Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

Talk:South Pier, Blackpool

No other article South Pier, so according to WP:DISAMBIGUATION, is "Blackpool" unneccesary disambiguation or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, North Pier is currently a redirect to North Pier, Blackpool. 92.40.233.132 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Likewise Central Ferry Piers redirects to Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong - see Talk:Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong#Move. 92.40.233.132 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
South Pier (Blackpool) is unnecessary disambiguation. If the correct title per naming conventions uses the "natural qualfier", the disambiguation project does not contradict that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying South Pier (Blackpool) is disambiguation of South Pier, but South Pier, Blackpool is not disambiguation of South Pier? If so, I disagree, and point out that they are examples of the two forms of disambiguation: parenthetic and natural, and neither is necessary (thus both are unnecessary disambiguation). --B2C 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that the naming conventions might specify the longer version even when no ambiguity exists, and that does not contradict the disambiguation guidelines. If the naming conventions would normally use the short version, the natural qualifier might be preferred over the parenthesized qualifier. Of the set of titles with commas separating hierarchical levels, some are examples of natural disambiguation and some are examples of naming convention preferences. Akron redirects to Akron, Ohio, for instance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If a naming convention specifies the longer version even when no ambiguity exists, the disambiguation is still unnecessary for the purposes of disambiguation. Yes, unnecessary disambiguation may be in compliance with disambiguation guideline wording, due to superfluous special-case rules created to rationalize certain overly precise titles, but it's still unnecessary disambiguation.

But this is all probably moot as I'm pretty sure there are no special naming conventions for naming piers, which would be unnecessary too! --B2C 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no unnecessary disambiguation in "Akron, Ohio" (or, say, Prineville, Oregon). If the common name of or naming convention for "Prineville" is "Prineville, Oregon", then that's the undisambiguated title that should be used. If there is no ambiguity, then disambiguation (unnecessary or otherwise) is impossible. There is no need to describe the naming conventions as rationalizations or special-case, as if those qualities were faults. All naming conventions are rationalized, and they exist to handle special cases as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • JHunterJ's comments on natural qualifiers, parenthetical or otherwise, are very interesting. It sounds natural and good. Is this concept documented elsewhere, or just what there is on thei project page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, and I think I agree that a more natural way to add needed precision is better. Blackpool South Pier seems to be a very common, and perhaps official, name for this one, and most editors who put any value at all on precision recognize that precision as necessary to indicate the topic of the article, even if B2C doesn't. In that respect JHunterJ is correct that "a naming convention specifies the longer version", though I don't agree that it's a situation "when no ambiguity exists". It's terribly ambiguous, with so many places having a North and South Pier. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    Happy we agree in the important points. Two notes on the side topics: (a) Parenthetical qualifiers are never natural. If parentheses are in a title, it's because the topic itself includes parentheses or because a qualifier was needed and a natural one wasn't identified or found suitable. (b) In this case, I took the opening comment that there is no other article "South Pier", so indeed no Wikipedia ambiguity exists if that's true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My first instinct on seeing this discussion was that I have a hard time believing that Wikipedia only has one article that could reasonably be called South pier. A Wiki search confirmed this - there are places with names similar enough for confusion in Singapore, Michigan and a couple other places. I'll make a disambig. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

South pier and North Pier (disambiguation) created. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Prefer natural disambiguation over paranthetical disambiguation

Should we prefer Mavia, Queen of the Tanukh over Mavia (queen)? Or Queen Mavia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence JHunterJ's assertion of our preference for non-parenthetical natural disambiguation. The entries at Chris_Young_(disambiguation) show a natural tendency to parenthetical disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
You misspelled "WP:PRECISION's assertion of our preference" there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't you mean WP:NATURAL? Thanks for the pointer anyway. Why doesn't this guideline point to that policy section? Speaking of that policy section, it is not obvious that the three general methods are listed on order of preference. Looking at Chris Young for example, it looks like stub writers prefer parenthetical disambiguation. I would guess that writers of new articles look at existing dab pages for guidance, and I don't think anything here, or WP:AT, communicates a preference against parenthetical or comma disambiguation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A crucial, and sometimes overlooked, aspect of natural disambiguation is that it is an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English. In cases where the subject is not commonly known by an alternative name, parenthetical disambiguation may be preferred. To me, the criteria is something like this: is there another commonly used name that can be used and linked inline without appearing awkward or unnatural? If yes, use that, if not, use parenthetical disambiguation, except for some types of place names or nobility. For example, Chris Young (American football) could be titled as Christopher Lamont Young, but if he is not commonly referred to by that name, there is no benefit to readers. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
so the following would be true? "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural. However, the second or third most common name may be used if the most common name is ambiguous with another topic, but the second or third is not. ". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
"However, another common name (less common, but still common) may be used if the most common name is ambiguous but the other common name is not." It doesn't have to win, place, or show, so long as it's common. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Right. The second most commonly used name would not be appropriate if it's only very rarely used to refer to the topic in question. --B2C 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I don't know, did you mean WP:NATURAL instead of mis-attributing it to me? (Looks like WP:NATURAL is a recent addition, from October 2012; I've been using WP:PRECISION as the shortcut for much longer.) This guideline doesn't specify which unique titles to select, as I have also said many, many times; the naming conventions and content projects specify those, as they like. The disambiguation guidelines specify how to name disambiguation pages. (I have no preference for natural disambiguation over parenthetical disambiguation, but I am happy to accept the consensus.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agios dab page

I just came across Agios, which is tagged with {{disambiguation}} but does look much like anything described at WP:MOSDAB. An older version is perhaps a bit closer, though really it looks like most everything is a partial title match. Thoughts? older ≠ wiser 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I usually just clean up such pages (and speedy or prod them as needed), or tag them for cleanup. If someone disagrees with the cleanup, then remove the dab tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I was just about to try to figure out/fix the Agios situation myself. It's certainly not a dab page currently. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
First, the section title “Is this a reasonable dab page?” was silly, and I changed it. Second, there are many users who do not understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary: one part of them push dictionary explanations to Wikipedia; another one accuse perfectly encyclopedic topics in perceived “dictionaryness”. I erased abominations from there, and also from “agioi”. Third, I advise to post such cases to WT:WikiProject Disambiguation, not here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the changes made by User:Incnis Mrsi as a significant improvement. Look: are there any topics covered in any Wikipedia article that would reasonably be referred to as just "agios"? Sacred doesn't use the word, and I don't think we need a disambiguation page just to say what Foo means in another language. Agio is probably reasonable. If it were up to me I'd probably just delete the page and let anyone who's searching for the plural of agio find it at the top of the search results. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I still can’t realize this bizarre custom of en.WP to link a user’s nickname within few inches of his/her own signature. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I would just delete it. It is a disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate anything. bd2412 T 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Although I do not insist strongly on keeping, IMHO this page can serve as a useful entry point to Wiktionary. You may initiate an AfD, but this is not a WP:CSD#G6 if only because of this discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Trudeau clan

Trudeau has six all in the same clan in Canada. Pierre is the most famous so far but one son may pass him. Should we give them all their own 'clan' section on the dab page under people? We may have to add any mountains or space craft possibly named after them in the future as well. The Kennedy dab may need a similar sub group but that is too far south for me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


Clan is certainly an odd choice of words - in this case, I would say it would be justified to create an article called Trudeau family, similar to the US articles, Kennedy family and Romney family. It would then look something like below:

etc...
Ego White Tray (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the page from a disambiguation page to an anthroponymy list article. (No bearing on whether the Trudeau family article might still be created.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate

I have closed my own discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate. Please feel free to take any action necessary to modify the closure of my own discussion to make it appear more Kosher.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a primary topic for Limerick?

Talk:Limerick#Requested move 2013

--B2C 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal that designation of a primary topic should be inherited by subtopics.

Tibet is an article, and I have seen no effort to dispute that. However, up until I redirected it earlier this afternoon, Demographics of Tibet was a disambiguation page, with two links, one pointing to the demographics section of Tibet, and the other to the demographics section of Tibet Autonomous Region. It does not make sense to me that if "Foo" is a primary topic, then "Bar of Foo" should be anything but the primary topic, "Bar" of "Foo". There may be many places named "Paris", but Paris is primary, and therefore "Cuisine of Paris" should mean "Cuisine of Paris", and should not be a disambiguation page for the cuisines of various places coincidentally called Paris. If there are many cuisine articles for places by that name, they should be at a Cuisine of Paris (disambiguation). There are a number of places called "Florida" but Florida is primary, and therefore List of toll roads in Florida is about toll roads in Florida.

Conversely, of course, if "Foo" is a disambiguation page, then "Cuisine of Foo" should also be a disambiguation page, provided that there are multiple uses of "Foo" for which a "Cuisine of" exists. For example, Georgia is a disambiguation page, and therefore Supreme Court of Georgia is appropriately a disambiguation page. Note that there is no page on the cuisine of the U.S. state of Georgia, so Cuisine of Georgia redirects to Georgian cuisine; there is no article on the lower courts of the country, Georgia, so Courts of Georgia redirects to Government of Georgia (U.S. state)#Judiciary.

I therefore propose that we establish as a formal rule:

If "Foo" is a primary topic, "Bar of Foo" should be a primary topic page for "Bar" of "Foo", and not a disambiguation page for "Bar" of various possible meanings of "Foo", unless there is no "Bar of Foo" for the primary topic, "Foo"; and that if "Foo" is a disambiguation page, "Bar of Foo" should be a disambiguation page for "Bar" of various possible meanings of "Foo", unless there is only one "Bar of Foo" article to point to.

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, but would extend it apply to titles of sub articles in general. It's not just a primary topic or dab issue. The title used for the main article may have nothing to do with primary topic, but the sub articles should follow suit never-the-less. I mean, if we moved New York City to New York, New York, then we should also move History of New York City to History of New York, New York. --B2C 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
My concern right now is with reigning in errant disambiguation pages. I have no objection to such a rule being applied more broadly, though as a practical matter fewer problems arise from the History of New York City scenario. bd2412 T 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Though it sounds logical, it may not always be the best thing. You just changed Demographics of Tibet from a disambig that led to both of the important sections, to a direct link to the smaller of two sections, where there's a complicared and no-so-effective hat note to the other. Is this in some way better? Not clear. I reverted while we discuss. One thing I worry about more than "errant disambiguation pages" is "errant" primarytopic claims. Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Digging deeper, I find no evidence that the Tibet Autonomous Region is ever actually referred to as "Tibet". It is, after all, a partial title match, and absent such evidence it probably should not be on a disambiguation page at all. However, while we are waiting for that smoke to clear, since you have restored the disambiguation, please fix the incoming disambiguation links to Demographics of Tibet. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"No evidence"? The majority of published statistics (including demographics, I suppose) from (or about) PRC is broken down by the country's existing administrative subdivisions, so whenever "Tibet" (or 西藏 Xizang, in the Chinese version) appears there in a table row heading, chapter heading, or even a volume title, it's usually simply a shorthand for "Tibet Autonomous Region" (or 西藏自治区). E.g. the Tibet Statistical Yearbook is, no doubt, mostly limited to the TAR data (while the data for ethnic-Tibetan counties in other provinces would be in Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, Yunnan Yearbooks). -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that just cycles us through to the question, should Tibet be a disambiguation page? I have no problem with Demographics of Tibet being a disambiguation page if Tibet is a disambiguation page, but I think that these and other subtopic pages should reflect the primacy of the topic, or lack thereof. bd2412 T 01:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether we need a general rule for this, but I agree with BD2412 in this particular case. Someone who searches for "Demographics of Tibet" is obviously looking for information about the demographics of some place called "Tibet". If our consensus is that the latter term has a primary topic, then I see no reason why the "Demographics of..." title should not also have a primary topic. Further, as Dicklyon notes, the reader who arrives at Tibet#Demographics will immediately see a hatnote referring them to Tibet Autonomous Region#Demographics in case that is what they wanted; I don't see why this hatnote is "not so effective". --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
A general rule could be tempered by exceptions where necessary, but it seems to me that such a general rule is common sense. Since the Tibet Autonomous Region is part of the broader traditional region of Tibet, perhaps the solution is to have an article at Demographics of Tibet which describes the demographics of the broader region, and also notes therein the demographics of the Chinese administrative subdivision. Alternately, if there is insufficient material to support a separate article, expand the section in Tibet. bd2412 T 01:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (music) vs. MOS:ALBUM conflicting instructions

