Born2cycle (talk | contribs) →Primary topics with other titles: explain using Fergie as example |
|||
Line 360: | Line 360: | ||
:::When determining a primary topic for a given term, the question is the likelihood of each topic being the one sought by the reader who searched for the ambiguous title. Editors should consider the article the reader is looking for may not incorporate the search term in its title, but still may have a high likelihood of being the article a reader is looking for - and thus may be a primary target. |
:::When determining a primary topic for a given term, the question is the likelihood of each topic being the one sought by the reader who searched for the ambiguous title. Editors should consider the article the reader is looking for may not incorporate the search term in its title, but still may have a high likelihood of being the article a reader is looking for - and thus may be a primary target. |
||
::--John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC) |
::--John ([[User:Jwy]]/[[User talk:Jwy|talk]]) 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
No, [[Defamation]] does not exemplify the point either because slander/libel is the primary use of "Defamation", and the term ''defamation'' is the name the film would use if the legal use was not primary.<p>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fergie_%28singer%29#Requested_move Here] is a link to a discussion in which the problem is exemplified. See the comment under '''Important Note''' and my reply. The term in question there is "Fergie" and the argument made is that the use by [[Sarah Ferguson]] (whose nickname is Fergie) is not relevant since the article about her would never be at [[Fergie]] no matter what. I want something in here that explains clearly why that's not true. Just because that article would never be at "Fergie" doesn't mean readers will never search for it using "Fergie", and, so, in deciding whether the singer is the primary use of "Fergie", we need to consider the likelihood that that term will be used to search for the Sarah. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 16:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:04, 26 November 2010
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 35 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Primary topic and traffic stats
The traffic statistics are typically the major fact used in primary topic discussions at present, almost to the point of giving it overwhelming weight and ignoring other factors entirely at times. However, the guideline does not indicate this and says that the stats are one of a few measures that should be borne in mind to aid discussion.
This strikes me as a break between the guidance and the current implementation of it: Either the current interpretation of the guideline is drifting away from the community-derived consensus and people are slightly distorting the exact meaning of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or the consensus has changed and its the guideline that is outdated. If the latter is the case, the guideline should be updated to reflect this. In particular, more detailed information on the sort of figures a primary topic should be obtaining should also be written into the guidance IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm typically use traffic stats as a major factor in determining a primary topic, but I wouldn't want the guideline changed to put them as the sole determinant. Traffic statistics have the benefits of being easy to determine (thanks to the tools at stats.grok.se) and being good (but not perfect) predictors of the other factors. Most primary topic determinations do continue to follow the guidelines, so I don't think they need to be updated. Do you have in mind a case where the traffic stats were used and the other measurements disagreed with its results but were ignored? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that traffic stats shouldn't be the sole determinant, but at same time I get impression that they are considered more valuable than the other two listed terms (or the "importance" concept the guideline fails to pin down and describe effectively). The ease of generation is partially the cause of this, but probably also because they are genuinely the most powerful: the test redirects with Lincoln and EA are examples of this. The guideline doesn't really make clear the fact that the stats are seen as more valuable by a significant portion[citation needed] of the community that participate in these discussions.
- In any case, providing figures on the lines "If an article has over 70% of the traffic it is probably the primary topic" and "If the most popular article has under 30% of the traffic there is unlikely to be a primary topic" (or whatever past experience indicates are clear-cut numbers) would benefit those not that familiar with how to apply the primary topic guidelines. Providing number for this - and indeed for the other two measures wouldn't hurt.
- I can't immediately provide examples where the traffic and the others disagreed, but can certainly provide examples where the others have not been investigated despite the discussion being contentious (eg Talk:Cambridge#Requested move). (As an aside: I've found AWB to be a simple way to generate inward link counts, easier and more powerful than going from the special page).--Nilfanion (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- If no one (on any "side") is bothering with the other measurements, I'm not sure what we should do. The other measurements are still available and useful, but if everyone in a particular discussion is happy using just the traffic stats, that will work too.
- As far as clear-cut numbers, I don't know what they'd be. If there are 50 ambiguous topics for a title, one gets 51% of the traffic and each of the others gets 1%, I'd say it was the primary topic, but if there are 2 ambiguous topics, one gets 51% and the other gets 49%, I would say there's no primary topic. That's why the current language (much more than any other, and more than all the others combined) is there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think the problem is the pro-dab "side" has the traffic stats in its favour - so they won't look further; why bother? Whereas the anti-dab side aren't familiar with the guidance and will think about what comes more naturally (that is their perception of importance). The "importance" of a topic is relevant to primary topic resolution but is much harder to gauge due to obvious subjectivity.
- And yeah, good point on clear-cut numbers it depends on how many articles there are, how many are significant etc etc. Incidentally this discussion is one where traffic stats (reasonably ambiguous) and incoming links (clear "winner") do indicate completely different things.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can I just ask does the guideline, with regards to traffic stats, state that a primary topic requires clear majority (over half the total traffic), or a clear plurality (a lot more than the next greatest)?
- The guideline does say "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined". Appearing that either the "much more likely than any other" line is superfluous or that the "more likely than all the others combined" line is erroneous when counted with the previous. Zangar (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
An example. Say we were able to get the exact usage statistics coming out of a dab page. In one case:
Header text | Article |
---|---|
A1 | 51% |
A2 | 49% |
and
Article | Percentage |
---|---|
B1 | 51% |
B2 | 7% |
B3 | 7% |
B4 | 7% |
B5 | 7% |
B6 | 7% |
B7 | 7% |
B8 | 7% |
As HJH says, we generally have a dab page for A and not for B. A majority and a significant advantage over any individual article is generally required. NOTE: Some insist the primary should be significantly greater than 50% of the total outlink hits. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As illustrated by JHunterJ above, if one topic has 51% and all the other 50 topics have 1% each, then not only is "more likely than all the others combined" true, but so is "much more likely than any other", and, so, the 51% is a primary topic. But if there are only two topics (51% vs 49%) then "much more likely than any other" is not true, so it's not the primary topic.
Further, if one topic has 40% but 30 others have 2% each, then "more likely than all the others combined" is not true and so the 40% one is not the primary topic even though "much more likely than any other" is true. Both phrases are needed. Neither is erroneous nor superfluous. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)As illustrated by JHunterJ above, if one topic has 51% and all the other 50 topics have 1% each, then not only is "more likely than all the others combined" true, but so is "much more likely than any other", and, so, the 51% is a primary topic. But if there are only two topics (51% vs 49%) then "much more likely than any other" is not true, so it's not the primary topic.
Getting back to the original question. We don't have an easy way to gather the statistics used in the examples here. In special cases, we have set up temporary redirects coming out of a dab page to understand the "real" usage of the dab links, but that is rare. So, in part, the other "non-statistical" tools are used to help approximate the usage. Personally, I believe that is pretty much ALL we should use them for, but I know there are those that disagree. If we could get these percentage statistics, I believe we would have a very effective, useful, understandable and efficient implementation of primary topic matters using a formula similar to discussion above - adjusting the required interval between primary and second choice, and setting an agreed upon level of majority (51%? 60%?). I'm not suggesting we do this - we can't without significant Media Wiki changes and performance issues. But (see the next section) I think discussion of how we would proceed if we COULD do that would be useful in fleshing out what other factors others believe we should use in primary topic determination. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- To further emphasize what others have said above, traffic view statistics are only one tool used to help judge which topic is most likely (or more likely) to be viewed by Wikipedia readers, and in no case should be considered the sole determining factor. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that we solely use current statistics. I'm trying to understand your position further. If we had precise statistics that told us how people navigated out of dab pages, what more should we consider? Such a statistic should come quite close to giving us information about which topic is most likely to be viewed by readers. What would missing? That's what I'm asking below --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- There are many cases where they can be and should be the sole determining factor. If their the only factor brought forward, there's no reason for them not to use them. There are too many discussions where the traffic stats are attacked but no other appropriate rationale (just anecdotes, origins, and age, usually) is used to contradict them. In those cases, the stats should be the determinant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What determines Primary Topic BEYOND outbound link usage?
