Talk:Park In-hwan (author)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by one or more inactive working groups.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Park In-hwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested. There's no consensus to make the actor a primary topic, but there is consensus that the author is not the primary topic, so for now it is moved, which is the less radical of the two options. Once the dust has settled, and disambiguation links are sorted out, a further RM can determine whether there's consensus for going all the way and making the author primary topic. — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park In-hwan → Park In-hwan (author) – Between this article and Park In-hwan (actor), there isn't a primary topic per page view comparison. In fact, most third-party search engines return results for the actor. The base title should be replaced with a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 14:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – make this title disambiguate. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling their Korean name 박인환 seems to return more results for the poet. Sinobball (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but that's when the search utilizes characters that aren't traditionally used in the English language. Since this is the English Wikipedia, alphanumeric characters should be used for searches. Steel1943 (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Have you tried other romanizations like "Bak Inhwan", "Pak In-hwan", and "Park Inhwan"? I don't oppose the move, but Google results for "Bak In-hwan" seem to return the poet more often. The actor lived into the 21st century while the poet didn't, so the latter has "more" possible alphanumeric names which diluted his Google results. Sinobball (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment It should probably be moved to Park In-hwan (poet) instead of Park In-hwan (author). Sinobball (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In a WP:TWODABS situation I think the threshold for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be just whether one is more likely to be sought than the other, and, if they're close, it doesn't matter which is at the base name. Because putting the dab page at the basename helps no one. At least with one of the two at the basename about half the users searching with the basename will get to their sought topic immediately, instead of all of them going to somewhere they are not seeking (the dab page). And the other half is no worse off than if they had landed on the dab page: thanks to a hatnote link they're still only one click from their desired destination. So I see only downside and no upside if we create a third page here (a dab page) and remove an actual article from the basename to put a dab page nobody will ever be looking for at the basename. Now nobody searching with the basename will get to their desired article immediately. Please don't do this. --В²C ☎ 01:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support per the page views the actor gets over 10x the views of the author. Per WP:NOPRIMARY there should still be a DAB at the base name even if there are 2 if there is no primary topic. The actor could if anything be primary but per User:Andrewa/Incoming links we probably shouldn't make a PT swap. Also the Korean and German Wikipedias have DABs here. When I Google Park In-hwan most of the results are for the actor though the 1st result is for the author WP article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Say 10% are looking for the author, 90% for the actor. Currently, the 10% seeking the author with the base name are taken to the article they seek (the author), and 90% seeking the actor with the base name are taken to a page (the author) where they have to click on a link to get to the page they seek (the actor). If we put the dab page at the base name then 0% seeking either the author or actor with the base name will be taken to the article they seek (the author or the actor), and 100% will be taken to a page (dab) that they are not seeking, where they have to click on a link to get to the page they seek (the actor or author as the case may be). That's worse for the 10% seeking the author, and no change including no improvement for the 90% seeking the actor. Only downside; no upside. How would that be an improvement? --В²C ☎ 17:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why do we have DAB pages with only 2 items at all then? The guideline does say "If there are multiple topics (even just two) (my emphasis) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term.". WP:2DABPRIMARY specifies that the threshold is lower but given the fact that the current PT gets less views that the other and we shouldn't generally make PT swaps there should be no primary topic. Also If there's a DAB everyone only has to load the DAB with the current situation most readers have to load an article they probably don't want. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good question. I think that guidance is wrong-headed. It's based on the belief that landing on a dab page where you have to find and click on the link to the article you seek is preferable to landing on an article that's not the one you seek where you have to find and click on a hatnote link to the article you seek. I, for one, don't share that belief. I think the two situations are roughly equivalent, subject to personal preferences. I slightly prefer landing on an article because the hatnote link is right there at the top and, in case I am interested in the topic of the article I landed upon ("hmm, there is an author with the same name... who is he?"), it's already right there. But, in a case like this, I would support at PT swap (I don't think the incoming links problem matters much - most arrive via Google which seems to fix itself in hours if not minutes after a PT swap). But that's not the proposal. The proposal is to add a 3rd (dab) page - 3 is a 50% increase over the current number of 2 relevant to this context. For no additional functionality. That's nuts. --В²C ☎ 18:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not strongly against a PT swap here (especially since as noted there is only 2 uses) but I still think the original proposal is best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I would support the move but only if the actor were moved to the plain name. The pageviews linked in the proposal show the actor to be the clear (10:1) WP:primary topic, and I'm not sure why the nom says otherwise. If the topics are not swapped, В²C's logic is sound, and there's no benefit to a move. (Some editors would say that the proposed move is beneficial as an interim step, in that it allows the primary topic to be moved at a later date, after incoming wikilinks are sorted. While true in theory, I'm not sure I've seen it happen in reality. Either people forget or figure it's not worth the effort, or one or two editors who generally oppose primary topics lead to no consensus. And in this case there are only a handful of incoming wikilinks, that could easily be changed before a title swap.) Station1 (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well if you agree that the actor is the primary topic (if one exists) that supports the move either way. WP:NOPRIMARY still says we don't put one of the other at the base name in the absence of a consensus as to which is primary. And I was referring to external wikilinks pointing to this page not internal ones which yes indeed can easily be fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        NOPRIMARY says we use a dab page when there is no primary topic. In this case there is a primary topic, so I do not support a dab page. Station1 (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        But if the actor isn't primary then the author still isn't and still has to be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no benefit to creating a dab page for two entries even if neither is primary. We don't need 50% as many pages (3 is 50% more than 2). The choice is between one disambiguated and one at the base name, or both disambiguated plus a dab page. In no universe that I'm aware of is the latter choice an improvement over any configuration of the first choice. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose nomination as listed, per TWODABS, seems like there's support for swapping the pages to make the actor the un-dabbed page. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disambiguation given the discrepancy in page views.Support making the actor primary. BD2412 T 01:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The actor is a fairly clear primary topic for this name; therefore, there should be no dab page, and the base name should be the title of the actor's article, where a hatnote that points to the author should be placed. PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 14:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: Geez, I really don't agree that disambiguation pages with only two entries shouldn't exist, especially since WP:NOPRIMARY stares thats's just fine. At this point, I really don't care what happens, but I think it's pretty clear that the status quo is wrong. Just consider me "neutral" as my bandwidth to be involved in this discussion was exhausted upon me seeing this discussion relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that Steel man... this had been in the backlog for quite awhile, and yet I just didn't see a consensus. After I relisted I read it again and decided to participate. Ah well... PI Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - S'all good Paine. I definitely see why you relisted it as I agree that consensus is/was unclear at that date ... I just didn't foresee the controversy that resulted in the relist. But, then again, that's why I posted the move request: Even though I thought this move request would go without a hitch, all "WP:COMMONNAME / WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / etc." move requests seems to always have at least one editor who just doesn't agree with the original proposal... Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.