This is a coda to a subject just recently dropped into archive. Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 38#Establishing a WP:PRIMARY within the brackets. More RMs where there are multiple album articles to select 1 as the primary-album:

What wasn't noted in the just-archived discussion was that WP:Naming conventions (music) vs. MOS:ALBUM have conflicting instructions. WP:Naming conventions (music) says

"Unless multiple albums of the same name exist (such as Down to Earth), they do not need to be disambiguated any further. For example, Down to Earth (Ozzy Osbourne album) is fine"

but MOS:ALBUM was edited about 18 months ago to read

"though if there is a primary album, such as Thriller (album), then that would get the primary (album) disambiguation, and only the secondary albums, Thriller (Eddie and the Hot Rods album) or Thriller (Lambchop album) need be disambiguated by band"

Since Thriller is constantly cited as rationale, so I put in a RM for Thriller.

Discussion demonstrates that WP Albums/Songs contributors (assuming that WP:Alerts and watchlists are reflected) are very strongly in favour of establishing a second "primary topic" inside the brackets (which is their right), and convinced that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC already establishes second primaries in brackets (which I don't think is a sustainable reading of "it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic.").

Bearing in mind on the one hand also JHunter's view that projects are free to set their own DAB policies, on the other hand the purpose for continuing the subject that just disappeared of the top of page here is (1) subject is still fresh and to note above, (2) to ask if there are any other guidelines known which speak of "if there is a primary film" "if there is a primary footballer" or similar? I am not aware of any, but they may be unwritten. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

So what next, should someone propose to add something explaining this inconsistency:

"Some WikiProjects also have Primary secondary subjects in their own category such WP:PRIMARYALBUM per WP:MOSALBUMS as an extension of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however for example there is no WP:PRIMARYICEHOCKEYPLAYER, all ice-hockey players are fully disambiguated"

? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How to link to a disambiguation page

Why is it important to distinguish accidental links to a disambiguation page from intentional ones? Being redirected through a Foo (disambiguation) link to Foo seems a little dumb to any users who might notice how they got there; a link directly to Foo would have been fine. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Usually you should link directly to the intended article, that is, Mercury (planet), rather than the disambiguation page Mercury. Occasionally, however, the disambiguation page is intended. This is most common in those hatnotes you see at the top of the page, This article is about the planet, for other uses see Mercury (disambiguation). Occasionally you will also see disambig links in see also sections. Most links to disambiguation pages are mistakes and there are editors who spend time fixing this - a link to a page ending in (disambiguation) tells these editors that the disambig link is intentional and not a mistake. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I see now that redirecting through Foo (disambiguation) makes Special:Whatlinkshere/Foo useful for finding links to the disambiguation page that could be changed to point to a more appropriate page. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dab or hats

We have John O'Hare, a 66yo footballer, and John O'Hare (actor) was just created. The actor doesn't show in search as the other is primary. Do we need a dab page or just two notes at the top of the two pages? Should the younger actor be primary?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hat at John O'Hare is necessary. Use Talk:John O'Hare (actor) (whether a hatnote is warranted on that article) and/or WP:RM to request the page moves to change the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Good work as always. I won't worry about primary. The actor asked at help desk why his movie wikilink went to the footballer.
 Done unless others want to change anything.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Universal disambiguation parameter needed for templates.

Having just come across yet another unfixable disambiguation link generated by a byzantine labyrinth of a template, I have proposed the need for such a thing at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Universal disambiguation parameter needed for templates. Please weigh in if you agree that it's about damned time we had such a thing. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What's with pre-emptive disambiguation?

Has anyone else noticed a move to pre-emptively disambiguate perfectly unambiguous titles? Take "Lady of Spain" -- everyone knows it's the song, right? We have no other articles with that title, or that reasonably could have such a title. But in a move request, I'm actually getting opposition to removing the "(song)" disambiguator. What the heck is going on here? Powers T 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Except for one exception, opposition is comprised of members of the same small group of usual suspects that consistently pushes for "more precision" in our titles, including with parenthetical disambiguation. --B2C 22:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
History of "Lady of Spain" indicates the disambiguation has been there since August 2006‎. It's hardly appropriate that you question the motives of people who argue for that for no other reason than that it's the long-established status quo - if nobody thought of undoing that for seven years, it just can't be a problem so terrible you shouldn't assume good faith in the discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Who is questioning good faith? There are a few people who honestly think WP would be improved with more informative titles, and effectively campaign for that in many different contexts. They don't seem to understand or appreciate the plethora of problems that creates, but it's not due to lack of good faith. --B2C 22:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
But when you speak of "usual suspects" and "they don't seem to understand" you are attributing feelings and internal state and stuff of the sort that you claim here one should never do. What's up with that? And because you recognize two active-in-titling editors who oppose you there, along with one you see less often, doesn't mean you can in good faith conclude that opposition is comprised of members of the same small group of usual suspects that consistently pushes for 'more precision' in our titles. Take me; I seldom push for more precision in titles, but I do often resist moves to less precision, especially in a lot of minimalist titling proposals that leave the title so utterly uninformative. Perhaps I'll oppose this one, too. I'll have to read up first... Anyway, it would be better if you'd do what you're asking me to do, and focus on the substance of the issue, which is how much precision is enough, or how much ambiguity should we tolerate. These other editors have an opinion on that, which they hold even after your years of harangue about "the plethora of problems" that you want us to believe awaits those who use non-minimal titles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Born2cycle, frankly that kind of talk isn't appropriate and you should acknowledge that it isn't appropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly which of B2C's statements do you think is inappropriate? Nothing he said in the comment immediately preceding Dicklyon's here is at all inaccurate or insulting. Powers T 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Well seeing as you yourself are a member of the same small group of usual suspects that consistently pushes for "less precision" and you don't seem to understand or appreciate the plethora of problems that creates, then yes B2C's language would be appropriate and accurate. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Caveat - I don't really think that and even if I did wouldn't say it. I'm just illustrating what it sounds like when its about oneself, rather than others. This kind of Talk is gratuitous and adds nothing other than heat. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Were it true, I wouldn't have much grounds for objection. But of course the situation is not exactly parallel. At any rate, B2C pointed out that there are a few editors who consistently and effectively campaign for expanded context in article titles (indisputable), and that they are doing so honestly and in good faith. I don't see anything objectionable about either statement. I suppose the remaining part -- about not understanding the problems with that approach -- may be seen as offensive, but I prefer a more charitable interpretation -- which is how I interpreted your reversal to apply to me. =) Powers T 16:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes. This is probably a clear case requiring a test as to whether consensus has changed (WP:CCC).
Many editors, including article writes, seem to think that the further precision of parenthetical disambiguation is good. Other's don't. On examination, there is a strong history of undiscussed moving off articles from foo (genre) to foo if there are no related foo articles (if I am using this foo terminology correctly). In particular, User:JHunterJ has moved multitudes of these since ~2007, linking a shortcut at WikiProject:Disambiguation. Few editors seem involved. There are few answers on "why we do this" but plenty of emphasis on "this is what we do".
In favour of pre-emptive disambiguation: "Lady of Spain" sounds like a grand title for historical (or legendary) female of power and influence. Arriving at the article, if that's what you were expecteding, you are greatly disappointed. In favour of consistency, all run-of-the-mill songs disambiguated with (song) would be consistent and easily understood by editors, new editors, and readers alike. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
And landing on a dab page with a link to the supposedly disappointing article, and one red link, would be less disappointing? Even if it was, where is the call for arranging our articles and choosing our titles in order to reduce user disappointment like that? --B2C 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, and there are answers, but I would prefer to not get very deep and instead look for evidence of consensus. If the status quo has consensus, then I'll work towards clarification of it. The biggest problem, exceed that of moments of disappointment, is that WP:AT, WP:D and the various WP:MOSs are a challenge to find, navigate and comprehend. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
When I do so (and I surely do), I link a shortcut at WP:PRECISION, which is not at WikiProject:Disambiguation. The project as a whole, including article writers, seem to think that unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation is bad. Other's don't, but haven't formed a consensus for their disagreement with the guidelines. SO it's good that the examination of the undiscussed moves bear out the existing guidelines of the larger group. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of your page moves back in 2007. The practice seemed to develop at the WikiProject (which is reasonable). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes rule-following for the sake of rule-following is a good reason to follow a rule. So it is with titles, in my view. In this case, we have a rule that says to avoid unnecessary precision (or avoid pre-emptive disambiguation, if you will). Why? People question that rule, because it seems like more informative titles would be, well, more informative. So why follow that rule? Why even have that rule? Why have any rule... why not just decide on titles for articles without any rules?

Let's take those in reverse. The reason to have rules to decide titles is because without them the decisions would be much more arbitrary, and, therefore, less stable. The original title could be selected for any reason, that could be changed for any reason, etc., ad infinitum. Multiply this by the millions of articles we have, and you should see the problem. So, we must have some rules.

As to this specific rule, we need to have some rule about what to do in these situations... so why this rule? Well, what's the alternative? No rule? Make titles as precise as you want? Well, then, how do we decide which title is best among all sufficiently precise titles? The least precise? The most precise proposed? Something in between? How do we draw the line? And once we decide, what's to keep someone from proposing a more (or less) precise title a week, month, year or decade later? Without rules, we're rudderless. We'll just go 'round and 'round in circles, without getting anywhere, forever.