Suppose we had dependable statistics on the use of links out of dab pages (and to articles from the search box) so we have accurate understanding of the relative use of the links to articles associated with a dab page. If the page has all the links it "should", should there be any other input into the primary topic determination? If so, what and why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwy (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- In some cases one article possibly should be the primary topic no matter what the stats are like. Night is the first (and not exceptionally good) example I can think of, I'm sure people can think of better ones. If we assumed the traffic stats (18K for the time-of-day and 27k for the book in August) were instead the results of the "perfect" measure you describe and not the simple raw stats should we then follow these and make the time-of-day not the primary topic? Or should the fact that its the simple every day meaning take precedence even if its not the most popular search?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally don't see that making the book primary makes Wikipedia worse. How important is handling the shock/surprise at finding an unexpected, but understandably "more popular" article when you enter a term? And if we must handle that shock, the bounds of "simple every day meaning" are going to be a tricky to define and easy to argue about. Any thoughts there? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Jwy. It should be noted that PrimaryTopic does make an exception like this for so-called vital articles. That is, if Night was a vital article, then it would have claim to primary topic, regardless of normal primary topic criteria. But it's not vital, so it's subject to the same criteria and comparison as all other non-vital articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It tries to make an exception for vital articles, but ends up with no exception. "An exception may be appropriate if only one of the ambiguous topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the vital article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." is no improvement on "Consensus may determine that an article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.", which is always true. I would like to see it strengthened so that it is a recommendation even without having to gain consensus on each page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited. It is not a web-site that arbitrarily renames articles based on traffic statistics. The judgement of editors is and always has been the critical factor in determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 00:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- It tries to make an exception for vital articles, but ends up with no exception. "An exception may be appropriate if only one of the ambiguous topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the vital article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." is no improvement on "Consensus may determine that an article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.", which is always true. I would like to see it strengthened so that it is a recommendation even without having to gain consensus on each page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Jwy. It should be noted that PrimaryTopic does make an exception like this for so-called vital articles. That is, if Night was a vital article, then it would have claim to primary topic, regardless of normal primary topic criteria. But it's not vital, so it's subject to the same criteria and comparison as all other non-vital articles. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I personally don't see that making the book primary makes Wikipedia worse. How important is handling the shock/surprise at finding an unexpected, but understandably "more popular" article when you enter a term? And if we must handle that shock, the bounds of "simple every day meaning" are going to be a tricky to define and easy to argue about. Any thoughts there? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I am asking a hypothetical question to capture what other things go into determining a primary topic beyond traffic statistics. Are there any other factors that you see editors generally using when they argue against the statistical choice? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I find the "judgement of editors" answer to be most unhelpful. Even to justify something per WP:IAR you need to provide good reason that action is good for the encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Bkonrad's views. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The judgment of editors is key to many decisions about the content of the encyclopedia. I'm sorry that you, Born2cycle, think that is unhelpful, but it is nonetheless the case. Editorial judgment cannot be quantified, and because the facts of each situation are different, one cannot state in advance every consideration that may be taken into account in every decision about a primary topic. I do agree that editors need to provide good reason for their views; "because I said so" is not an exercise of editorial judgment. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd also say we have a "moral obligation" to prevent linkrot. Constantly moving popular pages around means external links to Wikipedia becomes less reliable (even if the harm is just following the top link on a dab or clicking through a hatnote), if this is done too much it has the potential to do real harm to the project. Given that page moves should only be done for a good reason.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Bkonrad's views. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The judgment of editors is key to many decisions about the content of the encyclopedia. I'm sorry that you, Born2cycle, think that is unhelpful, but it is nonetheless the case. Editorial judgment cannot be quantified, and because the facts of each situation are different, one cannot state in advance every consideration that may be taken into account in every decision about a primary topic. I do agree that editors need to provide good reason for their views; "because I said so" is not an exercise of editorial judgment. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you indicate what some of those "good reasons" might be? If there are some general ones (like weight being added for vital articles), it would be useful to have them listed somewhere. If there are some specific ones that you found especially compelling, I'd be interested in hearing those as well. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Russ, you say this is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. I'm not sure what you mean by that in this context. There are two ways I can think of to interpret "popularity contest" here in this discussion about determining primary topic:
- Determining which (if any) topic is primary based on popularity of usage of the name in question in reliable sources.
- Determining primary topic based on which is most popular as primary topic (if any) among editors participating in a discussion about that.
- (1) is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires us to do. (2) is generally how we make the determination in (1).
I don't know what you guys mean by "editorial judgement". As Jwy says, "editorial judgement" based on what good reasons, exactly? How is that different from a popularity contest in sense (2)? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- The proposition at the start of this thread is "popularity" as in what is most wanted by readers? This may or may not be the same as your situation (1). In particular with some topics (ie memes) the relative interest of two topics to readers could change drastically, but this would not affect the reliable sources. Likewise the primary topic of a phrase can genuinely alter with time, eg on the historical timescale for cities. We should respond to the second sort of change, but not the first - as the second will affect reliable sources, but the first will not.
- "Importance" is something that can be used as a predictive measure, and a numerical value can be attached to it may be easier traffic stats. The fact it makes more sense to the general community is a bonus. For example, reader interest in hurricanes can be predicted by how destructive they are and when they were. Reader interest and source coverage of settlements can be predicted by population - a city of 100,000 is more likely to be viewed and have stuff written about it than a village of 500.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I can see make sure we don't react to short term changes in interest. A problem with the "importance" criteria as you discuss is that often the ambiguous articles don't have a common measuring criteria (one ambiguous article might be a city, another a movie, another a brand of underwear).
- But it looks like you are suggesting we use "importance" as a way to get a better statistics to predict "interest" of those entering the dab term. That's a different question than what I am asking: Assuming we have a reasonable way to predict this kind of "interest" (I believe that's what the outlink statistics would do), what additional criteria should we look at. Put another way, if we had those statistics, what arguments should prevail against the primary topic determination they suggest. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Importance" is a test that can be applied in some cases, though you can't compare apples and oranges. However, I think there is a key difference between popularity in reliable sources and popularity in Wikipedia's readership. The first conforms to policy such as WP:NPOV. Using popularity with readers will inevitably run into the problems of systematic bias, which is an indication that going wholly down that route is in error.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the goal is to optimize navigation, a dab page necessarily has to cater to those who actually come to Wikipedia. We are not biasing the information in the articles by getting people to the articles they are looking for quickly. Some MAY interpret the selection of a primary topic as giving the topic special importance beyond this goal, but we are not doing so and we are not changing the information in the articles. Am I missing how systemic bias might creep in? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have pointed out before that WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM can and should guide article content. Arranging complying articles in any particular fashion won't void their compliance though, and arranging them to best serve the readership will, ahem, best serve the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Put me down as agreeing with Nilfanion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are many more Wikipedia readers who are interested in popular jazz-fusion music than in American history. Then, the "it's just a navigation aid" argument would suggest that George Clinton (musician) should be the primary topic of George Clinton, despite the existence of several other articles about notable people by the same name, including a U.S. Vice President. That "arrangement" conveys to the minority who are reading about American history that their interests are less important to Wikipedia than the interests of music fans. Yes, I know it doesn't say that anywhere, but it still gives that impression. If there were a systematic effort to designate primary topics solely to satisfy the interests of a majority of our current readership, we would very likely be alienating many other readers and, perhaps more importantly, potential readers. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then there should never be any primary topic for any ambiguous title, lest we imply that any group of readers is less important than any other. I disagree with that conclusion, and would rather call the primary topic the primary topic and trust that the readers will not be "alienated" by the limitations of the encyclopedia (two articles can't have the same title). The explanations of the policies can be expanded to salve that wound, if it does exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the determination of a primary topic is based upon usage in reliable sources, there is no implication of readership bias. For example, no one could reasonably contend that having Mao redirect to Mao Zedong suggests bias; any contention that, say, the Mao Restaurant in Lower East Armpit is an equally important topic would be ridiculous on its face, and could easily be refuted by reference to reliable sources. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- That tends to be my position as well, but I want to make sure I understand the other position. The assertion is that by choosing to have one article as primary instead of another, we appear to be conferring higher importance to that article - and we should consider this when choosing a primary. But, as JHJ points out, this argument could be used in all cases: Why should P-funk fans get alienated and not Mr. VP fans? How can we do so without introducing some bias? We handle it in an organized way with the vital articles concept, but doing so on a broader scale could prove difficult. Put another way, Russ, what guidance would you give to editors to implement your concept in the more general case? