"? Are you still arguing that most biographical articles should not be listed on the dab pages for their surnames even if the list is short and unobtrusive, as you did at Cliburn? If so, then I don't think we yet agree at all on that point, nor have I seen any argument as to why your approach might conceivably help the reader. But if you mean listing them but under a separate section of the dab page ("People with the surname...") then that (except in the case of the very short dab pages, where subsections look silly) is fine by me. --Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with treating name holders as other partial title matches, and including them when they are frequently known as simply "Foo" (this is the exceptional case of Elvis or Shakespeare) and not when they aren't (the usual case, as with Freston and Cliburn). It's easy enough to divide them into the two groups through reliable sources that refer to the people without using more than the ambiguous title (Einstein, Elvis, Shakespeare) and those that have to use another name to introduce them (Freston, Cliburn). And this is what is generally happening. The hypothetical readers who search for Van Cliburn by surname alone will be able to find him regardless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I and most people agree with that approach, and from my experience I believe it's what generally happens. I don't think it's possible to divide people into two distinct groups - the Einsteins that can be referred to by their surnames alone, and the Frestons who can't - the great majority of notable people are in a big grey area in between, and it's reasonable to expect some readers (though not all, of course) to be searching for those people by surname alone. --Kotniski (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed nutshell rewording
Great discussion, folks. The nutshell summary (now reverted to the version prior to my changes) currently states:
- This page in a nutshell: When an article title could refer to several things, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them.
Since we "provide links or a disambiguation page" (and redirects) not only when an actual article title could refer to several things, but when a topic name or any reasonable conceivable title could refer to several things, I propose the following wording to convey this:
- This page in a nutshell: When a name or description of a topic reasonably likely to be the title of an article may be used to refer to any of several topics covered in Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide redirects, links or a disambiguation page so that readers searching for that topic can quickly navigate to the article being sought.
I suggest this solves several problems without introducing the problems of the "search string" nomenclature I used before, and hopefully without introducing any other problems. I think we need to say "or description of a topic" because many of our articles titles are not names, but descriptions (the family of "List of ..." articles, is one obvious example, but there are myriads more).
I also contend this version reflects the consensus view about how surnames of unexceptional people and other partial title matches are handled: the hurdle that needs to be met is, "reasonably likely to be the title of an article".
Thoughts/comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the proposed version is unnecessarily hard to read because of the added convolutions. We can incorporate the "topic" idea without adding more twists:
- This page in a nutshell: When a possible topic title may be used to refer to several topics covered in Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that title can quickly navigate to the article that interests them.
- -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but title is very specific, and "possible" is too open-ended; ultimately not that most specific in meaning than "search string". Mercury (planet) is a title, but disambiguation is about expecting users to enter "Mercury", not the title "Mercury (planet)", and getting them to Mercury (planet) quickly never-the-less. So, how about:
- This page in a nutshell: When a reasonably possible topic name may be used to refer to several topics covered in Wikipedia, it is necessary to provide links or a disambiguation page so that readers typing in that name can quickly navigate to the article they seek.
- --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, but title is very specific, and "possible" is too open-ended; ultimately not that most specific in meaning than "search string". Mercury (planet) is a title, but disambiguation is about expecting users to enter "Mercury", not the title "Mercury (planet)", and getting them to Mercury (planet) quickly never-the-less. So, how about:
Certainly the current nutshell isn't quite right, but can we reword it without making it more complicated? Nutshells are supposed to be short and sweet. Or if we can't manage that, then why not just ditch the nutshell? People can read the first sentence of the guideline if they want to know what it's about. I don't really know why people insist on putting nutshells on project pages anyway - they can oversimplify to the point of being highly misleading, and at best just duplicate the function of a well-written leading sentence/paragraph. --Kotniski (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- This page in a nutshell: Where two or more articles have similar titles, disambiguation links and pages help readers find what are looking for.