The reason WP:PRECISE ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that", where ambiguous is defined to mean "refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles" on WP:D) is an important rule is because following it settles countless potential title disputes. If we don't follow it, we're rudderless, on millions of titles. Let's look at the first 5 random articles I see on SPECIAL:RANDOM:

Though this random sample is of a very small size, the fact that 100% of the titles are questionable if we ignore the WP:PRECISION rule indicates how important this rule is. This rule is the only reason those other titles should not be considered, and these titles should remain as they are. The rule is absolutely essential for title stability. Without it, we would have essentially no guidance for titles. We would be rudderless. --B2C 00:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are giving excessive, and seemingly even exclusive, importance to one aspect of titling. At WP:TITLE we read the page in a nutshell: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." In the body we see five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. As far as I can see, no one is suggesting doing away with the criterion of precision. But there are four others. Rudderless? Hardly. Omnedon (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, some editors favor ambiguous over precision. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
No one favors ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I guess you missed all of the discussions where a primary topic is unclear. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, B2C has no problem with ambiguity in titles as long as there are not two articles fighting for the same title; he defines that to be unambiguous. He has been very consistent about that, as you can see from the history of the "precision" criterion, in which he has consistently worked to say that precision is bad and that titles should have just enough to distinguish the articles, not to point out their topics. I've summarized some of that history before, at Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 36#Some history of the "Precision" provision.
B2C has not advocated doing away with recognizability, but has several times to rephrase it, like in 2009 when it tried to say what precision was good for: "Good article titles are precise enough to indicate the topic unambiguously, but not more so." he changed it into a more negative and discouraging form "Good article titles are only as precise as necessary to indicate the name of the topic unambiguously."
That was one subtle step, but he keeps after it, like in his proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_36#Proposal: clarifying PRECISION, which seeks to "clarify" by getting rid of any consideration for ambiguity in titles, by changing it to add the bolded part here: "Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously with respect to other Wikipedia titles."
Clearly, B2C has no problem with ambiguity, only with article title collisions. He specifically clarified this on that same page, saying, "Well, the point of WP:PRECISION is that we only care about it in a technical sense - that each title technically refers to precisely one article - and that that is inherently required by the software." He has never found consensus for this narrow interpretation, yet continues to push it through venues such as WP:D (here) and in numerous move discussions, which he tends to dominate once he engages. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
As for B2C's random examples, they are indeed random in the extreme, not examples of cases ambiguous enough that anyone would propose any of those strawman titles. Why not look instead of some proposals that some of the "usual suspects" did support recently, like Big, Brand New, and National Pension Scheme. I understand that some people did prefer those more ambiguous titles, but disambiguation would certainly help point out what the topic is, would it not? B2C would argue (has argued, on all of these, I think) that disambiguation is "unnecessary" and therefore forbidden in these cases. And none of these RMs were started by anyone I'd recognize as part of the same small group of usual suspects that consistently pushes for "more precision" in our titles as B2C puts it. These are just cases where (for some at least) the consensus was against his narrow interpretation, and the titles were judged to be too ambiguous to leave without disambiguation. More random examples will not illustrate anything. Looking at real cases where B2C pushes a narrow interpretation might; he typically does not have consensus on his side, but always pretends to. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Bit of a straw man, there, since Big and Brand New have multiple articles with the same title. Lady of Spain does not - there's one and only one encyclopedic topic to which that title refers. Why does that article need "(song)" tacked on the end when Bohemian Rhapsody, Barbie Girl, and I'm a Believer do not? Powers T 23:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, no, at least one other encyclopedic topic to which that title refers has been identified seven years ago. We can argue their relative merits (primary topic), but not that simple fact. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
What, you mean the thing that was a redlink until a few days ago, and is now just a redirect? And would you like to take some bets on what song is the title track for that album? Powers T 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
What difference would it make if the album was named after the same song? Any two different topics where one is named after another are still ambiguous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this discussion is primarily about me. I thought I had made myself clear, but here goes one more time.
  1. The article has been in the same place for 6 years, so
  2. It really isn't imperative to rename/move at the present time
  3. The inclusion of "(song}" on a song article is not misleading, helps readers and searchers and helps ensure continuity of placement of an article,
  4. I am neither for, nor against, the retention of "{song)" and my objections are based on 1, 2 and 3 above. Different articles I will view differently.
I know I have made myself clear over several articles on these points (some went in my favor, some against) and, quite frankly, I am fed up having to repeat and reword myself for those that will not understand the basic facts of my comments on Talk:Lady of Spain (song) and elsewhere. I have reached the end my ability to assume good faith of every editor who misreads, misquotes or refuses to understand my POV (no objections to those who genuinely do not agree with my POV). OTOH I welcome anybody who wishes to raise the matter, in a friendly way, on my talkpage. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to your argument regarding this particular move request in that discussion, so I needn't do so here. I will, however, address your frustration, which appears to stem from an inexplicable impression that everyone commenting on the matter (and possibly others) is focused on you.
The same issue arose at Talk:Lady of Spain (song), where you pointed out that a rationale (appearing in messages neither indented below yours nor mentioning you) had "nothing whatsoever" to do with your opposition and was "totally irrelevant to" your argument.
Now you've assumed that the above "discussion is primarily about [you]". On what basis? You aren't the only editor (or even the first) to have opposed the move in question.
Please try to consider the possibility that someone "who misreads, misquotes or refuses to understand [your] POV" might actually not be writing about you at all. —David Levy 08:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated titles

I propose that we make it part of this page's editing guidelines that parenthetical disambiguation render titles unambiguous. For example, Orange (film) redirects to the Orange disambiguation page because there are multiple films that are called "Orange"; each film's article therefore uses a fully disambiguating parenthetical, such as Orange (2012 film). Similarly, Party (album) redirects to Party (disambiguation) because there are multiple albums called "Party"; the articles about albums called "Party" are fully disambiguated, such as in the case of Party (Iggy Pop album). It has been argued in certain individual cases that the most prominent member of a particular category of thing should hold the less-disambiguated slot, thereby employing a partially disambiguated title. In the majority of cases, partially disambiguated titles have already been rejected through local consensus, but there is not anything in the guidelines at present to explicitly prevent partially disambiguated titles. I propose that we exclude partially disambiguated titles from our articles because the purpose of parenthetical disambiguation is to disambiguate; parenthetical disambiguation that does not disambiguate does not serve its purpose. The relevant guideline might be stated thus: "If parenthetical disambiguation is employed in an article's title, that parenthetical disambiguation should disambiguate fully by rendering the article's title solely applicable to the corresponding article and not to any other existing Wikipedia article." Neelix (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (although maybe tweak the wording slightly to make it more explicit). We have situations for example where Angel (TV series) is the article name for the 1999 TV series, yet other TV series called "Angel" also have articles, so this disambiguator could equally apply to these. The whole point of a disambiguator is to be unambiguous, yet this is not reflected in practice. See also Thriller (album). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should apply to the undisambiguated title only, not to partially disambiguated titles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The disambiguation guidelines handle the naming of disambiguation pages. Trying to dictate here naming conventions that contradict the naming conventions of other projects will not help the project. This should be proposed at the village pump or at the broader naming convention policy/guidelines (where I will happily support it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. I have restarted this discussion at the Village Pump here. Neelix (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Government Hill

The article Government Hill contains a lengthy enough hatnote to warrant a dab page. I would have created it already, but I'm unsure as to whether the current primary topic actually qualifies as such, or if the naming is due to that article being created before all the others. Just thought I would let everyone know in case anyone has more time to resolve this issue than I currently have. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 03:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, I removed all the extraneous links from the hatnotes - only the ambiguous title should be linked. That makes it a lot easier to read. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I boldly created the dab page at Government Hill (disambiguation). No opinion on which topic is primary, but I don't see why that determination should delay creation of a dab; it's easy enough to change the dab to reflect a change in primary topic. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Spiritual warfare

Thought I'd mention that somebody thinks we ought to make spiritual warfare a disambiguation page -- despite there being nothing at all to disambiguate -- apparently out of spite over the fact that his all-important Christian practice of it has to share the playground with others. At talk:Spiritual warfare. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does it need a hat link to Spiritual warfare (Christianity)?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't see why it would, anymore than for example airplane would need a hatlink to biplane or water would need a hatlnk to bottled water. It is simply one of many kinds of spiritual warfare, even if it's the only other kind with its own article -- which as I mention there exists only because Christian warrior-- er-- editors flatly refused to share a page with other well documented kinds of spiritual warfare, and kept deleting or suppressing sourced content. So they took their ball and went home, ie moved the page to Spiritual warfare (Christianity) and excised what now makes up the main Spiritual warfare article. The especially Christian form I guess could be mentioned more prominently if that would placate those who wish to divert all attention to their brand alone. But I doubt it would. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And here we go.... DeistCosmos (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"A disambiguation link doesn't have to repeat the page's title. It just has to be related." Yes, this is a pronouncement which was made today in the ongoing discussion of whether to turn Spiritual warfare into a disambiguation page in order to preserve the asserted primacy of Christianity as to this practice. Is this correct? Is this what disambiguation pages do now? Or is this simply what happens when editors with an agenda run amuck in a discussion on an unattended page? DeistCosmos (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." The disambiguated topic should be mentioned, and ideally discussed, in the linked article. Also, I would say that Spiritual warfare (Christianity) is a bad title, if it's discussing the same meaning of "spiritual warfare" as Spiritual warfare. Spiritual warfare in Christianity would be better. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There is an editor who needs guidance on appropriately creating disambiguation pages and appropriately using hatnotes

This discussion has been transported here from User talk:BD2412 for wider discussion:

Hello, BD2412. You may remember me from this discussion at Talk:Sexuality (disambiguation) when it was simply Talk:Sexuality. As I consider you an expert on disambiguation matters on Wikipedia, having seen you around and dealing with such matters, I am wondering if you feel that there is any way that you can help Jarble understand when to appropriately create a disambiguation page and when to appropriately add a hatnote. The editor often overtags, overlinks, adds inappropriate and/or redundant tags, links or hatnotes, and also often creates needless/redundant disambiguation pages. If you look at his talk page, you will see that he has been repeatedly advised and/or warned not to do these things.

Some examples of him not seeing that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and I am aware that this guideline was recently extensively discussed) are his edits to the Bladder page and to the Bladder (disambiguation) page (despite, that first time at the Bladder page, an editor stating in an edit summary that a primary topic was concluded), and his edits to the Sexual activity page that resulted in an overload of links being driven to it and you calling it "perhaps the most WP:DABCONCEPT page ever" before I redirected it back to where it was before. He also recently (today, May 13, in contrast to the May 14 Wikipedia time stamp of this post) redirected Sexual characteristics to Sexual characteristics (disambiguation), calling the redirect to the Sex organ article "misleading," a month after you redirected that page to the Sex organ article.

The edit history of the Male genitalia page and of the Female genitalia page, including today, also show Jarble's odd interpretation of what should be a disambiguation page. Those pages redirect to Sex organ because the male genitalia and female genitalia are sex organs and that article already disambiguates the different types of sex organs; therefore, what Jarble has tried to maintain at the Male genitalia and Female genitalia pages is completely redundant, as I've stated when reverting him on those matters, but he doesn't seem to understand that. And here and here are examples of his redundant/excessive hatnotes that I've reverted at the Sex organ article.