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then there should never be any primary topic for any ambiguous title, lest we imply that any group of readers is less important than any other. I disagree with that conclusion, and would rather call the primary topic the primary topic and trust that the readers will not be "alienated" by the limitations of the encyclopedia (two articles can't have the same title). The explanations of the policies can be expanded to salve that wound, if it does exist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Put me down as agreeing with Nilfanion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are many more Wikipedia readers who are interested in popular jazz-fusion music than in American history. Then, the "it's just a navigation aid" argument would suggest that George Clinton (musician) should be the primary topic of George Clinton, despite the existence of several other articles about notable people by the same name, including a U.S. Vice President. That "arrangement" conveys to the minority who are reading about American history that their interests are less important to Wikipedia than the interests of music fans. Yes, I know it doesn't say that anywhere, but it still gives that impression. If there were a systematic effort to designate primary topics solely to satisfy the interests of a majority of our current readership, we would very likely be alienating many other readers and, perhaps more importantly, potential readers. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have pointed out before that WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM can and should guide article content. Arranging complying articles in any particular fashion won't void their compliance though, and arranging them to best serve the readership will, ahem, best serve the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the goal is to optimize navigation, a dab page necessarily has to cater to those who actually come to Wikipedia. We are not biasing the information in the articles by getting people to the articles they are looking for quickly. Some MAY interpret the selection of a primary topic as giving the topic special importance beyond this goal, but we are not doing so and we are not changing the information in the articles. Am I missing how systemic bias might creep in? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Importance" is a test that can be applied in some cases, though you can't compare apples and oranges. However, I think there is a key difference between popularity in reliable sources and popularity in Wikipedia's readership. The first conforms to policy such as WP:NPOV. Using popularity with readers will inevitably run into the problems of systematic bias, which is an indication that going wholly down that route is in error.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The bias issue I mention is probably overstated there. But there are certainly exceptions. The traffic for tea bag is 8K, the traffic for tea bag (sexual act) is 14 times greater. If we determine primary topic solely by navigational utility then clearly the wrong article is primary. Swapping the two would be wrong - the shock value for people looking for info on bags of tea would overwhelm the navigational aid for those with "dirty minds"... Is an IAR exception enough for that one instance or should the potential for similiar situations elsewhere be borne in mind?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- We have to be careful with the statistics. We don't know how much of the 8K and 14*8K hits are from someone entering "Tea bag", which is the subset of those numbers of interest ("Teabagging" redirects and many pages link directly to the sexual act, for example). But that's beside the point here: you are saying "reduce shock value" is one of the non-navigational attributes we should watch for. I'll think about that a bit. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Where it becomes contentious, I have created new redirects to be used exclusively on the disambiguation pages, so that the stats would more accurately reflect what we're trying to measure. Lincoln (disambiguation) and EA (disambiguation) have each used that approach in the past, with various acknowledgment of their results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. But if we DID measure it accurately and the results were as described, we MIGHT want to still avoid the extreme shock of someone searching for the more "subdued" of the articles - but suspect actual instances of this case are rare, unless our threshold for "shocking" is low. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, the stats I quoted are very naive (however those basic stats are what people use first). Agree also its hard to judge the shock/offence threshold. If we are going to go into the purely hypothetical: Imagine US music act that becomes more popular than Elvis (and becomes one of the top 10 articles by hit count), a purely navigational-based system would see this usurp just about anything. If that act was called Qur'an and that resulted in the page there moving to Qur'an (book) how would that go down? That may cause serious offence to a significant group of readers. At the other extreme are ones like Night/Night (book) - reversing that might cause confusion but it won't get a stronger emotional reaction. This is all subjective and depends on how the reader feels about the "wrong" target, we cannot assign a number to it. In general, I think readers are liable to understand the base page as being more "important" than disamiguated pages, even though that isn't the intent.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- OTOH, I'd rather make sure the system works well for plausible cases, even if that means it might break down under purely hypothetical ones. I think any liable misunderstanding that results can be addressed by assuming good faith and working out a consensus civilly. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep of course. That's an extreme one. In realistic cases, the strongest reaction I can see is "WP is clearly biased to <topic, which I don't care for> because it favours that X over <topic, which I do> Y." That is a "negative reader experience" for want of a better phrase and may cause anger (possibly showing as rants on the talk pages) but shouldn't be too serious.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have argued that the WP:RM process has a built in bias since the discussion happens on the talk page of the article proposed for the move. This means that the people interested in the article are the predominate participants in the discussion. Naturally they are the ones that would be inclined to think that the article as is properly belongs at the main name space. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yep of course. That's an extreme one. In realistic cases, the strongest reaction I can see is "WP is clearly biased to <topic, which I don't care for> because it favours that X over <topic, which I do> Y." That is a "negative reader experience" for want of a better phrase and may cause anger (possibly showing as rants on the talk pages) but shouldn't be too serious.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- OTOH, I'd rather make sure the system works well for plausible cases, even if that means it might break down under purely hypothetical ones. I think any liable misunderstanding that results can be addressed by assuming good faith and working out a consensus civilly. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree, the stats I quoted are very naive (however those basic stats are what people use first). Agree also its hard to judge the shock/offence threshold. If we are going to go into the purely hypothetical: Imagine US music act that becomes more popular than Elvis (and becomes one of the top 10 articles by hit count), a purely navigational-based system would see this usurp just about anything. If that act was called Qur'an and that resulted in the page there moving to Qur'an (book) how would that go down? That may cause serious offence to a significant group of readers. At the other extreme are ones like Night/Night (book) - reversing that might cause confusion but it won't get a stronger emotional reaction. This is all subjective and depends on how the reader feels about the "wrong" target, we cannot assign a number to it. In general, I think readers are liable to understand the base page as being more "important" than disamiguated pages, even though that isn't the intent.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. But if we DID measure it accurately and the results were as described, we MIGHT want to still avoid the extreme shock of someone searching for the more "subdued" of the articles - but suspect actual instances of this case are rare, unless our threshold for "shocking" is low. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Where it becomes contentious, I have created new redirects to be used exclusively on the disambiguation pages, so that the stats would more accurately reflect what we're trying to measure. Lincoln (disambiguation) and EA (disambiguation) have each used that approach in the past, with various acknowledgment of their results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not looking to quantify the non-navigational reasons, just to identify any general categories that we might encounter and have a discussion about their importance without the immediate pressure and passion of a particular dab page. I feel comfortable that favoring vital articles and avoiding shock are understandable categories that we could explain clearly - although there would be some discussion about whether they apply in a particular case. I might identify "avoid being highly offensive" to cover cases like Qur'an example. I'm not sure how to characterize the Night issue. Maybe its the case there that the highly expected article is not the "navigationally correct" article and there is a surprise? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Reinserting clarification about extended discussion indicating lack of primary topic
I just noticed that the following long-standing statement was removed on April 29, 2010 from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
- If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".
I've just restored it as I believe that consensus supports it and that it's an important consideration in any situation in which the issue of primary topic is raised repeatedly, especially if over a number of years. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- It was discussed at the time: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30#"If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic...", and consensus supported its removal. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see consensus support for removal there.
- Propaniac proposes a slight rewording
- Jwy supports that proposal with a slight change that Propaniac incorporates
- Vegaswikian implies support with a small suggested change (users should be readers)
- Lee∴V supports and suggests and other slight rewording "An extended discussion, with no consensus, may be a sign that there is no obvious primary topic."
- Kotniski states that saying "may be" is important, which Lee adds back in
- Propaniac suggests: "An extended discussion about which article truly is the most likely target, leading to no consensus, may be a sign that there is no clear primary topic."
- RnB suggests another slight change to which Propaniac agrees
- Note: still no discussion at all about removal of the phrase entirely.
- Kotniski finally suggests deleting the phrase altogether, for reasons that frankly I don't fully understand, then seems to be back off a bit ("maybe it's not as strong as that...").
- Then Russ complains about language as "amended by Kotniski", but it's unclear what language he's talking about.
- Then Kotniski clarifies his point.
- Then Lee makes a point indicating he's still thinking inclusion, which Kotniski asks about.
- Propinksi disagrees with Kotniski (the statement can't be both meaningless and biased). He wants to add it back in, but is, at best, okay with it not in there.
- Kotniski states his main concern: "But if it is to be put back in, then I don't agree that there should be any bias towards the "no primary topic" outcome in discussions where only one topic is seriously proposed as a primary topic."
- Russ ends by indicating he's open to suggestions for a rewrite.
- Again, I don't see clear consensus for deletion at all, nor even objection to the wording as it stood at the beginning of that discussion (which started as a suggestion to make a relatively minor change to the wording, not delete it). I would like to re-open this discussion, because, again, I think an important and logstanding criterion was removed here.
In particular, I want to hear Kotniski's take on this challenge to his argument: If there is repeated and extended discussion, such as when WP:RM proposals to move the article in question to a disambiguated name and put the dab page at the name, are repeated multiple times over several years, about whether even just one topic is the primary topic, then that in and of itself is strong (though not definitive) indication that it is not the primary topic (and, thus, there is no primary topic) for the term in question.
So, I hereby propose adding the following:
- I don't see consensus support for removal there.