- - is as concise as I can formulate. - TB (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- But that has the same problem as the existing nutshell had - it implies that disambiguation is only between article titles, when in fact it is between names of topics (which are not necessarily also article titles). It also fails to tell anyone anything unless they already know what disambiguation links and pages are, in which case they almost certainly already know what purpose they serve as well.--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think a nutshell summary is important. In order to not be "oversimplified to the point of being highly misleading" it needs to be "more complicated". I suggest the modified version of what JHJ proposed strikes a pretty good balance, is better than what was there before, and certainly better than what is there now (nothing). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still firmly in favour of nothing ;) The version you refer to is not a helpful summary of the whole page - just a (not particularly informative) expression of one aspect of disambiguation. The page covers a multitude of aspects; I really don't see how it can be summed up in one sentence any better than is already done by the first sentence of the text (or if we can improve on that first sentence, then why not modify that sentence rather than adding another one above it). --Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think a nutshell summary is important. In order to not be "oversimplified to the point of being highly misleading" it needs to be "more complicated". I suggest the modified version of what JHJ proposed strikes a pretty good balance, is better than what was there before, and certainly better than what is there now (nothing). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- But that has the same problem as the existing nutshell had - it implies that disambiguation is only between article titles, when in fact it is between names of topics (which are not necessarily also article titles). It also fails to tell anyone anything unless they already know what disambiguation links and pages are, in which case they almost certainly already know what purpose they serve as well.--Kotniski (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Evidence this guideline needs wording improved
This incident discussed on Bkonrad's talk page is specific to the wording at thje WP:INTDABLINK section of this page, but I suggest the problem of being unclear is sprinkled throughout this entire guideline page. I tried to improve it, and believe I did, but all that work was reverted for what I believe to be insufficient basis (improving what I had, especially with respect to the "search string" problem discussed above, would have been the better way to go but maybe we can still do that).
Note that Bkonrad's interpretation (that intentional internal links to dab pages that are at [[Name]] rather than [[Name (disambiguation)]] should go to the redirect at [[Name (disambiguation)]]) was correct, but this was not clear to the user in this discussion until I changed the wording (which has now been reverted). So now it and other sections are less clear again. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Dictionary definitions?
I've always thought that including dictionary definitions was frowned on -- in the "Dos and Don'ts", it's pretty clear about this: "Don't add dictionary definitions." Big red X and everything.
However, if you follow the link, you find the sentence: "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." Which pretty much undercuts the policy, to my mind.
This is followed by "Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary", but this is not the same as explicitly saying "but don't write one in the page itself; link to Wiktionary."
In WP:MOSDAB, it's a little more straightforward and helpful: "When a dictionary definition should be included (see What not to include), then rather than writing a text entry, create a cross-link to Wiktionary"
I would suggest we change the wording here (specifically, here) to align with the wording in MOSDAB. Any objections?--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed new wording:
A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. If a description of the common general meaning of a word is considered appropriate for helping the reader determine context, add a link to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary.
--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd rather tone down the prohibitive language. A brief dictionary definition can be helpful in some cases (if only to tell readers that we don't have an article about that meaning). These pages are above all supposed to be helpful to readers - it isn't helpful to shunt them off to wiktionary to find information that we could just as easily give them ourselves. (Though it depends on the situation - sometimes we would be oversimplifying by summarizing the dictionary meanings in one sentence.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- ...but dab pages are there precisely to shunt. It's what they do. Making them do more reduces their functionality as a switchboard to where the content really lives.
- Can you give an example of where a dictionary definition makes a dab page a better dab page?--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCDAB - clarification proposed
One of the points currently made at WP:NCDAB is this:
- 4. With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as in Windsor, Berkshire. See Naming conventions (geographic names).
I propose adding a few words of explanation to be more clear about the reason we often use commas for disambiguating place-names rather than the parentheses which are usually used to disambiguate (e.g., Madonna (entertainer), Cork (city), etc.):
- 4. With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, because that is how reliable sources disambiguate those place-names, as in Windsor, Berkshire. See Naming conventions (geographic names).
Any objections? If so, why? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, because it isn't needed here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) can handle their own explanations, and if they change, there's no reason to create a dependency on them here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that an argument to remove the entire statement, not just my proposed clarification? Do you have an objection specific to the proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, I object to your proposal, for the specific reason given. If you would like to propose that the current statement be removed instead, based on this objection or otherwise, I would not object to that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- The specific reason being, "not needed" and "creates a dependency"?