Furthermore, when he creates disambiguation pages, or wants something disambiguated, it's mostly because he's trying to have Wikipedia be more inclusive of non-human animal aspects. I don't know what else to state to him about these page/formatting issues. But because of the new notification system, the fact that I've mentioned and linked his name above, he will be aware of this message I've left you here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mainly, I'm just trying to reduce the prevalence of misleading redirect pages on Wikipedia (where there isn't a clear primary topic for a particular redirect page). I created those two disambiguation pages because it was apparent to me that those disambiguation pages had no clear primary topic (i. e., it isn't clear which use of the word was most common in the English language).
I think I understand your point now. Disambiguation pages should only be created when there is no clear "primary topic" for a given term, since the disambiguation pages could potentially be confusing for readers of Wikipedia, and distract them from the primary topic.
Also, I think I may be misunderstanding the definition of "primary topic" as it applies to Wikipedia. Does it refer to the most common use of a term in the English language, or does it refer to something entirely different? Jarble (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
In the cases I have complained about with regard to your edits, you are "fixing" things that don't need fixing and are not misleading. There isn't anything at all misleading about male genitalia and female genitalia redirecting to the Sex organ article, as I've clearly explained above. Creating a Male genitalia disambiguation page and a Female genitalia disambiguation page is completely redundant to the Sex organ article; that article already includes and therefore disambiguates those things. Like I stated, I honestly don't know what else to state to you about these page/formatting matters. I am hoping that someone can finally get you to understand what you are doing wrong. You still overlink, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Accidental overlinking isn't always easy to avoid. I don't usually read every single link in an article before adding another link, since it would be extremely tedious to do so, and I wish there were an easier way to detect redundant links in an article. Are there any automated tools that I can use to find redundant links in an article, and avoid the accidental creation of redundant links? Jarble (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22, please review WP:DABCONCEPT. We do not create disambiguation pages for broad topics. The existence of a disambiguation page implies that the terms on the page are wholly unrelated, except for a shared name - for example, the planet Mercury, the element Mercury, and the god Mercury. They can not be collectively referred to as "Mercuries" for any reason other than to group together all things referred to by the word "Mercury". By contrast, while it is true that "male genitalia" might refer to human genitals or animal genitals, it is still possible to write a single article on the general concept of genitals which encompasses both kinds due to relationships between them other than the descriptive term alone. That, in a nutshell, is what it means for term to be WP:DABCONCEPT to one another. In this case, Jarble is correct that Sex organ covers all of the topics regarding terms which could be referenced as "Male genitalia". It would be another matter if there was a planet by that name, or a notable album, although even then the primary topic would be the collection of uses covered at Sex organ. bd2412 T 01:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, I don't fully understand your statement, and have brought this discussion here to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for wider input so that this matter may be better settled. You believe that Jarble was correct to create the Bladder, Sexual activity, Male genitalia and Female genitalia disambiguation pages I mentioned above, despite all of these having a clear primary topic? The Bladder page, as I mentioned, even has WP:CONSENSUS that there is a primary topic. Your comments at Talk:Sexuality (disambiguation) seem to reflect a different stance on disambiguation pages than your statement above. I fail to see how it makes sense to have the Male genitalia and Female genitalia pages be disambiguation pages instead of being redirected to the Sex organ article. It's not like Jarble was creating a Male genitalia article and a Female genitalia article (which I also don't believe are needed any more than a Genitalia article is needed, but should rather be covered at the Sex organ article, considering that sex organ and genitalia are synonyms[1][2] and such articles would be redundant to the Sex organ article; there is no reason to have three articles exist to point people to all aspects of male and female sex organs); Jarble was creating pages to direct readers to articles about sex organs when the Sex organ article already does that. He can also overdo it, creating disambiguation pages specifically about humans and then ones specifically about non-human animals, with the same links, as I and many others have often seen him do such things. There is also the matter of his redundant, excessive hatnotes, such as the ones I mentioned above and as currently shown at the Reproductive system article.
Also, I noticed that you, minutes ago, created the Sexual characteristics article, though you previously seemed to believe that it should redirect to the Sex organ article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought my statement was clear in explaining that we should not have disambiguation pages for things like "male genitalia", which have only one meaning, although that meaning may arise in different contexts. As for sexual characteristics, my initial determination was that the term was WP:DABCONCEPT. If something is a broad concept topic, we can write an article for it, or we can redirect it to the article covering the topic from the next higher level of abstraction. In this case, merging into sexual dimorphism would be fine also. bd2412 T 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
By "Flyer22, please review WP:DABCONCEPT. We do not create disambiguation pages for broad topics." and "Jarble is correct that Sex organ covers all of the topics regarding terms which could be referenced as 'Male genitalia'.", it seemed to me that you were stating that I was in the wrong and that Jarble was in the right. As shown above, it was me pointing out that the Sex organ article covers all of the topics regarding terms which could be referenced as "male genitalia." I was the one stating that Male genitalia and Female genitalia should not be disambiguation pages, but should instead redirect to the Sex organ article that covers all the aspects of male and female genitalia. As for not creating a disambiguation page for broad topics, that is the opposite of what I have seen for most disambiguation pages; then again, per WP:DABCONCEPT, those disambiguation pages make it clear what they are by having the word disambiguation in their titles (and if they don't, they will eventually). As for writing an article for a broad topic, I am fine with that as long as the subject does not have a WP:PRIMARY TOPIC that it should be redirected to, is not a synonym for a term that is already covered on Wikipedia unless it's clear that the synonym should have its own article because it's not always a synonym for the other term, is not overwhelmingly redundant to another article (basically, what Wikipedia calls Wikipedia:Content forking). Right now, the Sexual characteristics article is overwhelmingly redundant to the Sex organ article. As for merging the Sexual characteristics article into the Sexual dimorphism article, it's probably better to do the merge the other way around because sexual characteristics is a more common term, at least among laypeople, than sexual dimorphism. Either way, the Secondary sex characteristic article, which is a small article and is significantly redundant to the Sexual dimorphism article, should be merged with the article once the topic is finally covered under a single title on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But then again, and like I considered stating in my 13:40 reply, a lot of researchers and therefore dictionaries and books addressing anatomy mostly or only use the term sexual characteristics to refer to obvious external differences between the sexes while using the term sexual dimorphism to refer to those and broader differences. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I may have gotten some names mixed up there. My apologies. bd2412 T 23:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. And I'm also thinking that the Sexual characteristics article, if we go by that title instead of Sexual dimorphism, or keep the articles as separate articles, should be retitled to Sex characteristics because it's a more accurate title; by that, I mean "sex" as it directly relates to being male or female vs. "sexual." I'm sure that's also why the title of the Secondary sex characteristic article uses "sex" instead of "sexual." Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
In order to avoid future edit wars (which I am guilty of starting, unfortunately), I will take discussions about controversial redirect pages to WP:Redirects for discussion instead of trying to fix them based on my own (potentially biased and/or flawed) judgment. By doing this, I hope that I will be able to avoid making the same mistakes that I've made in the past. Jarble (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't we simply use "(dab)"

it's kind of a pain in the ass to constantly be typing out "(disambiguation)" for those "intentional" dablinks. Perhaps we could simply type "(dab)," ie John Adams (dab) or Apple (dab)? I see no other potential use for "(dab)" to confuse this with. And then, if not too much trouble, an automated tool can change all these to the fully spelled out form, if this is seen as needed? DeistCosmos (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not see it as needed. And I think "dab" is less clear than "disambiguation". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
But much easier to type/spell. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Convenience for editors is secondary to usability for readers. older ≠ wiser 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Right: it is easier (not much easier) to type/spell and it's less clear, which leads to the conclusion it's not needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
We should resist tendency for backroom jargon to spill into mainspace, which includes links and hovertext, where it may confuse readers and prospective editors. "Disambiguation" is already pretty strange, but a definition is qucik and easy to get. "dab" would be very confusing for someone who doesn't already know what it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
"Disambiguation" isn't jargon? Anyway, you know how if you make a redirect to a redirect the computer comes along and fixes it, this could work the same way. So if somebody needs to fix 1000 intentional dablinks he can simply put "(dab)" for every one and eventually the computer can come along and spell t hese out as well. No? DeistCosmos (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not jargon: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disambiguation . And no, intentionally making a double redirect to save 12 keystrokes and relying on the bot to fix the double redirect would still be wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it may still be jargon -- having a dictionary entry doesn't necessarily mean it is not also jargon. But having a clear definition and currency outside Wikipedia makes it highly preferable to the wikipedia slang neologism "dab". older ≠ wiser 13:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Touchy

Aaron Schwartz. Three are actors, one of which is an actor/lawyer, and the fourth was the Wikipedian/programmer/activist. There is no DAB page yet. I can't blame anyone for running away from this DAB issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Neverendum

This is a common term in Canada and possibly in the UK. If there are more then we may need to create a dab to list them. Even with the two we may need a dab. I know that we are not a dictionary but readers may be interested in the others when searching one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

What Wikipedia topics are ambiguous with this common term? If it's a common term but there's no ambiguity on Wikipedia, then interested readers should use Wiktionary for the definition of the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for it. I first heard it regarding the 'endless' referendums on the separation of Quebec from Canada. I think they use the same term regarding Scotland separation. --Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like there's a need for a new Wiktionary entry, not a new Wikipedia disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The last time I edited Wiktionary I almost got in trouble by re-creating congress of baboons as OR out of thin air. This may be a similar case so I will resolve it here and put it on my watchlist. If anyone cares more than us then just remove the resolved tag.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a neologism. I'm not sure what wiktionary's policy on neologisms is, but I'd think it would need to be recognized as a term with currency in the language by other established dictionaries or lexicographers. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Newer Canadian dictionaries may have it. The Scottish article only has it in a reference that may be referring to the Canadian term.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a primary topic for Avatar?

See: Talk:Avatar#Requested_move_2013 --B2C 17:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We're going to continue to have a lot of case-by-case argument like this unless we can rephrase WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to make the default be "no primary topic" when the term is this ambiguous, or when popularity and longterm significance do not align in support of one. In this case, the topic that Nuclear Warfare chose as primary in the last RM gets barely over 10% of traffic; it appears that he did not consider "no primary topic" among the feasible options there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the long-term significance criterion should be removed altogether because it is already reasonably factored into the usage criterion, and just creates conflict. However, I'm conceding that consensus is not with me on this.

Taking that into account, I support adding clarification to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that states that when the two criteria are in conflict - when each clearly indicates a particular topic different from the one indicated by the other - that the finding should be that there is no primary topic, and the dab page should be at the base name. If anyone proposes specific wording that says this, I will support it. --B2C 20:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd go further than that. You want to be able to take any indication of a primary topic and go with it. I'd rather make it more of an exception, and only allow very clear primarytopic claims, and resolve ambiguity on disambig pages more, and with hatnotes and ambiguous titles less (like we did with Big and Brand New). If anyone proposes specific wording that says this, I will support it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I was with you right up to where you mentioned Big and Brand New as examples of what you intend. Those are extremely bad examples in my opinion as in both cases there are no other wikipedia articles to seriously contest whether there is a primary topic. Disambiguation on Wikipedia means just that; it does not mean disambiguating dictionary definitions of words that will likely never have an encyclopedic article written about them. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand these are not cases that everyone likes, but they are examples of where the community has stuck more to the position that ambiguity is more than just article name collision. This is the main point on which B2C differs from so many of us. Sounds like your position is somewhere in between, which is OK, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
How does my position differ from Bkonrad's, or from that of many others?