- If there is repeated extended discussion about which article among two or more truly is the primary topic, or about whether one particular article is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".
- I mean, if significant numbers repeatedly question the primacy of a topic for a given term, that alone surely puts that primacy in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would rather see it remain unrestored for the reasons given in the earlier discussion -- it is misused by editors who have no other position to fall back on in objecting to an arrangement that does reflect the actual primary usage. That there is repeated objection just means that Wikipedia editors are passionate (which I don't object to and is indeed a good thing), but not an indication that there is no actual primary topic. (There was consensus before -- the edit came out of the discussion and stood; that's consensus.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Also, the proposed addition doesn't reflect "significant numbers". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I mean, if significant numbers repeatedly question the primacy of a topic for a given term, that alone surely puts that primacy in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand the concern, but let's not discount the meaning of passion. If there is a lot of passion about a certain topic not being primary, isn't that good indication that it is not primary? Also, this phrase has been in there a long time and was removed as a result of a discussion by a handful of people. There could be many like me who just didn't notice and assume it's still there. The real issue is whether the phrase or its removal better reflects community consensus (not just those participating in that or this discussion); I think the spirit of the removed phrase does reflect community consensus. To incorporate the significant numbers, how about this?
- If there is repeated extended discussion about which article among two or more truly is the primary topic, or about whether one particular article is the primary topic, with significant numbers questioning the primacy of each topic in question, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".
--Born2cycle (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, passion is not a good indication of primary-ness or primary-lessness. Consensus is defined by the participants (and can be re-defined by later participants) -- there is no way to include non-participants. I still prefer the omission of the paragraph; I'll see who else weighs in. -- JHunterJ (talk)
- I suggest that the consensus view has been that considerable and long-standing passion opposing the idea that a given use is primary is a good indicator of that topic not being primary is exactly why this phrase was added and supported by consensus for so long, and by removing this phrase this consensus view is not being represented here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must agree with JHJ that any "passion" being displayed on a topic should be viewed with great suspicion - it's when people start getting passionate about things that rational arguments stop being heard. If there's discussion about whether A or B (or C) is the case, it may be a sign that A, or B, or C, is the case. That's all. We can't say that it may be a sign that A is the case to a greater extent than for B or C. The deleted passage gave the appearance of doing that (i.e. saying that all the anti-primary-topic side have to do is make a lot of fuss about the matter, and they automatically gain the upper hand in the argument purely on the basis that they're making the fuss). I think we're well rid of it.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I've just seen too many cases of repeated efforts to move something being shot down year, after year, until, finally, the move occurs, sometimes because of this reasoning, and then stability and peace set in. One example that springs to mind is the move of Cork to Cork (city). I don't think the phrase implied that passion alone should be a determining factor; just that it's something to be considered (because, frankly, there is always a reason for the passion - you just have to determine if the reason is a good one). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I must agree with JHJ that any "passion" being displayed on a topic should be viewed with great suspicion - it's when people start getting passionate about things that rational arguments stop being heard. If there's discussion about whether A or B (or C) is the case, it may be a sign that A, or B, or C, is the case. That's all. We can't say that it may be a sign that A is the case to a greater extent than for B or C. The deleted passage gave the appearance of doing that (i.e. saying that all the anti-primary-topic side have to do is make a lot of fuss about the matter, and they automatically gain the upper hand in the argument purely on the basis that they're making the fuss). I think we're well rid of it.--Kotniski (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest that the consensus view has been that considerable and long-standing passion opposing the idea that a given use is primary is a good indicator of that topic not being primary is exactly why this phrase was added and supported by consensus for so long, and by removing this phrase this consensus view is not being represented here. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, passion is not a good indication of primary-ness or primary-lessness. Consensus is defined by the participants (and can be re-defined by later participants) -- there is no way to include non-participants. I still prefer the omission of the paragraph; I'll see who else weighs in. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Perhaps "passion" is a bit of a red herring. A primary topic is the "obvious" meaning of a term. If there is disagreement in good faith as to what that obvious meaning is, it seems reasonable to decide that there is no primary topic. The consequence in practice is that all users go via a dab page, which is no burden if it is clearly laid out, while the alternative would be that a substantial minority are taken to the wrong page, then have to follow the hatnote to find what they want. Overall user-friendliness is often better served by having no primary topic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, all this applies equally well in reverse. If there are people arguing in good faith that there is an obvious meaning (and no-one arguing that any other meaning is obvious, usually just that there is no obvious meaning) then it seems reasonable to decide that the meaning really is obvious (anyway, no less reasonable than to decide that it isn't). Then ,the consequence in practice is that most users go straight to the page they want, saving them a potentially awkward navigation step, while only a minority are required to take an extra step (and even that is often not necessary, if the only other significant meaning(s) can be included in the hatnote) - so user-friendliness is also often better served by having a primary topic. Users are best served if we get these decisions right, whichever way "right" might be in a particular case, not by trying to pre-bias the outcome of the discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Total confusion
Please see this diff, where the hatnote links to the DAB page, but displays the undisambiguated title. Is this correct? Why or why not? I have no clue. - BilCat (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Its as intended. Its for maintenance of dab pages: By going through the (disambiguation) redirect, someone looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Brave can tell that the link from Atlanta Braves is intentional - needing no correction. Most links to a DAB page are un-intentional and should be piped to point directly to the appropriate article. By going through the redirect, we know that link is okay and need not navigate to the page to figure that out by context. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was slow to figure out the use, as well, many moons ago. Let's try another explanation: Disambiguation pages attract incoming links (many, many links; see the tables at WP:TDD). Most of them are accidental, because the links are supposed to go to a particular article, not to the dab page. These links need to be fixed, and there are many editors who work tirelessly at this task. However, sometimes we want to link to the dab page (as in hatnotes), and the link by way of the (disambiguation) redirect lets those hardworking link-fixing editors know that they can ignore that one, because it's not broken.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the hatnote displaying the (disambiguation) title, even when the (disambiguation) title is a redirect to a base-name disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Helping p-i-g-(s) searchers get where they want to go
This is not a move request, so please do not instruct me in making move requests. What I want to establish now is simply that it is highly likely that a person who goes to Wikipedia and types in p-i-g(s) is highly likely to be trying to find an article about regular, ordinary, domestic pigs. You may say that to do so would in effect be a move request, and that may (or may not) be the case, but exactly which one or series of moves turned out to be a complicated question with several possible solutions and a cascade of ramifications, all of which would have to be thought through before a move request that can create concensous can be properly written. The best way to go about it is one step at a time. First, we must establish what a person who types in "p-i-g-(s)" is most likely trying to do. Then we can get into the sticky question of what do about the problem. Please instruct me in the best way to get concensous that it is safe to assume that they are looking for an article about plain, ordinary pigs. Then we can move on to the next question. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The best way to find out what the consensus for the target of "pig" is is discussion at Talk:Pig; the best way to find out what the consensus for the target of "pigs" is is discussion at Talk:Pigs. The tools from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may be useful in those discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind reply. I have been and am discussing this matter there at Pig, Domestic Pig, Pig (disambiguation), and here. Domestic Pig is the obvious most likely target referent of a searcher, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not being followed. Ok; that's fine, I suppose; it's only a guideline and long established consensus may trump a general guideline. Reasoning includes but is not limited to the idea that even though and despite the fact that users are clearly most likely to be looking for domestic pig, we assume ignorance of everything but the English language, so they are sent elsewhere because one of the first things to learn about pigs is that there are also other these other pigs apart from familiar pigs. There are probably other reasons, too: inertia; the fact that there's no clear fix....trust me, it turns out to be more complicated than you probably imagine, and this question is very simple. At this point, my sights are set very, very low. If I first establish domestic pig as the most likely intended target, and then we can all re-read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and make sure we all agree on what it says.
- So I wonder if it's not too much bother, please if you could just go on record that you see the same obvious likely search target that I do and go no further for the moment. Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
External links on DAB pages
I have removed the odd external link from dab pages, as they had no WP article and seemed, possibly, to have been put there for promotional purposes. However I can not find any 'rule' on "Wikipedia:Disambiguation" page against this. Perhaps one should be added?
I suggest: "External links are not to be out on Disambiguation Pages, they are for disambiguation of articles only."