Let's deal with the latter first. Is the reason you don't want a dependency so that if something changes there, we don't also have to change it here? That makes sense in theory, but in this case do you really think this part about using commas to denote a higher administrative division can ever change? I mean, don't you agree that the reason we use a comma, rather than, say, a semi-colon or tilde to denote higher administrative divisions, is because that's what is used in sources to denote higher administrative divisions for place names? I mean, the likelihood of that changing is practically nil, don't you think? So the dependency, here, in practice, should be harmless, don't you agree?
As far as "not needed", let's first establish that you agree the suggested wording is not incorrect. That is, your objection is not that you think it's wrong or even misleading, but that you see no benefit in adding it, right?
Now, the need I see is this: the use of the comma for higher administrative divisions in sources is not universal. For example, we typically don't use or see city, country or city, state, country for places in the United States. But, by ommission of the something like what I propose, the current wording implies that as long as a higher administrative division is denoted with a comma the title is in compliance with WP:NCDAB. Do we really want it to say just that? I'm suggesting in general, and with the specific proposed wording but am of course open to alternative considerations, to convey that such denotation should only be used in contexts in which the same is done in sources. I've seen the current wording used to justify denotation of a higher administrative division in a context in which commas are not used in sources for doing that, and I would like this wording to be more clear about that. Do you have an objection to being clear about this, or is your objection only with respect to doing it here? If your objection is still to only doing it here, and putting aside the option of removing this statement altogether, by not including the wording I propose (or something similar), why do you prefer leaving it ambiguous on this point? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see how those paragraphs help clarify what I meant. To clarify: "This is not the place to explain that." The explanation or further clarification, if any is needed, is an explanation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and goes there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Only you can clarify what you meant, not me. If you would be so cooperative as to answer the questions I asked, it would clarify WHY you think explanation or further clarification of what is stated here needs to go to WP:PLACES, and not here. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, thanks. Since this is not the place to explain that, this is not the place to explain that. Use Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) to propose the changes or clarifications to those guidelines, and interested editors can answer your questions about their comments there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- Only you can clarify what you meant, not me. If you would be so cooperative as to answer the questions I asked, it would clarify WHY you think explanation or further clarification of what is stated here needs to go to WP:PLACES, and not here. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I fail to see how those paragraphs help clarify what I meant. To clarify: "This is not the place to explain that." The explanation or further clarification, if any is needed, is an explanation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and goes there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- The specific reason being, "not needed" and "creates a dependency"?
- No, I object to your proposal, for the specific reason given. If you would like to propose that the current statement be removed instead, based on this objection or otherwise, I would not object to that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that an argument to remove the entire statement, not just my proposed clarification? Do you have an objection specific to the proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- Why Born2cycle is proposing this. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation of Foreign Language terms and inclusion of information not supported by existing articles
Pursuant to the discussion here, I'm wondering if we could add some language either on this page or WP:MOSDAB to clarify when translations of foreign language terms are appropriate for inclusion on a disambiguation page. Brief summary: an editor added an entry to Pine Valley as
- Pine Valley, russian term "Kedrovaya Pad", nature reserve in Primorsky Kray, Russia
I removed the entry, as at the time there was no article for Kedrovaya Pad and neither of the linked articles made any mention of either "Kedrovaya Pad" or "Pine Valley". A series of reverts took place. Evidently, the name "Kedrovaya Pad" can be translated as either Cedar Valley or Pine Valley (the plant is the Korean Pine). An editor created a stub for Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve and included a reference to calling it Pine Valley. While it still is questionable to me whether the place is commonly known in English as Pine Valley, the reference seems enough to justify a mention in the see also section of the disambiguation page Pine Valley.
I think this is already implied by the content of WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB, but what I'd like to suggest is clearer language that disambiguation pages should not introduce information that is not supported existing articles. A further question is should disambiguation pages include entries for translations of foreign language terms where there is no indication in any article that the subject is known in English by the translated title? older ≠ wiser 19:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Who is helped by twodabs?