Disambiguation in general, and primary topic in particular, has always been limited to the scope of actual topics covered on WP, for very good reasons. There have always been those who have tried to expand that scope, and they sometimes succeed in certain isolated cases, but that just introduces inconsistency in our titling. If we were to do that consistently, countless articles currently located at their base names (and for which dab pages exist at BASENAME (disambiguation)) would have to be moved. And that would lead to many of our readers being taken to those dab pages rather than to the articles they seek. --B2C 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The scope should include common dictionary words because our readers don't know that we ignore them, and indeed the line is unclear with many mere terms having articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll let him answer. I supposed that when he said "I was with you" he meant he was not with you. I disagree that "countless articles currently located at their base names (and for which dab pages exist at BASENAME (disambiguation)) would have to be moved". But yes, it is possible to find some that I would argue to move to be disambig pages, like ' (yes, that ASCII apostrophe is an article name), and GRU (I'm having trouble find more examples; expect there are quite a few, though not "uncountable"). Many more ambiguous titles with disambig pages that need to be fixed do have other articles competing for the name so I'm OK letting us agree to just work on those for now; like Milia and Lili. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow all the hypothetical minutiae, but I would in general support language with a stronger default position of having a disambiguation page at the base name where there is substantive disagreement as to which topic among two or more existing topics in Wikipedia articles is primary. I'm rather less inclined to codify coverage of dictionary definitions that do not have articles in consideration of primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia is supposed to be a long term, universal reference work, it should always take an historical perspective, and so "long-term significance" should be virtually everything. "Usage" should be unimportant, except where talking of long-term usage. We should not be chasing our noses by altering titles according to current trends in usage. That said, where there is no consensus, the undisambiguated title should be the disambiguation page, or redirect to a disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
In light of your last statement, why did you oppose the Avatar move away from the primarytopic claim? Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Because avatar is an extreme exception. One meaning has thousands of years of long term significance, AND all other uses borrow or derive from it. Everybody who uses any of the derived usages SHOULD be aware of the origin. Just as gross turnover or number of customers doesn't contribute to meeting WP:CORP, we should not be influenced by extreme commercial success of a recent movie, amongst the western wealthy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a valid and reasonable opinion, Smokey, but it's contrary to what I encountered on WP when I first started editing here, and that hasn't changed AFAIK. The fundamental concepts of using the most commonly used names for titles, and choosing titles based on likelihood of the corresponding topics being sought, is quite different from the approach you espouse. Of course it's not a problem where the two approaches indicate the same title. It is a problem where they conflict, like at Avatar and countless ( I can't count them at least) other situations. --B2C 01:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the early practices were fully considered. "that we have long done it that way" is a very poor answer to "why do we do that?" Better serving the majority of searches is not the same as being a well organised reference work. We are not competing with google. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
You're certainly not the only one who holds this opinion (or a similar one), but I don't think this view is supported by anything close to consensus. I also disagree that the early practices were not fully considered. Given redirects, how we title our articles has very little to do with how organized we are. For example, we can move Avatar to XX$123Y#X, and as long as Avatar (or Avatar (Hinduism), and the appropriate entry on the dab page link to it, the organization is just as good. The idea that we should try to maximize the number of users who get to the articles they are seeking in the fewest clicks reasonably possible has always been an important goal. Educating users about the existence of topics they are not seeking has never been a goal, so far as I know. --B2C 09:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
"Educating users about the existence of topics they are not seeking has never been a goal". When put like that, I don't disagree. Allowing editors to easily discover related topics is, and that is why we have a lot of wikilinks in articles. The thing with avatar is that Avatar (computing) and Avatar (2009 film) borrow from the ancient culturally entrenched meaning so strongly that to understand the modified term one must have some appreciation of the original term. Alternatively, one might say that the ledes of the different articles should cover the etymology. In the RM, I took the position of asserting predominance (not liking "primary") of the ancient term. If that is not the consensus, then having avatar become the disambiguation page, and there prominently linking to the hindu term, is very easy to live with. More usually, I prefer disambiguation pages as landing pages for too-simple searches because they quickly and simply educate the reader on the full range of topics available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe: I agree that the original avatar's millenia of long-term significance provides weight to its primacy, as does the derivative nature of other uses. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As many opinions as editors?

It seems that we have these proposed ways of dealing with the question:

  • B2C: Prefer to get rid of the "long-term significance" criterion and just look at usage statistics; but lacking consensus for that, say no primary topic when the two criteria clearly indicate different articles.
  • SmokeyJoe: "long-term significance" should be virtually everything (also "where there is no consensus, the undisambiguated title should be the disambiguation page" but not for Avatar). Also "scope should include common dictionary words".
  • Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser): "only allow very clear primarytopic claims, and resolve ambiguity on disambig pages more" (quoting the part of my own (Dicklyon's) words that I think he's saying he agrees with)
  • Dicklyon: Like Bkonrad, primary topic only when the criteria align, but also including non-article-title words in the ambiguity consideration (like SmokeyJoe says), as we did with Big and Brand New and like part of what SmokeyJoe is saying.

Instead of more discussion among the four of us, input from others might be more helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  • To put my position in my own words, I support a "stronger default position of having a disambiguation page at the base name where there is substantive disagreement as to which topic among two or more existing topics in Wikipedia articles is primary" and would prefer not to "codify coverage of dictionary definitions that do not have articles in consideration of primary topic". older ≠ wiser 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Adding my own
  • JHunterJ: The navigational goals of disambiguation are to minimize surprise while getting readers to their sought articles efficiently. Usage statistics meet the latter, but occasionally miss the former. "Long-term significance" is a rough way of trying to address the former; if only one meaning would be unsurprising to nearly all English-speaking readers but is not the most used, the most used but possibly surprising topic should not be primary. If multiple topics would be known to nearly all English-speaking readers, use the usage guidelines to determine if any of them is the primary. If none of the topics would be completely unsurprising, use the usage guidelines to determine if any of them is the primary. Ignore non-article topics like dictionary defs of "Big" and "Brand New" entirely. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Ignore the surprise of having Big take you to the movie? Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    While the existence of surprise there is debatable, the alternative is easy enough: create encyclopedic content on the unsurprising topic of "bigness" at the base name, or redirect the base name to such content on an existing article. In the absence of encyclopedic coverage of bigness, yes, recognize that an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    Probably Big was not a good example, as there actually are quite a few other topics named Big; so that was a straightforward popularity versus ambiguity question. There are also about 10 things named Brand New. So I misremembered what the issues were on those; and I can't think of any examples of what I had in mind. So let's forget that for now; we have a lot of agreement among us, though SmokeyJoe is toward one side, wanting Avatar to be an exception, and B2C is still somewhat off the other way, I think, in wanting to have primary topics usually, except "when each clearly indicates a particular topic different from the one indicated by the other", which would at least knock out Avatar. I'm still waiting for a concrete proposal if anyone is bold enough to make one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    I don't want want primary topics "usually". I want primary topics treated as primary topics whenever a topic meets the primary topic criteria (esp. "much more likely ..."). Whether that's usually or rarely or somewhere in between I don't know and seems irrelevant to me. I agree with Bkonrad that when there is substantive disagreement about which of two (or more) topics meets that criteria, that should be treated as no primary topic. --B2C 05:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    The number of things named "Title" is not evidence for or against a primary topic. If the number is 1, then there's no ambiguity; if the number is 2 or 100 or 5,000,000, one might be the primary topic if it is much more used than any other and more used than all the others combined. Too often arguments of "there are so many topics, no one of them could be primary" are put forward, and they shouldn't be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'd be more inclined to agree if that latter clause had a "much" in it: "much more used than all the others combined." With that missing, people are often happy to accept ambiguous titles just because they get a majority of the traffic (and even when they get a lot of that traffic due to having been chosen as primary). Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'd be more inclined to disagree with that addition. With it, people would often be happy to ignore actual primary topics just because it's too easy to argue over whether a particular proportion counts as "much more". Hypothetical case: 50 topics, 49 of them each get 1% of the traffic, one of them gets 51% of the traffic. With "much more", that would yield no primary topic when obviously there's a primary topic. But I'd have no issue with adding instructions on how to create "measurement redirects" and go with no primary topic arrangement for a period of time (3 months?) and then check the usage to check the unbiased-by-arrangement traffic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Re: "even when they get a lot of that traffic due to having been chosen as primary". I know of no good reason to believe that the title of an article, whether it is a base name or disambiguated, has much significant effect on the overall traffic that article receives. I think this is because most traffic for most articles ultimately comes through Google, and, with time, Google automatically puts the most popular stuff first, regardless of what the WP title is. So whether Madonna is at Madonna or at Madonna (entertainer) is not going to affect page view stats, because when you Google for Madonna the results will take you to directly to the Madonna article regardless of its title. Support: Madonna (entertainer) consistently gets over 300,000 hits per month[3], while the dab page at Madonna gets about 30k[4].

    However, titles still matter for the relative minority of searches that are done via WP search.

    This is the best of both worlds. We use page view stats, which are driven by choices made by mostly by people using Google, to determine relative likelihoods of articles being sought, to decide which if any article should be at the base name of a given term. --B2C 19:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

    Google aside, anyone who actually types the term into WP will go there, as you note – that's not a negligible effect of primary topic choice on traffic, is it? If that effect were negligible, why would people argue that the term should go to the most-sought place? Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    In terms of how we choose our titles, I don't think it matters whether it's only 10% or 1% or .1% of our users that go through WP search rather than Google. Those who do should be treated well, and that includes trying to get as many of them as possible to the article they are seeking. Hence PRIMARYTOPIC. --B2C 23:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    JHJ, we'll have to agree to disagree then. Seems to me that if only 51% of hits go to one topic, that topic should never be considered primary; the disambiguation would be a better place for readers to end up, to see what their options are for more clearly saying what they're looking for. I'd put the threshold more like 80%. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    Even with that approach (which I'd still disagree with), 80% is ridiculously high. 60% would mean that half again as many readers are looking for one topic vs. all the others, and 66.67% would mean that twice as many readers are looking for one topic vs. all the others. 80% would mean that there's no primary unless at least 4 times as many readers are looking for one topic vs. all others combined; that's excessive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    On the contrary, that's too low. 80% means that you're sending 1 in 5 readers to an article that they didn't mean to see, forcing loading times for a whole article, and risking disorienting them. That's unbearably high. Only when there's clear indication that readers wouldn't be surprised by arriving at the article they didn't mean, then that article can be considered primary, irrespective of the number of readers looking for it. Diego (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    On the contrary, that's too high. 80% means that you're increasing 4 in 5 readers from 0 click-throughs to 1, in order to reduce 1 in 5 readers from 2 click-throughs to 1. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    And that's a problem, why? Clicks from a DAB page are extremely lightweight, but clicks from the wrong article can take a long load time and produce confusion. Not all click-throughs are created equal. Diego (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    I completely agree. Arriving at a disambiguation page should not be astonished for someone who has just entered a too-simple search (unless they are astonished at how little they knew). Search-optimised titling reinforces confidence in a simplistic view of what information there is, and this is contrary to the purpose of the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's a problem of inefficiency. Clicks from a hatnote on an article are also lightweight, and some disambiguation pages are larger than some primary topic articles. And the "reinforces confidence in a simplistic" bit is an opinion I disagree with. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    (after ec) While I generally agree that the bar should be higher, I'm not sure any fixed numerical percentage will really solve problems. But on the other hand, how do you measure the lack of surprise? older ≠ wiser 13:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not actually proposing a number, just saying the "much" would move things in a good direction, JHJ's click-counting argument notwithstanding. For a name like Dr. Zhivago, is anyone disappointed or inconvenienced by ending up at the disambig page, even though the film gets something like 70% of the traffic? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    My argument is not a click-counting argument. The click-counting is an attempted counter to Diego Moya's attempted counter of my argument. Saying "much" is not a good direction. If we want to swing the pendulum more to surprise-avoidance than usage-serving, I would suggest we find external sources to defer to -- if the topic is unambiguously covered at the ambiguous title in the recognized reference, it can go to the base name in WP; if none of the recognized references handle the ambiguous topic, the WP dab page would automatically go to the base name. Possible recognized references would be things like "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" and "Encyclopaedia Britannica". -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    A useful way of looking at it though, I am not sure that any formula will be perfect and there will always have to be room for editors to apply judgement. Such sources are helpful but themselves culturally biased and things do change with time. In the cases quoted above, "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" is expressly about US culture, and the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" may not reflect the present position (even if reliance is not on the 1911 edition!). That is not saying that US usage (or anyone else's) is unimportant, but it has a great significance for the 'surprise factor'. One of the problems with the click counting approach is that it often reflects the interests of a limited or specialised culture - it might be true that 'most Americans' can be expected to know of a TV programme popular with US teenagers, but it can be completely baffling to anyone where the programme may never have been broadcast. On the other hand, where the dispute is entirely about primacy within that cultural universe, and the subject title is unlikely to be sought by anyone else, as with some song titles, knowing that specialist and therefore narrowly focussed reference works attach significance to a particular past or original usage can be of great importance where most current searches are for some recent release. Editors would always do well to stand back and realise that WP is for others who may not share their viewpoint. --AJHingston (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    The two references were listed as examples that would occupy a longer list. I have no doubt the argument space would simply shift to which external references to rely upon; my default view agrees that the formulas are imperfect, and that "much more than any other and more than all others combined" is imperfect and sufficient--if simply applied, WP may get some arrangements "wrong" but benefit anyway by avoiding arguments. A pipe dream, admittedly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    Examples, of course. But I think that the mistake would be to think that there ever could be a definitive list of 'authorities' except in some specialist areas. I support the approach but I think that the onus would have to remain with engaging editors to show that these external sources were relevant and appropriate. So in my example of debate over primacy of a song title, a work on the history of the American musical might be very relevant, whilst it might not be appropriate to use such a source to settle a row where there are differences between, say, US and British associations of words. It seems to me that any attempt to find a formula still has to allow for discussion and judgement however objective it is designed to be. --AJHingston (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well known partial disambiguations can have primary topics