- 220.101 talk\Contribs 13:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web. To note URLs that might be helpful in the future, include them on the talk page." WP:MOSDAB -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looking in the wrong place! Thanks JHunterJ! At least I know I was correct to remove the ext. links. Bu,t I think the guideline may need to be given a bit more prominence perhaps? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- The guideline is also stated at WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have copied that same prohibition to this project page's "what not to include" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Looking in the wrong place! Thanks JHunterJ! At least I know I was correct to remove the ext. links. Bu,t I think the guideline may need to be given a bit more prominence perhaps? - 220.101 talk\Contribs 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:PT
Why in the article is WP:PT given as a shortcut when it leads to a disambiguation page? Surely a better shortcut is appropriate? pgr94 (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Done I have removed the shortcut. I didn't replace it since there is a valid one already in place, but if someone wants to create a shortcut with a shorter name, say WP:PRIMTOP, feel free.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
"Bosnia" primary topic
I believe that Bosnia should redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina as the primary topic, but this was reverted by another user. Discussion initiated at Talk:Bosnia#Primary topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
use of references
I twice attempted this change and was immediately reverted. My reasoning is as follow:
As a matter of principle, all factual material in wikipedia is subject to WP:RS. No guideline can override that. In this case, the only way to avoid the issue is to guarantee that no factual information is inserted into dab pages. Dab pages usually have an introductory line, followed by a bulleted list of entries. It is quite reasonable to stipulate that there should be no references in the individual entry lines, since all factual information in them should immediately be duplicated in the target article. The introductory line, however, which sometimes grows to an introductory paragraph, may contain factual information which is common to all the following entries, and if it does so WP:RS should apply. A simple example of where this might arise is in giving the pronunciation of an ambiguous word. Are people suggesting that this should be banned? or that it should be allowed but required to be unreferenced?
I've been coming across this sort of problem frequently when creating disambiguation/name pages for Arabic names. Some editors have insisted that where these pages contain the meaning of the name, no reference should be allowed. I've tried the alternative of categorising them just as name pages, even though disambiguation is their main purpose. There, however, I've encountered editors who object to the inclusion in those pages of place names which are also personal names, as one would do in a disambiguation page. Splitting into two pages would in many cases lead either to confusing duplication, or to one of the pages being very short, and in any case to a situation which was less helpful to the reader. I'd be grateful for helpful constructive comments on this issue. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have thought of this concern before. Usually, there is not really a conflict as much of the information in the dab page falls under "unlikely to be challenged." Secondly, where it might be challenged, I believe the thinking is that information is supported in the lead of the respective article. And finally, more specifically in your case, unless the pronunciation information is necessary to distinguish between articles, it is not to be included according to WP:MOSDAB.
- More abstractly, the dab pages are intended for navigation, not information. Thus, references should be unnecessary. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also, search for references in the archives above for older discussions. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Generally I agree with the current practice of excluding references from dab pages, as they produce needless clutter when the information (which should be uncontroversial anyway) is sourced at the target page. However we should probably recognize that in certain situations there exist hybrid pages, like the name pages you refer to, which serve partly as articles and partly as dab pages - in that case the disambiguation guidelines (e.g. no references) should apply only to the dab-page part, not to the article part.--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Kotniski. In a perfect world, the information about the name (including the pronunciation) would be in a separate name article, not on the disambiguation page; but in the real world, we often don't have a separate name article and there may not be much interest in writing one. Also, although it may not strictly comply with the guidelines, it is not uncommon for a disambig page to have an introductory sentence or two. In most cases, there should be no reason to include in that intro anything of potential controversy that might require a reference, but I can imagine an occasional IAR exception where a reference could be useful. Having said that, I don't favor changing the guidance on WP:D, because any such references should be the exceptional case, not the general rule. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- For those who don't know, surname and given name pages are considered WP:Set index articles, not disambiguation pages, and should therefore contain references in any passages regarding the name. –[[::User:Schmloof|Schmloof]] ([[::User talk:Schmloof|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Schmloof|contribs]]) 18:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Kotniski. In a perfect world, the information about the name (including the pronunciation) would be in a separate name article, not on the disambiguation page; but in the real world, we often don't have a separate name article and there may not be much interest in writing one. Also, although it may not strictly comply with the guidelines, it is not uncommon for a disambig page to have an introductory sentence or two. In most cases, there should be no reason to include in that intro anything of potential controversy that might require a reference, but I can imagine an occasional IAR exception where a reference could be useful. Having said that, I don't favor changing the guidance on WP:D, because any such references should be the exceptional case, not the general rule. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Generally I agree with the current practice of excluding references from dab pages, as they produce needless clutter when the information (which should be uncontroversial anyway) is sourced at the target page. However we should probably recognize that in certain situations there exist hybrid pages, like the name pages you refer to, which serve partly as articles and partly as dab pages - in that case the disambiguation guidelines (e.g. no references) should apply only to the dab-page part, not to the article part.--Kotniski (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm very grateful for the discussion above. In summary, I think it says that I can produce the sort of name/dab hybrid pages which I have been producing, and that I should categorise them using {{sia}} (which I previously was entirely unaware of). If that's right, I'll introduce that template into the pages concerned and if other editors question what I'm doing I'll point them at this discussion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. There might be some exceptional cases where such mixes make sense, but I don't think it should be regularly used. Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy which covers the name aspects of these pages? Duplication of some articles between a dab page (when the target is commonly known by just the one name that is the dab term) and a name article is fine. If someone is likely to search for someone by a term, their article should be easily accessible from the dab page for that term. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be specific, the main, though not the only examples I have in mind are the 57 articles listed under ad-Din and about the same number listed at List of Arabic theophoric names. I'd like to fill out some of the introductions a bit, giving sourced information about the meaning of the name in all cases (as I already do for most of the "Abdul" pages). Are you seriously suggesting I must split each of them into two? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- For DAB pages, the question is what articles will someone be looking for when they enter the dab term in the search box. I don't know enough about the name domain you are looking at, but an example: On an "Elvis (disambiguation)" page, we would likely have "Elvis Presley", but not "Elvis Sina". "Elvis Sina" is not usually known as just "Elvis." Both would appear on a "Elvis (name)" page. The name page could have references (I think). The DAB not. I understand the instructions here to be consistent with that. What do you suggest we change? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- <edit conflict>I took a look at some of those. I notice several that are categorized as human name dab pages that probably shouldn't be. Human name dab pages are for people whose names are more the same than the ones on some of those pages. An example is James Smith: everyone on that page is named "James Smith" (although most have different middle names or initials). I'm not as familiar with Arab names, but it seems to me that the names on, for example, Rashid al-Din, aren't the same that way.
- You mentioned categorzing these pages as SIA pages using {{sia}}: I don't believe these would qualify for that. Although given name and surname pages are a type of SIA, they don't use that tag directly, they use {{given name}} and/or {{surname}}.
As for splitting the pages, it sounds like that's what's needed here. Dab pages shouldn't include information about a name, or long lists of people who have the name. Shorter lists of people are OK on dab pages, often separated by given name, surname, and people known by the name alone. When you start getting into information about the name itself, or including references or external links, then you need a non-dab page. I know that sounds like a pain, but dab pages are only for pointing people to other articles. If you decide to go with splitting, I'd be willing to help -- I've done several of those splits before. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- To be specific, the main, though not the only examples I have in mind are the 57 articles listed under ad-Din and about the same number listed at List of Arabic theophoric names. I'd like to fill out some of the introductions a bit, giving sourced information about the meaning of the name in all cases (as I already do for most of the "Abdul" pages). Are you seriously suggesting I must split each of them into two? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- If you have info about a family name or given name, an anthroponymy article should be created, and references are very useful therein. If you have a list of people with the name (as part of their full name), that list should go on such an anthroponymy article, if it exists. (If you have a list of people with the same full name, that's an human-name disambiguation page, as Auntof6 mentions.) If there is no anthroponymy article and the list is relatively short, it can be added as a section of a disambiguation page (if one exists) for the title, but without the references. If you've got references, they'll need to go on an article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Before taking this further I'll mention that I've been having a discussion with User:MegaSloth at User talk:SamuelTheGhost#Your merge of Abdul Halim and Abdul Halim (name), as a result of which he has created a new page Abdur Rahim (disambiguation) to go with the page Abdur Rahim. We haven't yet talked through the appraisal of how well this works, but I'm dubious, particularly when you look at the implications for the alternative spellings which bedevil these names, and the corresponding many redirects. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- That example looks good to me! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons it is not so good are the following:
- "Abdul Rahim" is a single given name. Nobody is called just Abdul Rahim alone, just as nobody is called just "James". What happens is that when the name is used in a context where it is adequately distinctive, it gets used alone. English-speaking journalists and others go along with this because they don't realise what a common name it is, while the holder may foster the same illusion for reasons of vanity. So in all the cases where brackets have been added to the name, there is in fact one or more further names, but wikipedia has not discovered them. Furthermore if the holder lives in a culture that is not English-speaking, there will in general not be a unique transliteration of his name, and he may equally be refered to as Abdur-Rahim or Abd Al-Rahim or 'Abdul Rahiem etc etc. These are not different names; they are all legitimate transliterations of Arabic or Urdu into the English alphabet.