Okay, let's talk about this edit which changed the wording of the twodabs section from this:
- If there are two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, putting the primary topic article at the title with a hatnote pointing to the other article is usually preferable. Those looking for the primary topic are taken directly to the topic they seek, and those seeking the secondary topic are only one click away. A disambiguation page at that title would also get readers looking for the secondary usage to their article in one click, but it would cause those looking for the primary topic, the topic most readers are likely to be looking for, to have to click once as well.
to this:
- If there are just two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then no disambiguation page is needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)
The edit summary is: "this wasn't right - once we have a primary topic we know that people looking for that topic are going straight to where they want to be, it's the others this helps"
Let's take an example, say Birmingham Airport. The primary topic is Birmingham Airport, West Midlands and so that is at Birmingham Airport (actually Birmingham Airport redirects to Birmingham Airport, West Midlands, but that's moot here). The second use is Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport for which there is a hatnote at the top of the primary topic article.
So, of those entering "Birmingham Airport" those seeking the primary topic are taken straight to their article, and those seeking the second topic are one click of a hatnote link away.
Now, if we make Birmingham Airport a dab page, everyone entering "Birmingham Airport" is taken to the dab page, not to any article. From the dab page, those seeking the second topic are still one click (of a dab page link this time) away from their article, but now the primary topic users are also one click away from the article they seek.
So, it seems to me that, going backwards, by getting rid of the dab page we are helping the primary topic seekers; it's a wash (one click either way) for the seekers of the second topic, contrary to what the edit summary and changed wording above says. That is, if we have a dab page then even primary topic seekers are not being taken straight to where they want to be (they're taken to the dab page first). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the first version above unnecessarily confuses things. The immediately preceding paragraph leads into this as follows: "However, if there is a primary topic, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article." Thus this paragraph is precisely about the situation in which there IS a primary topic. There is no need to explain the mechanics of what happens when there is no primary topic. This section is corollary with the first bullet in {{db-disambig}}. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- I think the editor of the second example above is saying that the suggested set up is better than a hatnote link to a two entry dab page on the primary topic article. I like the brevity of the second example, but the parenthetical sentence might be improved to something like "A dab page would add unnecessary navigational clicks in this circumstance." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. In the case of a primary topic there is no option to put the dab page at the title. But, I daresay, the first paragraph explains why readers benefit from hatnote links even when neither of the two actually meets primary topic criteria. This is why I always thought twodabs applied even when there is no primary topic. I mean, what's the downside in randomly picking one to be "primary" and the other to be linked by hatnote? The upside is that at least the readers seeking one of the two topics get there directly, while the others are still only one click away. All upside no downside seems like an obvious improvement to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- That is often what happens -- the first article created becomes primary by default and unless someone is motivated to move pages about, it is often easier to just set up a second article with disambiguated title and add a hatnote in the first. But I'd rather not try to write language to codify that -- the result would likely be perceived as watering down the criteria for primary topic. older ≠ wiser 17:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Observation of move discussions reveals that quite a lot of people think that the shortcut WP:TWODABS means something like "if there are only two topics, make one of them primary" (or, equivalently, "we don't like two-line dab pages"), where in fact all it says is "we don't like two-line dab pages when one of them's a primary topic"). In fact this thinking - that we are more inclined to pick a primary topic when there are only two to choose from - seems to be so common that it might well be documented in the guideline (and when that possibility has been raised at this page in the past, I don't think there's been any objection, though it never actually got done). It belongs in the preceding section, though, the one about "Is there a primary topic?", not in TWODABS (a rather confusing shortcut anyway), which deals with the separate question of whether to use a dab page or just hatnotes.--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- The reason I thought that we didn't make non-primary topics primary is because we have enough contention identifying primary topics when one of them actually is primary without having to worry about the contention that may arise from choosing between two obviously non-primary topics. If codified, we'd need to say that if there is consensus for one of the two to be placed at the base name even though it doesn't meet the criteria for primary topic, but rather the editors would rather have one "side" skip the need for an extra click, then we can. I wouldn't want to use the word "randomly". The downsides would be that contention and, possibly, readers on slow connections having to load a large article with a hatnote rather than loading a small dab page. Not killer downsides, but not "0" either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I only said "randomly" to point out that regardless of which one is chosen to be treated as if it's primary, even if it's the one less likely to be sought, no users are worse off as compared to having a dab page at the plain name, and at least some readers are better off. But I wasn't suggesting we use that term in the guideline.
I think what really happens is when there are only two uses the criteria for primary topic is looser. In other words, when there are only two topics to which a given term may refer, then the normal criteria for primary topic, "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined " often seems to be compressed and softened to simply be, "more likely than the other".