I suggest the wording at Wikipedia:DAB#Partially_disambiguated_titles goes too far. The opening sentence is:

Only non-disambiguated terms have primary topics.

I, for one disagree, and am not convinced the community supports this absolute statement. There can be no question as to which album is the topic of Thriller (album). Do we really need to disambiguate it further? Is it not accurate and useful to say that the Michael Jackson album is clearly the primary topic for Thriller (album)?

I suggest adding consideration for well known topics with partially disambiguated titles, like Thriller (album). Partially disambiguated terms can have have primary topics, if the topics are well known and the other uses of that ambiguous partially disambiguated term are not nearly as well known. --B2C 19:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not accurate to say that there is a primary topic for "Thriller (album)", unless the title "Thriller (album)" exists in reliable sources and otherwise has a primary topic per the criteria given at for primary topics. As long as it's not accurate, it's not useful either. But as before, dictating the selection of qualifiers for topics, such as the additional consideration sought, would need a broader audience than this project, and should also go to the village pump or the naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that you bring it up, that dicussion hardly resulted in consensus support for this language. --B2C 20:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the parenthesized part of a title with parenthetic disambiguation is never part of what is expected to be used in reliable sources to refer to the topic in question. So the fact that we won't find references to "Thriller (album)" in reliable sources is no reason to say that the album is not the primary topic for "Thriller (album)". What that means is: among topics named Thriller that are albums, this album is primary. --B2C 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the bold insertion of that section with the absolute wording that did not achieve consensus support[5]. --B2C 22:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've requested that an uninvolved admin evaluate and close the discussion at the Village Pump.

I suggest we not edit this page based on any conclusions about what if anything was resolved there made by editors involved in that discussion, and wait for the findings of an uninvolved admin. Thanks. I, for one, will abide by the result of such evaluation. --B2C 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Needless delay. The bold addition is supported by the discussion there, by the talk here, and by two subsequent editors. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
What's the hurry? You can't wait a few hours (hopefully that's all it should take) for an uninvolved admin to check it out? --B2C 18:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no hurry. What's the hurry to delete it? You couldn't wait a few hours for the uninvolved admin to check it out without re-deleting it? -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree that a film or an album that is the overwhelming most likely film or album sought under a particular name should be the primary topic of the title "Foo (album)" or "Foo (film)". Thriller is an excellent example of such a situation, with there being one album that is by far the most notable album of this name. bd2412 T 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is/was at the village pump, since its impact is broader than dab pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
You were saying something about "only a few hours"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David MacGill

It would be interesting to see what other dabbers think here. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Input welcome

From experienced DAB-bers at a rename discussion here Talk:Sarah_Brown_(wife_of_Gordon_Brown)#Requested_move_6_.28June_2013.29. FWIW, this is #6.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

List disambiguation first over set index article with same coverage

Based upon the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 37#List disambiguation first over set index article with same coverage, and seeing no further discussion and no remaining objections. I will make the change to the text. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc on disambiguation to Wikisource articles

Discussion on the merits of disambiguation to Wikisource articles. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am interested to know whether adding names to disambiguation pages and hat notes where a Wikipedia article does not exist and linking to articles in other PD encyclopaedias on Wikisource is considered desirable.

For examples see:

-- PBS (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously I consider it desirable, since I'm the one who has been doing it. It seems sort of an intermediate approach for people who aren't quite notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and yet perhaps might be of interest for some readers. Another example of this intermediate approach can be found at Shirley, Massachusetts, under the "Notable residents" section: Leonard Moody Parker was notable enough for Appletons', and perhaps even for Wikipedia, but perhaps not. But it seemed worthwhile to bring him to the attention of readers interested in Shirley. For some towns, I have found several of these, and I think they give a flavor of the activity in the town and the people involved back in the old days. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • On a surname page, there may be some basis for including a redlink with reference linking to a source in wikisource. I don't think such inclusions are appropriate on a disambiguation page. The hatnote just looks very weird and I would not include links like that in a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for external links in hatnotes: I don't mind links to (any) other Wikimedia Projects in articles (including disambiguation pages) as long as they are still relevant, but I believe hatnotes should only contain links to pages in Wikipedia itself and as few of them as possible. See also WP:ELHAT. smtchahaltalk 07:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No to cluttering hatnotes as in the William Spry case, but Yes to reasonable use of Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc. in dab pages. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The hatnote does look a little odd to me now, and I can't imagine I've done that often. Of course I would do it differently now. {{Cite Appletons'}} has changed: back then the publisher and editor weren't displayed (the short parameter allows that information to be suppressed now), there was no way of specifying an alternative display, and no way of supressing the icon. I've implemented these changes, and I think this reduces the clutter quite a bit. I wouldn't have bothered if the other fellow was hopelessly obscure. But although there are fewer people in Barbadoes than in Utah (?), they are somewhat comparable, both being governors. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That still looks too weird for use in a hatnote. Disambiguation pages (and hatnotes) are not incubator lists for potential articles. Besides, there already is at least one other article on a person with the same name, William Spry (British Army officer). I've created William Spry (disambiguation) and move the reference to Appletons to the entry for Spry on List of Governors of Barbados. I suggest this should be recommended practice rather than opening the door to including references on disambiguation pages and hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is of course not uncommon to include names of parents, and children with one or two lines of their biography in biograph articles, and include as a reference a link to a full biography on Wikisource, this is accepted practice. In the case of surname articles such as Stein (surname), do you think it better to placed the link in brackets as has been done in this case or place it in a full footnote? Does this practice of black links open the door to non-notable people being included in a list of surnames for example on Funk (surname) there are two link (to wikisource articles) and a further two black names without a source. To exaggerate to make the point, there is a Dormer (surname) article to which all the children of William Dormer could be included. The are a lot of editors who's primary interest is in the genealogy and not the notability of biographical articles (hence the inclusion of notable and non-notable children in the William Dormer Infobox causing the children section to dominate the box with no mention in the box of his notability), who would like to expand surname articles to be much more than navigation tools to articles on notable people. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of external links for disambiguation. I have long felt that users should be able to cope with looking something up in Wikipedia and not finding it. The standard of "Do we have a Wikipedia article that provides any information on this topic?" seems to me to be clear and relevant criteria for whether we should help readers seeking that topic. I strongly oppose any movement toward the criteria, "Is there some other place on the Internet that provides any information on this topic?" (I don't even like sending users to Wiktionary; if they want a dictionary definition, they can go to a dictionary themselves instead of searching an encyclopedia for any random word and expecting to be catered to, perhaps at the expense of creating clutter for people looking up genuinely encyclopedic topics. That's my personal, curmudgeonly opinion.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ELs in hatnotes", but I can imagine cases where a link to Wikisource might be appropriate within the disambiguation. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The use case I'd considered was US Supreme Court cases. Essentially always notable, but we're missing many of those cases on ENWIKI, and I know that the English Wikisource has quite a number of primary SCOTUS decisions. If Fromquelllent v. 42 pounds of bacon were a SCOTUS case, Fromquelllent were a common abbreviation for it in the law books, and we had a no article on the case in ENWIKI, but did have the decision on Wikisource, , I could see a Wikisource link at the Fromquelllent dab page. I'd oppose any widespread rollout of any WS item to all the places it could occur on ENWIKI, but where there's a notable topic or even close, no appropriate ENWIKI content, and solid Wikisource content, I think we make the encyclopedia better by inclusion.
With regard to the specific examples in the original discussion, I'm mixed, but lean toward support. Would I prefer an ENWIKI article in those cases? Of course. WIll providing readers with an outside reliable source for the material that they could use as a source in writing such an article increase the chances that we'll eventually get such an article? I'd guess so. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I made the claim that knowing that a public domain, decent biography already exists on someone might lead someone to throw together an article, I decided to take my own advice. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If the consensus is that linking to Wikisource articles is to be permitted for dab pages then consideration needs to be given to changing the wording of the disambiguation editing guideline in the following sections: Sister projects, References and External links, because AFAICT the current wording is against adding the necessary links to accommodate such linking. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Wikipedia is not a repository of links, remove from all places where this is so, and inmeditately stop inserting new links. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per User:Incnis MrsiNo to cluttering hatnotes as in the William Spry case, but Yes to reasonable use of Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc. in dab pages. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the general practice of links outside the en.wikipedia in dab hatnotes; however, I agree that a limited exception for some types of directly pertinent Wiktionary links might be appropriate for hatnotes. I am not open to other Wikisources in dab hatnotes or disambiguation pages. While I regard actual disambiguation pages in a slightly different light than hatnotes, because there, there is room for more latitude; nevertheless, where there is no mention of a topic (or individual) in the en.wikipedia, there need be no entry on the disambiguation page. I agree with older ≠ wiser that disambiguation pages (and hatnotes) are not incubator lists for potential articles. Stick with redlink specifics with a blue link to the incorporating en.wikipedia article. If you feel the need to include an unmentioned topic on a disambiguation page, expand the broader topic area to include an appropriate mention of the topic, or possibly create a referenced article on the topic, showing its notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • oppose ELs in hatnotes, support in DABs on a case-by-case basis Joe Decker basically makes my point above. There are cases where inclusion is ok - but this should not lead to a wholesale spamming of DAB pages by miscellaneous trivia from wiktionary/etc. Such a link should usually only exist where (a) It is quite possible we will write an article on this in the future or (b) While the subject itself does not merit an article for whatever reason, it is nonetheless in the interest of the reader coming to the DAB page to be linked out to something useful on wikisource.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose in hatnotes, support in DABs, per a multitude above. –Quiddity (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Erm, most commenters seem to oppose using on dab pages. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Can someone stop by Talk:Riviera (disambiguation) and take a look at Riviera and Riviera (disambiguation)? User:Clarityfiend split Riviera a few months back and has all the geographical regions called Riviera at "Riviera", and everything else directly known as Riviera (including geographical places that aren't regions) at "Riviera (disambiguation)". Clarityfiend feels that the first page is a list, and the second page is a disambig page; I believe they're both disambig pages, and should be re-merged into an admittedly rather long single disambig page, as I don't believe readers will understand the distinction, or if the distinction is all that useful. Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tough call. But I'm not an expert on distinguishing between lists and dabs. --B2C 06:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Did I mess up?