- the half dozen articles in the "dab" page have been selected on the basis of the form of the name which has been used as the title of the wikipedia article, which is essentially arbitrary. The way Megasloth has left it, Abd Al-Rahim (disambiguation) redirects to Abdur Rahim (disambiguation), where the spelling Abd Al-Rahim does not appear, which seems calculated to confuse the user. Furthermore if a user is loking for someone of this name and does not find it in the dab page, he/she may well conclude that wikipedia does not have an article on the person sought, so that the dab page will have positively misled them.
- duplicating some of the name page articles on the dab page means that maintenance is a problem. Editors making new modifications to the pages will probably update only one of them
- In fact although it may be judged that the example "looks good" in conforming to WP guidelines, it seems to me that it is definitely inferior from the point of view of wikipedia users, and editors for that matter. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons it is not so good are the following:
- That example looks good to me! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Before taking this further I'll mention that I've been having a discussion with User:MegaSloth at User talk:SamuelTheGhost#Your merge of Abdul Halim and Abdul Halim (name), as a result of which he has created a new page Abdur Rahim (disambiguation) to go with the page Abdur Rahim. We haven't yet talked through the appraisal of how well this works, but I'm dubious, particularly when you look at the implications for the alternative spellings which bedevil these names, and the corresponding many redirects. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
For the dab page, the question is not whether their names really are longer, its whether someone coming to this encyclopedia will enter simply "Abdul Rahim" to find him (like my Elvis example above). If journalists have not been using the full name and the subject is notable, its likely English speakers will enter "Abdul Rahim" and that is enough to have it on the page. There ARE people just called James (several kings come to mind). The selection of the articles for the dab page should be based on that. I'm not sure what maintenance problems you would have. A page moved would include a redirect from the old item. Can you be more specific? My "looks good" assumed that the dab page entries were appropriately selected as described above. It "looks good" in that the approach appears to be right. The detail as to whether the entries are correct I don't know. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- There are about 50 entries at Abdul Rahim. We must assume they are all notable, otherwise they should not have articles. I can't prioritise them as more or less notable and wouldn't wish to attempt that. Any such attempt would be both time-consuming and contentious. Any of them might legitimately be referred to just as Abdul Rahim, whether or not further names for them are given there. Except where they live in cultures which use the Latin alphabet, they could be referred to by any of the dozen or so legitimate transliterations. My point remains: a user could search using the name Abdur Rahim or some variant for a person whose article was not in the dab list, and falsely conclude there was no article.
- The maintenance problem I had in mind was the adding of the names of new articles.
- My challenge to MegaSloth was to get an example where the detail was right. That way, alone, I might be convinced that the approach is right.
- It remains my view that the only viable way of splitting is to put all the names in one article and none at all in the other. In cases where the discussion part is substantial, as with William and William (name), that's fine, and that's what is done there. That doesn't make much sense where the discussion part is just a paragraph, and then the sensble way forward is to allow a hybrid. Whether it's classed as a name page or as a dab I don't mind. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- An all inclusive list neither filtering for notability nor assessment of readers tendency to use just the partial name should be a name page - and can use references all you like. If you or someone takes a shot at doing the appropriate analysis and filtering, a dab page can be created and consensus for what should be included there discussed on the talk page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe we should remind ourselves what a dab page is for. The general principle is set out in the first sentence of WP:MOSDAB that "disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term." The assertion at MOS:DABNAME that "pages only listing persons with a certain given name or surname (unless they are very frequently referred to by that name alone) are not disambiguation pages" seems to conflict with the general principle. "Could" somehow seems to have been interpreted as "are very frequently". The Abdul Rahim case seems to be a clear case where a dab page is needed - relative notability of individual entries should not come into it, unless one is a primary topic. --Mhockey (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- The DAB page is a navigational aid. To optimize it as such, we need to estimate the behavior of the readers and put more likely (not necessarily the same as "notable") targets "closer" to the start of the search.
- Are you suggesting the reverse of what I've said: That the unfiltered list of everyone with the word X in the name should be on the dab page? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, but the dab page should include everyone who could be referred to by term x. Call that "unfiltered" if you like, but that is what dab pages are for, and that is what WP:MOSDAB tells us. "Could" is not a high threshhold, a lot lower than "very frequently". I agree that it is sensible to order entries on a dab page to take account of users' searching behaviour, but to exclude from a dab page names of people who could be referred to by that term or name is just unhelpful.--Mhockey (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I find "we need to estimate the behavior of the readers and put more likely ... targets 'closer' to the start of the search" to be profoundly mistaken. Actually doing that estimation, by whatever means, would be extremely onerous, necessarily involving subjective judgments, and almost always contentious. Furthermore it's not even what users want. On encountering a dab page users want to understand what they see. This means there should be some visible order in the list. Recognising that order, users should be able to find what they want without too much trouble. The order I've been using mostly is chronological, by date of birth. There are certainly reasonable alternatives, for example by nationality or by area of notability (sports, politics, arts, terrorism etc). But an ordering by what some editor has judged to be "more likely" will appear to a user as random. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the formulation "it is sensible to order entries on a dab page to take account of users' searching behaviour". When I'm a user I try and see whether what is there is in some logical order, and if so I use that order to locate what I want. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I used the phrase '"closer" to the start of the search" not just to mean "higher on the dab page," but also to include pushing the least likely off to another page. This, I believe, is standard practice on name related dab pages. A dab page with hundreds of entries is not efficient or useful. If the lesser names have to be found by navigating to the name page, that's okay. Yes, on some pages this determination can get contentious, but that's what talk pages are for. If "filtering" proves impossible, don't have a dab page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I started this discussion with a request for helpful constructive comments, and have indeed had some, especially early on. They seem to have dried up, however. I notice that Auntof6 offered to help, for which I am grateful. I don't want to behave as WP:OWNER of the Arabic name pages we're talking about, but on the other hand I asked for persuasive advice, not to be told what I must do. So in that spirit I invite Auntof6 to restructure one or more of these pages as she thinks right, preferably without completely dumping good information, and I shall comment. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Auntof6's notes on trying to split
The first thing I notice is that some of these pages (such as Abdul Bari) contain only human name entries. On those, I think all you need to do is remove the dab tag (whether it be {{disambig|hn}} or {{hndis}} or whatever, and turn them into given name, surname, or human name (category "Human names") pages.
Some of the pages (such as Abdul Ghaffar) contain mostly name entries with only one non-name entry. On those, I think you could remove the dab tag and put the non-name entry in a "See also" section.
As for pages with multiple non-name entries, I gave it a shot with Abdul Samad, splitting the name entries off to the new page Abdul Samad (name). See what you think. If it doesn't work, we can revert Abdul Samad to what it used to be and delete the new page.
Question: Are these two-part names considered single names, or name combinations? To me, who knows pretty much nothing about Arabic names, it would seem more accurate to call them name combinations; otherwise, you'd have a page for (for example) Abdul and one for Samad, and they could both list all the name (plus other combinations). You need to guide me there, though. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your constructive response. I think we may be getting there. The answer to your question, is that they should be considered single names, although consisting of three Arabic words, like Abd-ul-samad, and actually in Arabic script divided as Abd ulsamad. Traditionally that could be abbreviated to Samad, or whatever. Only in modern times and I think only in English-speaking environments has there been some use of Abdul as if it was a separate name. This is very like supposing that a Scotsman called Macdonald has first name Mac and surname Donald, and of course "Mac" does get used on its own, but it's not usually correct to do so. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Football
There is a rather long discussion at Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football to which this question relates and I can seem to find any guidance on this. The issue is, is it acceptable to use football or any other ambiguous phrase for that matter and have the user figure out for the rest of the article the sport in question is Association football
- (example: Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club, based in Old Trafford, Greater Manchester, that plays in the Premier League.
or should it'd be explicitly made clear some how.
- (example;Manchester United Football Club is an English professional association football club, based in Old Trafford, Greater Manchester, that plays in the Premier League.