But instead of having two different criteria for 2 dabs and 2+ dabs, we could change the existing criteria from saying "much more likely than any other" to just "more likely than any other": "more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined ". After all, if one topic is more likely than any other and more likely than all the others combined, to be the one being sought, isn't it the primary topic? Since it already must be more likely than all the others combined to be the one being sought, why does it also have to be much more likely than any other? Why isn't merely being more likely than any other, as well more likely than all the others combined, sufficient to be primary? If it was that, which I suggest accurately reflects how primary topic is usually interpreted regardless of what is said here anyway, then in the case of only two uses, this criteria would logically compress to "more likely than the other", which also accurately reflects reality. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because we have left 51/49 splits without a primary topic, in theory. That's how I continue to interpret it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really think we have the means to distinguish a 51/49 from a 49/51 split? If they're really that close, then we really can't claim that one is "more likely than the other". That is, the difference has to be significant enough to be discernible to be able to argue that one is "more likely than the other". So I still don't see the need for the "much".
Any objection to removing the "much" from "much more likely than any other" at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes; please leave our naming guidelines alone. This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.
- Do you really think we have the means to distinguish a 51/49 from a 49/51 split? If they're really that close, then we really can't claim that one is "more likely than the other". That is, the difference has to be significant enough to be discernible to be able to argue that one is "more likely than the other". So I still don't see the need for the "much".
- Because we have left 51/49 splits without a primary topic, in theory. That's how I continue to interpret it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I only said "randomly" to point out that regardless of which one is chosen to be treated as if it's primary, even if it's the one less likely to be sought, no users are worse off as compared to having a dab page at the plain name, and at least some readers are better off. But I wasn't suggesting we use that term in the guideline.
- The reason I thought that we didn't make non-primary topics primary is because we have enough contention identifying primary topics when one of them actually is primary without having to worry about the contention that may arise from choosing between two obviously non-primary topics. If codified, we'd need to say that if there is consensus for one of the two to be placed at the base name even though it doesn't meet the criteria for primary topic, but rather the editors would rather have one "side" skip the need for an extra click, then we can. I wouldn't want to use the word "randomly". The downsides would be that contention and, possibly, readers on slow connections having to load a large article with a hatnote rather than loading a small dab page. Not killer downsides, but not "0" either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Observation of move discussions reveals that quite a lot of people think that the shortcut WP:TWODABS means something like "if there are only two topics, make one of them primary" (or, equivalently, "we don't like two-line dab pages"), where in fact all it says is "we don't like two-line dab pages when one of them's a primary topic"). In fact this thinking - that we are more inclined to pick a primary topic when there are only two to choose from - seems to be so common that it might well be documented in the guideline (and when that possibility has been raised at this page in the past, I don't think there's been any objection, though it never actually got done). It belongs in the preceding section, though, the one about "Is there a primary topic?", not in TWODABS (a rather confusing shortcut anyway), which deals with the separate question of whether to use a dab page or just hatnotes.--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- This post is incoherent; we make 90-10 splits primary topics but make 51-49 splits disambiguation pages in large part because it is hard to tell 51-49 from 49-51; so the end works against the beginnng.
- The other part is because primary topic inconveniences a minority, who have to click twice, to help a majority get directly where they want to be. This inconvenience is more acceptable when the minority is 10% or 5% then when they are 49%. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."
I am going to "be bold" and add a small section about the phease, ```"Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."``` which occurs at the bottom of every edit page:
Wikipedia editors and admins should remain cognizant that whether MEANING-1 or MEANING-2 is determined to be primary or not is a source of potential bias. If MEANING-1 is considered primary, it may seem to discredit MEANING-2 as being lesser of importance. This bias wants to be avoided. So in very contentious cases, consider having the ambiguous term land on the disambiguation page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuston (talk • contribs) 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Primary topic has nothing to do with importance, and has everything to do with how likely one topic is to be sought with a given name relative to other topics. Period. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel likewise. Selection of something as a primary topic does not confirm any special purpose or importance to the topic, it just acknowledges that it matches what most people are looking for when they enter the term. There are cases where consensus on a page may put in effect what you suggest, but it shouldn't be the general guideline. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, Bhuston, do not tag the addition of content to a page as a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)