I just added few details to Key (surname). Should I do the rest or undo the ones I added detail to. The list may be confusing to many readers who don't know first names well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You may want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Famous#Link to the Celebrity article??

Opinions are needed on this matter. It's about whether or not the Famous disambiguation page should link to the Celebrity article, like we do for the Fame disambiguation page, considering that most of our readers are going to be looking for a general topic about being famous when typing "fame" or "famous" into the Wikipedia search bar. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Partially disambiguated page names

The need to revise this section's wording was noted previously. Some of it is uninformative and potentially confusing/misleading.
It contains an acknowledgement that partially disambiguated page names can sometimes redirect to articles, but the earlier statement that "only non-disambiguated terms have primary topics" seems directly contradictory. (It's intended to refer to articles' actual titles, but this is unclear.)
The phrase "does not introduce additional ambiguity" is vague and practically indecipherable outside the context of the discussion in which it arose. And the actual reason behind the practice of redirecting a partially disambiguated page name to an article (as opposed to a disambiguation page) isn't covered at all.
I edited the section based on the aforementioned discussion (and added an example taken directly therefrom). Neelix (the text's original author) reverted, stating that "the alterations are contrary to consensus as determined at VPP".
My goal was to enhance the section's clarity and improve its grammar, not to alter its intended meaning. I'd appreciate an explanation of how my wording is inconsistent with the established consensus. —David Levy 15:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree the section is confusing. A redirect can be the primary topic for an article with a different title. It seems helpful to clarify that the guidance is about article titles. And it probably should be noted that there are many exceptions to this new "rule" and that the consensus for this rule was rather limited and shouldn't be interpreted as giving license to undiscussed page moves. older ≠ wiser 15:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be glad for the section to be reworded for clarity. My concern with the previous rewording by David Levy was that it suggested that partially disambiguated titles can be redirected to articles rather than disambiguation pages in cases "provided that one is considered a much more likely target than all others combined and contains a hatnote directing readers to other possible targets." This is the opposite of what was decided at VPP, and counteracts the good that this guideline is intended to accomplish. Yes, there are cases in which partially disambiguated titles should be redirected to articles rather than disambiguation pages, but those cases are the ones in which "such redirection does not introduce additional ambiguity," as the guideline currently states. For example, Left Behind (film) redirects to Left Behind: The Movie even though there is another film called "Left Behind" (Left Behind: World at War). However, the title "Left Behind: The Movie" could itself refer to Left Behind: World at War, therefore the hatnote linking to Left Behind: World at War would be required on the Left Behind: The Movie article anyway; no additional ambiguity is introduced. Angel (TV series) should not redirect to Angel (1999 TV series); there is no point for the article to be located at "Angel (1999 TV series)" if it does. A hatnote should not be required on that article, because the title is not ambiguous. If we redirect partially disambiguated titles to articles in cases where additional ambiguity is introduced, we will continue to retain the concept of second-tier primary targets, which generates lengthy and unnecessary discussion. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No one other than you mentioned the confusing "no additional ambiguity" concept, which doesn't accurately reflect actual practice (the description of which you omitted and now oppose including). The agreed-upon change was to stop using partially disambiguated terms as article titles, which has no bearing on the resultant redirects' targets.
There might be consensus to move Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), but I doubt very much that there's consensus to redirect Thriller (album) to the Thriller disambiguation page, which would be extremely counterproductive (because an overwhelming majority of persons arriving at Thriller (album) seek the article about the Michael Jackson album). —David Levy 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Good example David. I concur - there are certainly cases where partially-disambiguated pages could/should go directly to articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I await your reply. Assuming that the discussion resulted in consensus for change, please explain how this includes a concept not covered in the proposal and mentioned by no one other than you. —David Levy 20:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Having received no further response, I reinstated my revision. JHunterJ then edited the section in a manner that seems to essentially undo the change discussed at the village pump.
For the record, I neither endorse nor contest the discussion's outcome and don't wish to involve myself in the dispute. I object only to the inclusion of changes that were not discussed.
Regarding JHunterJ's revision, the relevance of "the project naming conventions" is unclear, so I removed this text. I believe that we should explain why it sometimes is appropriate to redirect a partially disambiguated phrase to an article (as I attempted to in the text that JHunterJ replaced), but for the time being, I've left the section silent on this matter. —David Levy 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
There was no consensus at the Village Pump to formalize the option for "Thriller (album)". I don't want to see these guidelines endorse that arrangement, which is just as silly as "base name" redirecting to "base name (qualifier)". My edit did nothing at all like undoing the change discussed at the village pump, which you undid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There was no consensus at the Village Pump to formalize the option for "Thriller (album)". I don't want to see these guidelines endorse that arrangement, which is just as silly as "base name" redirecting to "base name (qualifier)".
As I noted, I neither endorse nor contest the change in question. I do, however, disagree that redirecting from "Foo (partial disambiguation)" to "Foo "(complete disambiguation)" is as illogical as redirecting from "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)" is.
In the past, I've argued in favor of using partially disambiguated terms as article titles (in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Having read various arguments for and against the practice, I've become neutral on the matter. I believe that the navigational principle behind WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is applicable, but I recognize the downside of appending an incomplete qualifier to an article's actual title (which is not the same as appending no qualifier at all).
My edit did nothing at all like undoing the change discussed at the village pump, which you undid.
Are you saying that I undid the change discussed at the village pump? —David Levy 01:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph that appeared to be offering guidance to use insufficiently qualified redirects as anything other than {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Other naming conventions might provide such guidance, but that wasn't the consensus of the VPP discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph that appeared to be offering guidance to use insufficiently qualified redirects as anything other than {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.
...thereby implying that all other uses are prohibited.
Even Neelix's original version contained an acknowledgment that it sometimes is appropriate for such a redirect to lead to an article. I simply replaced the "does not introduce additional ambiguity" criterion (a concept not covered in the proposal and mentioned by no one other than him) with a description of actual practice. When you replaced this with a reference to "naming conventions" (the relevance of which I don't understand), I removed your explanation without restoring mine, leaving in place only the undisputed statement that such redirects sometimes are appropriate. Why have you now eliminated it? Can you please explain the nature of your objection?
Other naming conventions might provide such guidance,
To what "naming conventions" are you referring?
but that wasn't the consensus of the VPP discussion.
The section is intended to document our practices regarding partially disambiguated page names, not merely the new change thereto. —David Levy 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The disambiguation project doesn't specify which qualifiers to use, so this section is not intended to document the naming conventions for titles that require qualification. It can reiterate the naming convention guidelines, if those have been consolidated based on the VPP discussion. I don't see the implication of prohibition by absence, but even that would be preferable to the misplaced explicit permission by presence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The disambiguation project doesn't specify which qualifiers to use,
Are you referring to WikiProject Disambiguation?
so this section is not intended to document the naming conventions for titles that require qualification.
It's intended to document our practices regarding page names containing parenthetical qualifiers that provide incomplete disambiguation.
Heretofore, we've used them as article titles, redirects to articles, and redirects to disambiguation pages (depending on the circumstances). The village pump discussion resulted in a decision to stop using them as article titles.
It can reiterate the naming convention guidelines, if those have been consolidated based on the VPP discussion.
Again, to what naming conventions are you referring? You removed text pertaining to redirects, not article titles.
And are you suggesting that the section mustn't document anything not determined via "the VPP discussion"?
I don't see the implication of prohibition by absence, but even that would be preferable to the misplaced explicit permission by presence.
Our guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Whether a small village pump discussion can alter our actual practices regarding partially disambiguated page names is debatable (though I don't wish to involve myself in that dispute), but it certainly hasn't negated those that weren't even covered. —David Levy 14:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
After waiting more than three days for a reply from JHunterJ (who's been active at Wikipedia), I reinstated the text (again omitting the disputed portion about when such redirects are appropriate). JHunterJ promptly reverted, citing a lack of consensus in the discussion that he's abandoned.
For the time being, I've restored only the statement that redirecting a partially disambiguated page name to an article sometimes is appropriate (which Neelix included in the section's original version and JHunterJ doesn't appear to contest) and advice to insert a hatnote in such cases. I've omitted the example (which arose in the original discussion), the inclusion of which JHunterJ apparently opposes on the basis that he personally dislikes our actual practice and doesn't want to acknowledge its existence. —David Levy 21:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to think every time you post, I owe you a response, even though there is no new argument presented. The broader discussion at the VPP was taken there because it is broader than the disambiguation guidelines. The new consensus for naming articles should be reflected in the descriptive guidelines for naming articles (that is, the naming conventions). There was no new consensus for redirecting incompletely precise titles to articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem to think every time you post, I owe you a response,
In attempting to understand your argument (of which I've struggled to make sense), I responded to your message with questions (including one that you'd already ignored).
even though there is no new argument presented.
I requested clarification regarding statements that are unclear and/or seemingly irrelevant to the matter at hand. I also noted that our guidelines are descriptive (not prescriptive) and that the section is intended to document our actual practices in full, not merely those established via the recent village pump discussion (a statement that you'd already ignored).
The broader discussion at the VPP was taken there because it is broader than the disambiguation guidelines. The new consensus for naming articles should be reflected in the descriptive guidelines for naming articles (that is, the naming conventions).
The disputed text pertains to disambiguational redirects. Why have you replaced the uncontested statement that it's appropriate to redirect partially disambiguated page names to articles "in some cases" (which, in light of the above disagreement, I included instead of a description of the specific instances in which this occurs) with a claim that it's based on "naming conventions"? Again, to what naming conventions are you referring, and how are they relevant to redirects? (This is the third time I'm asking.) Why do you assert that "a new consensus" (quoting your edit summary) is required to omit a criterion of your unilateral invention (the meaning of which you've refused to explain)?
There was no new consensus for redirecting incompletely precise titles to articles.
Again, the section's purpose is to document our practices regarding partially disambiguated page names, not merely the new change thereto. (My question as to whether you assert otherwise is among those that you've ignored.)
That partially disambiguated page names sometimes lead directly to articles — either by serving as their titles or via redirection — is factual. The village pump discussion resulted in a decision to stop using partially disambiguated page names as article titles, but it neither affirmed nor negated the practice of redirecting partially disambiguated pages to articles and resulted in no change to the basic navigational structure (i.e. the pages at which users arrive via given actions). Regarding the redirects, no basis on "naming conventions" was established, and I honestly don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
"New consensus" (quoting the above message) isn't required to document longstanding practices. —David Levy 23:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Long-standing practice is to redirect incomplete disambiguations to the disambiguation page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. There is no consensus to make a general guideline endorsement of questionable conclusions such as Thriller (album); the long-standing practice there is to place the article at the simpler title "Thriller (album)" if the naming conventions for music (in this case) do not require fuller qualification for certain very well-known titles. Changes to those practices are changes to the naming conventions (yes, even for redirects). Redirects to disambiguation pages are covered by the disambiguation guidelines. Which articles other redirects should point to aren't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Long-standing practice is to redirect incomplete disambiguations to the disambiguation page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.
That's a longstanding practice. When no usage clearly predominates, a disambiguation page is the correct target (irrespective of whether a page name contains partial disambiguation).
When a particular usage of a partially disambiguated term does clearly predominate, the longstanding practice is to target it directly to the relevant article — either by using it as the article's title or by redirecting it to the article. The recent village pump discussion resulted in a decision to discontinue the former, not the latter (which wasn't even included in the proposal), so it has no bearing on the redirects that currently exist or those created by renaming articles for greater disambiguational precision.
There is no consensus to make a general guideline endorsement of questionable conclusions such as Thriller (album);
On what basis — apart from your personal preference — do you assert that one longstanding navigational setup is backed by consensus and the other (which you've deemed "questionable") is not?
the long-standing practice there is to place the article at the simpler title "Thriller (album)" if the naming conventions for music (in this case) do not require fuller qualification for certain very well-known titles.
Agreed. And the decision reached at the village pump is intended to change this convention. If and when the article is moved to Thriller (Michael Jackson album), Thriller (album) will redirect to it (unless and until consensus to retarget it to the Thriller disambiguation page or another page is reached). No modification to Wikipedia's basic navigational structure (i.e. the pages at which users arrive via given actions) has been made.
Changes to those practices are changes to the naming conventions (yes, even for redirects).
How are conventions regarding article titles relevant to whether partially disambiguated redirects lead to articles or to disambiguation pages? I understand how they sometimes were before the new change was made (e.g. if the partially disambiguated page "Song Tile (song)" would have qualified as an article title, but it redirected to an article about the relevant album because no article about the song was written yet), but how are they now? The decision is to stop using partially disambiguated terms as article titles, which eliminates such scenarios.
Redirects to disambiguation pages are covered by the disambiguation guidelines. Which articles other redirects should point to aren't.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (of which WP:PDAB is a subsection) explicitly covers article redirects, both in its introduction and in the "Redirecting to a primary topic" subsection. —David Levy 02:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I've fixed its misplacement as a subsection of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, to which it is unrelated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems like an improvement, but if WP:PDAB is to remain a part of the page, wouldn't it make sense to merge it with WP:INCDAB?
My point was that your statement regarding our disambiguation guidelines was inaccurate, as they do address the articles to which redirects should point (and not just in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section).
I believe that I'm gaining a better understanding of your concerns, but I still don't understand the naming connections' relevance (given the fact that we've decided to stop using partially disambiguated terms as article titles). Can you please answer my question? I've asked it not to be confrontational, but because I genuinely seek to comprehend your wording's rationale and intended meaning. —David Levy 17:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
What to name disambiguation pages: covered by disambiguation page guidelines. What to name articles (for example: should the article on the most well known album named "Thriller" be qualified as "Thriller (album)" or "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)"?): covered by naming conventions (general or topic-specific). Redirects to disambiguation pages (for example, redirects from incomplete disambiguation): covered by disambiguation guidelines. Redirects to articles: covered by the redirect guidelines. Redirects to articles from incomplete disambiguation (for example, the questionable, not-part-of-the-VPP-discussion-conclusion redirect from "Thriller (album)" to "Thriller (Michael Jackson album)"): not yet covered by Wikipedia guidelines but would fall in the redirect guidelines or article naming guidelines, and shouldn't be pre-endorsed by the disambiguation guidelines when there's no consensus or long-standing practice; we can reflect what those guidelines here say if/once they are updated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we could have a little definition here. What is a "Partially disambiguated page"? --Bejnar (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    The term at issue is Partially disambiguated page name.
    • An undisambiguated page name is a name of a page (title) that is not disambiguated, like Paris.
    • A disambiguated page name is one in which the base name of the topic is extended to resolve a conflict with other uses of that name.
    • A partially disambiguated page name is one in which the base name of the topic has been extended to resolve a conflict with other uses of that name, but the result is still ambiguous with other uses.