Gnevin (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- IME, the first style is prevalent and is clear enough. Only if you mention two or more different footballs in the same section or article does it become necessary to explicate inline. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, this sounds like a style question. Disambiguation is the process of resolving ambiguity in Wikipedia article titles for articles that might otherwise have the same title. If you're asking about phrasing on a disambiguation page entry description, it would be "* Manchester United Football Club, an English professional football club" (or simply "* Manchester United Football Club", with no description). If you're asking about the phrasing within the article, Talk:Manchester United F.C. or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Clubs would probably need to determine. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
How to link to a disambiguation page
The "link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect" part of this guideline is entirely asinine and unnecessary. Why should we bother to use a redirect? Redirects are for common misspellings or alternate names for articles. Not for dabs or lists.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's useful for fixing unintentional links to disambiguation pages. I'd explain further, but since you lead with "asinine", I'd rather make sure you were interested in discovery first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we have 124k pages like this? Why should we point out links to disambiguation pages? Is it all that necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's useful for fixing unintentional links to disambiguation pages, because the intentional links are supposed to use the (disambiguation) redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense. If I want to link to America I will link to America and not to America (disambiguation).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. And if I'm fixing incoming links to America, I'll change the link to [[America (disambiguation)|America]] so I (or another editor) won't have to check it again (and again, and again...).--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're essentially claiming that consensus doesn't apply to you. That is not a good approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the consensus doesn't apply to me. I just don't agree with the current consensus. It's unnecessarily circular to have a disambiguated redirect to a disambiguation page that is not disambiguated. Why not just disambiguate every single disambiguation page to include "(disambiguation)" in the title and not use a non-disambiguated title for a disambiguation page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't circular -- the (disambiguation) title either is the disambiguation page (0 hops) or redirects (1 hop) to one, and ends there instead of circling around. I do not understand what you mean by "a disambiguation page that is not disambiguated", unless you just mean that the title has no primary topic and so the disambiguation page is at the base name. We could move all the base-name disambiguation pages to the (disambiguation) title, but so far it has not appeared to be an improvement over the current arrangement. And linking to the redirect is necessary (or at least useful) to distinguish intentional links to disambiguation pages, even those for titles with no primary topic. What problem is that creating? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Having a redirect from America (disambiguation) to America is unnecessary. Why not have it the other way around and just make it part of policy that all disambiguation pages need "(disambiguation)" in the title?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a big effort(124K page moves), and wouldn't accomplish anything. All the intentional links would still (be supposed to) use "America (disambiguation)", all the links that need to be investigated would still be pointing to "America". It could make it easier for editors to go against consensus and change a base-name redirect rather than having to move a base-name disambiguation page (unless all of them were protected). Can you answer the question "What problem is it creating?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The "problem" is that it's incredibly stupid and it obviously wastes people's time. The amount of work people do to check on DABs like this, when the link is intentional, is pointless. I've reverted a user twice for unnecessarily adding a piped link to the redirect when a direct link to the page is perfectly fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Have you read the answers you've been given? It doesn't waste people's time, it saves them time, by helping them to distinguish links that need fixing from those that don't. --Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- "The "problem" is that it's incredibly stupid and it obviously wastes people's time." isn't a problem. That would be the outcome of a problem, if there were a problem. Since there isn't a problem, it isn't incredibly stupid. Since it saves people time, obviously it doesn't waste their time. If you are not interested in learning the guidelines or discussing actual improvements to them (instead of just throwing about pronouncements of how things that you disagree with only at a gut-feeling level are stupid), please at least stop reverting users for adding the pipe links in accordance with the consensus guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- The "problem" is that it's incredibly stupid and it obviously wastes people's time. The amount of work people do to check on DABs like this, when the link is intentional, is pointless. I've reverted a user twice for unnecessarily adding a piped link to the redirect when a direct link to the page is perfectly fine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a big effort(124K page moves), and wouldn't accomplish anything. All the intentional links would still (be supposed to) use "America (disambiguation)", all the links that need to be investigated would still be pointing to "America". It could make it easier for editors to go against consensus and change a base-name redirect rather than having to move a base-name disambiguation page (unless all of them were protected). Can you answer the question "What problem is it creating?" -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Having a redirect from America (disambiguation) to America is unnecessary. Why not have it the other way around and just make it part of policy that all disambiguation pages need "(disambiguation)" in the title?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't circular -- the (disambiguation) title either is the disambiguation page (0 hops) or redirects (1 hop) to one, and ends there instead of circling around. I do not understand what you mean by "a disambiguation page that is not disambiguated", unless you just mean that the title has no primary topic and so the disambiguation page is at the base name. We could move all the base-name disambiguation pages to the (disambiguation) title, but so far it has not appeared to be an improvement over the current arrangement. And linking to the redirect is necessary (or at least useful) to distinguish intentional links to disambiguation pages, even those for titles with no primary topic. What problem is that creating? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the consensus doesn't apply to me. I just don't agree with the current consensus. It's unnecessarily circular to have a disambiguated redirect to a disambiguation page that is not disambiguated. Why not just disambiguate every single disambiguation page to include "(disambiguation)" in the title and not use a non-disambiguated title for a disambiguation page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- That does not make any sense. If I want to link to America I will link to America and not to America (disambiguation).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please have a look at my explanation in the section Total confusion above; these redirects have a function.--ShelfSkewed Talk 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's useful for fixing unintentional links to disambiguation pages, because the intentional links are supposed to use the (disambiguation) redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why do we have 124k pages like this? Why should we point out links to disambiguation pages? Is it all that necessary?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I really am puzzled by this discussion. I understand, Ryulong, that you don't like these redirects and consider them unnecessary, not to mention some of the less civil terms you've used. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But, I know that you are an experienced and valued long-time contributor to Wikipedia, so surely you are familiar with the principle that "Redirects are cheap." We have redirects all over the place, and as long as they are not misleading or harmful, they are encouraged. A link like [[America (disambiguation)|America]] looks to the reader exactly the same as [[America]], and it takes the reader to the same place, so what is the harm? Even if you don't like it, I don't understand why it gets you so upset. It is not hurting anyone or anything other than your sense of aesthetics. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am going to resurrect long lost plans to write a page describing why we are doing this. Being able to point to a clearly reasoned explanation should help reduce the rancor around this issue. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Am I on the right track here: User_talk:Jwy/Intentional_DAB_Links? Feel free to edit and discuss on the talk page there. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Dabfix tool
Hi all, I happen to have Never Say Never on my watchlist, and noticed this diff. I was a little surprised to see how much text was added to some of the entries. Do you see this as reasonable, or a bit much? --AndrewHowse (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- More than a bit much, yes. And certainly not a minor edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
When to split a list into sections
Could the article make some recommendation as to the max nr of entries in the list before it is worth splitting the list into say 3 or more sections ? I would suggest 15 or 20. Rod57 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Alphabetical or by notability
Some, perhaps many, DAB lists are alphabetical. If this is policy could the article confirm that or say if it is ok or prefered to have the most notable/likely uses near the top (my preference) ? Rod57 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Where likelihood can be used and useful, it should be used. For long lists, or for short lists where likelihood is undetermined (and so can't be used), readers need to be able to find what they're looking for: sectioning, grouping, and sorting by alpha/chrono/geography can help. But for short lists (or sections/groups with short lists), sorting entries by likelihood is useful and should be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for non-Roman Redirects and Disambiguation
Discussion on a proposal to change parts of this guideline is taking place on the Redirect talk page. Handschuh-talk to me 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Should WP:TWODABS not apply at Sephiroth?
Am I misinterpreting WP:TWODABS, or should it not apply in the case of Sephiroth (currently a dab page with two entries) for reasons that I do not understand? See Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)#Requested move for the discussion and reply there please... Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Somewhat more generally, I've always admired the phrasing "should not be created" in TWODABS; it doesn't read "is a burden on the servers", "should be deleted" or anything of that sort. It simply says that if it doesn't exist, then don't bother creating it. Equally, the phrasing used also implies that it's not worth the bother of convincing anyone that it should be deleted - in other words, it's unnecessary, but largely harmless.
- I suppose you could take it to MfD, but it doesn't really seem that it's worth the trouble, does it? --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, but, yes, I think eliminating 2 entry dab pages is a worthy goal consistent with improving this encyclopedia. The dab page itself is not the problem, especially if it's at [[Plainname (disambiguation)]]. The problem is when the dab page is at [[Plainname]] which means users entering "Plainname" are taken to the dab page instead of to the more likely subject to be sought of the two uses of "Plainname". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- That could be a move (boldly, or using a move request if controversial) of the dab from the base name, redirecting the base name to the primary topic or moving the primary topic to the base name, and tagging the new-name dab page with {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- But I just closed the move request without moving the pages. There was no consensus on a primary topic, different tools given at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicated different possible primary topics, so there appear to be no primary topic for "Sephiroth", and the two-entry disambiguation page can continue to disambiguate those two non-primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- That could be a move (boldly, or using a move request if controversial) of the dab from the base name, redirecting the base name to the primary topic or moving the primary topic to the base name, and tagging the new-name dab page with {{db-disambig}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good point, but, yes, I think eliminating 2 entry dab pages is a worthy goal consistent with improving this encyclopedia. The dab page itself is not the problem, especially if it's at [[Plainname (disambiguation)]]. The problem is when the dab page is at [[Plainname]] which means users entering "Plainname" are taken to the dab page instead of to the more likely subject to be sought of the two uses of "Plainname". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- By my reading, WP:TWODABS doesn't apply. TWODABS means that if you have a primary topic article at [[Article]] and another at [[Article (about something else)]], you have a hat note at the top of the former pointing to the latter, rather than a hat note pointing to [[Article (disambiguation)]], which in turn points to both articles. —me_and 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. WP:TWODABS is for cases with a primary topic. If there's ambiguity and no primary topic, then a disambiguation page is needed even if there are only two ambiguous topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the whole point of twodabs is that dab pages with two entries are inherently unhelpful, even if neither topic is primary (yes, I know it doesn't say that, I'm just talking about the underlying reasoning).
The whole point of having a dab page is to help readers find the subject they are seeking with minimal hassle, is it not?
Even if two topics are each perfectly equally likely to be the one being sought when a given term is entered in the Search box, if you toss a coin and put one of the two topics at that term, then half the time the reader will be taken directly to the desired article, while the other half will be one hatnote link click away from their intended destination. So compared to having a dab page, half are clearly better off, while the other half is worse off. But if you put a dab page at that term, then none of the readers searching for that term will be taken directly to the article they are seeking; everyone searching for that term is guaranteed to be a search plus a click away from the desired article.
Frankly, even if you have only three topics and none are primary, if you put the article most likely of the three to be the one being sought at that name, and hatnote links to the other two at the top of that article, then at least 1/3 of the readers will be taken directly to the desired article, while the others will again be only one click away.
The benefit of avoiding a dab page once you have 4 or more articles associated with the term, and no primary topic, starts to diminish rapidly for two reasons. First, because the percentage of readers who get to the desired article becomes increasingly insignificant as the number of entries increases. Second, because the number of hatnote links at the top of the article becomes unwieldy. But none of those problems apply when we have only two or even three articles with topics that are called by the term in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- The underlying reasoning (as I read it) is if there's a primary topic and all of the navigational assistance can be rendered through hatnotes, then there's no need for a disambiguation page, since no additional navigational assistance is needed. The unstated counterpoint is that if there's no primary topic, then there's no place to put navigational hatnotes, so a disambiguation page is needed to render navigational assistance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my reading is the same as yours. I'm asking about the underlying reasoning.
I don't understand why the absence of a primary topic means there is no place to put a hatnote. If there are two topics the article of one can be at the name in question (just as well as a dab page can be there), and it can have the hatnote to the other one, even though it is not the primary topic (not primary because it is more likely than the other, but not much more likely, to be the one being sought). Wouldn't that be more desirable for the navigational advantages I noted above... no extra clicks for at least half, probably significantly more in most cases, of those searching for the term, while the others are still only one click away? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was answering about the underlying reasoning. If one of the articles is at the name in question then there is a primary topic. Your premise of no primary topic but one at the base name is in error. Yes, randomly assigning a primary topic would reduce the click count. That is not the underlying reasoning, though. Picking one of two non-primary topics to be primary would be (and will continue to be) contentious. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, my reading is the same as yours. I'm asking about the underlying reasoning.
- The underlying reasoning (as I read it) is if there's a primary topic and all of the navigational assistance can be rendered through hatnotes, then there's no need for a disambiguation page, since no additional navigational assistance is needed. The unstated counterpoint is that if there's no primary topic, then there's no place to put navigational hatnotes, so a disambiguation page is needed to render navigational assistance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought the whole point of twodabs is that dab pages with two entries are inherently unhelpful, even if neither topic is primary (yes, I know it doesn't say that, I'm just talking about the underlying reasoning).
- That's right. WP:TWODABS is for cases with a primary topic. If there's ambiguity and no primary topic, then a disambiguation page is needed even if there are only two ambiguous topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Should dab pages have infoboxes?
See Feaster. I removed the broken template but the editor who placed it there (COI editor I'd say), replaced it, along with Feasterville, South Carolina, which I'd removed as it doesn't seem to be a legal entity (if it had any legal status I would have left it on the basis there could be an article for it), and an entry for "John Feaster, very prominent South Carolina Planter and Businessman of whom founded the Feasterville Church along with the Feasterville Male and Female Acadademy, of which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places" - this person seems only to appear in a history of Fairfield County [1] where it says about him only "John Feaster, son of Andrew Feaster, was the founder of Feasterville Academy, and donated 7^ acres of land to Liberty Church, and ^^ acres to the Academy. Tradition says that John Feaster had the first glass windows in the township." Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, dab pages should not have infoboxes. If a dab page is temporarily housing a short list of name holders that should really be a separate anthroponymy article, and an editor would like to expand that short list by adding an infobox or other "real article"-style information, the split of the disambiguation page from the anthroponymy article should be made first, and then the article expanded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for non-Roman redirects and DABs
To participate in that discussion, go to this link. Thanks. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Primary topics with other titles
Trying to get more into the primary topic section, without making it a legalese brain-hurty mess. Possible approaches:
- When determining a primary topic for a given term, the question is the likelihood of each topic being the one sought by the reader who searched for the ambiguous title. Whether the topic article has that title is not a consideration. The questions of "which of several topics is most likely sought from this title?" is separate from "which of several possible titles is best for this topic?"
- When determining the primary topic for a given term, the significant likelihood of any topic which might be called by that term being the one sought by a reader searching with that term must be considered. Such a topic being at a different title which is not in question is no reason to exclude the likelihood of that topic being the one being sought from the process of determining whether there is a primary topic.
The second leaves me scratching my head, but the first is one I mostly wrote, so I have no doubt that it makes others scratch their heads. Further ideas sought. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- The first one makes more sense to me, though I think "The questions of" should be replaced by "The question". In the second version, I have no idea what "the significant likelihood" means. PamD (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Likelihoods are a measure of probability. A likelihood of 0% means it never happens, 100% means it always happens. A very small likelihood is insignificant. A likelihood large enough to be significant is a "significant likelihood", or "likelihood sufficiently greater than zero to be significant". The point is that unless the likelihood of a term being used to search for a topic is practically zero, that likelihood needs to be considered in determining whether that term has a primary topic.
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs don't mean the same thing. I don't understand the point of the last sentence in the first paragraph, or how it relates to what the 2nd paragraph is trying to say. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Likelihoods are a measure of probability. A likelihood of 0% means it never happens, 100% means it always happens. A very small likelihood is insignificant. A likelihood large enough to be significant is a "significant likelihood", or "likelihood sufficiently greater than zero to be significant". The point is that unless the likelihood of a term being used to search for a topic is practically zero, that likelihood needs to be considered in determining whether that term has a primary topic.
Kotniski, JHunterJ, PamD, et. al, the point I'm trying to introduce and explain which keeps getting deleted is not exemplified by either Einstein or Danzig. The point is that when you're determining whether a given use of a term is the primary use, you have to consider all uses of the term to refer to other topics in terms of their respective likelihoods to be used to search for those topics. Uses are not to be dismissed or discounted in primary topic determinations just because they are secondary uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hopefully the "defamation" example does what you're seeking. If not, I'm still not clear on what it is. I'm assuming this is being driven by a current or recent discussion -- which one? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe something like (needs wordsmithing):
- When determining a primary topic for a given term, the question is the likelihood of each topic being the one sought by the reader who searched for the ambiguous title. Editors should consider the article the reader is looking for may not incorporate the search term in its title, but still may have a high likelihood of being the article a reader is looking for - and thus may be a primary target.
- --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe something like (needs wordsmithing):
No, Defamation does not exemplify the point either because slander/libel is the primary use of "Defamation", and the term defamation is the name the film would use if the legal use was not primary.
Here is a link to a discussion in which the problem is exemplified. See the comment under Important Note and my reply. The term in question there is "Fergie" and the argument made is that the use by Sarah Ferguson (whose nickname is Fergie) is not relevant since the article about her would never be at Fergie no matter what. I want something in here that explains clearly why that's not true. Just because that article would never be at "Fergie" doesn't mean readers will never search for it using "Fergie", and, so, in deciding whether the singer is the primary use of "Fergie", we need to consider the likelihood that that term will be used to search for the Sarah. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)