    For example, Thriller (album) is a partially disambiguated page name because it is disambiguated (with album), but only partially because Thriller (album) is not fully diambiguated; it is still ambiguous with other albums named Thriller. Does that help? --B2C 17:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: Partially disambiguated is not an absolute state - a title would be considered "partially disambiguated" only based on other articles existing. If those articles get deleted, or are moved, then such a title is no longer "partially disambiguated" - so we need to consider this is an unstable state, and articles that were previously considered "fully" disambiguated can become partially so, based on creation of a new article. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Under this ridiculous new guideline, if someone was to created an article about another American band named "Nirvana", no matter how obscure that band was, we would have to triple disambiguate Nirvana (band). Perhaps the article would be moved to Nirvana (1990s American band), or some such nonsense. Kauffner (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
i think people are elevating partial disambiguation to be some sort of magical case. Its not. Its a title that happens to have parens, and we should apply all the same rules about titles to partially-disambiguated titles.kauffners example above is another good one - no reason for nirvana(band) to ever point anywhere else.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection

The idea that 13 people hanging out at the village pump, of which five are opposed (38%; more than a third), could make such a profound policy decision is without basis. I strongly object to the notion that there is widespread community consensus established for the idea that "Only non-disambiguated terms have primary topics" as the new section now claims, and practice contradicts (Thriller (album), Cork (city) (there are other cities named Cork, including Cork, Kentucky), Revolver (album) (see: Revolver (Lewis Black album), Revolver (The Haunted album), Revolver (T-Pain album)), ... and countless other counter-examples that contradict this claim. --B2C 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I remind everyone involved that WP policy and conventions change bottom-up, not through top-down policy changes. If you want to change policy, then prove you have consensus through a series of consensus-supported changes consistent with that, then change the policy. --B2C 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"Only non-disambiguated terms have primary topics" does not make any sense. It defeats the whole purpose of primary topic discussions. Unless "non-disambiguated terms" means something entirely different from "search terms that have no disambiguation page". For example, if "non-disambiguated terms" means that the search term points to an article, rather than to a disambiguation page, then it is a circular argument, and therfore not useful. --Bejnar (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In this context "non-disambiguated term" refers to a term without stuff added to it to make it less ambiguous. For example "Cork" is non-disambiguated; "Cork (city)" is disambiguated. --B2C 06:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought this nonsense was rejected overwhelmingly in the Nirvana RM just a few weeks ago. Bad ideas just never seem to die. Kauffner (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with and support "Only non-disambiguated terms have primary topics". "Primary topics", already poorly named and frequently divergently interpreted, is bad enough without creating cascading levels of primariness. Talk:Nirvana_(band)#Requested_move was a mess that doesn't demonstrate anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It's nice to know that this is the thin edge of the wedge in an effort to overturn primary topic. I had assumed it was just some badly conceived housekeeping. Kauffner (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline (and the consensus underneath it) has never addressed qualified titles like "Thriller (album)", except when noting that non-primary topics need unique titles, either through qualification or through alternate selection. I've always said that the selection of qualifiers is up to the individual topic projects, and if the music project wants to use "(album)" for the "primary album topic" while the film project want to use "(film)" only if there are no other films on Wikipedia, fine. But neither of those consensuses have to do with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; those are simply naming conventions to use when the topic isn't the primary topic for the base name title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I merely acted as the discussion closer for the WP:VPP thread and I'm not a scholar of disambiguation. But if some editors believe that Neelix's change to the DAB guideline used obscure terminology, you might also take a look at a related RM closure by User:Jenks24 from last March, where the wording (at least to me) seemed very clear: Talk:Erotica (Madonna album)#Requested move:

    The unwritten convention is that an article not at the primary topic needs a completely unambiguous disambiguator...

Jenks24 was not affirming that phrase as policy, he was just saying that it's an argument which is frequently made. This issue is so abstract that you can't always tell when people are disagreeing with one another. The other phrase that seems memorable to me is second-tier "primary" targets, the thing which Neelix wants to stamp out. I think this is what SmokeyJoe calls (above) 'cascading levels of primariness.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't use ambiguous titles, except for primary topics. The same observation applies to disambiguated titles. That is, we don't use ambiguous disambiguated titles, except for primary topics. Hence Nirvana (band), Thriller (album) and the countless other examples. Partially disambiguated names DO have primary topics (that's just a fact). To state otherwise in policy is absurd. --B2C 17:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't use ambiguous titles, except for primary topics. Oh? Where is that written? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Not that I agree with the ultimate conclusion drawn by B2C, this statement is implicit in concept of disambiguation and the definition of a primary topic. That is, per the disambiguation and article title guidelines, when a topic is ambiguous, disambiguation is required. A primary topic is by definition ambiguous with other topics that share the title. The presumption when there is a primary topic is that the risk of confusion posed by using the primary topic is less than the risk of confusion/irritation/ridicule of forcing users to pass through a disambiguation page to get to the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. It's just plain fact that the only ambiguous titles (meaning ambiguous with other uses on WP) we use are titles of articles about what we consider to be primary topics. And WP:TWODABS does come close to saying we don't use ambiguous titles, except for primary topics:
...if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name.
--B2C 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you and I are on the same page. But some here will argue that a specific title is too important to not have an article and should not be a dab page. Or that there are too many possible uses so by default one has to be choose. Clearly when a term is ambiguous it needs to be recognized as such. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that a title is too important to not have an article; that is, that they didn't care which article was at the title, as long as it was some article and not a dab page. Of course it's common for people to argue that some particular topic is too important to not be at the given title, without regard to how relatively unlikely it is to be the one being searched. After all, it may have "historical significance". --B2C 20:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, some people do have selective or short term memories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Las Vegas? Touche! --B2C 21:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have not made this comment before, but I'm making it now. Discussion on MOS pages, Titling pages and so on would be greatly improved if the most active contributors balanced vocal activity on the Wikipedia Talk pages telling other editors what to do with themselves putting the shoulder to the wheel and contributing proportionally to article space. In a recent discussion an editor (none of the above) turned out to have a feeble 22% of article space contributions to 48 or something % Wikipedia Talk. How is that healthy?
As regards Cork (city) "Cork, Kentucky is an unincorporated community" - meaning a peanut not a city. Cork city is not ambiguous disambiguation.
This subject arose because a WP Albums editor wrote content into WP:MOSALBUM to contradict WP:NCM (without actually changing WP:NCM) to create the idea of "primary album". An idea which has a little overlap/spillover into fanboy areas for songs and bands too. There has never been WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLPLAYER, WP:PRIMARYPLANT guideline written for any other project. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What about the idea of 13 people hanging about at this page to try an overturn a policy, for example? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't get too hung up on bureaucracy. If a small handful of editors make a policy, that doesn't necessarily elevate it to a level of sacredness such that another small editors couldn't reverse it. Elsewhere, that's what we'd refer to as no consensus. (Besides, we're discussing a guideline, not policy.) --BDD (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • How well was the PDAB discussion publicized? I didn't see it included in centralized discussion. Not even a notification at WT:RM. Perhaps I just dropped the ball, but I was quite surprised that such a serious change to naming guidelines could have run without me noticing. I'm not suggesting this was the effort of a cabal trying to fly under the radar, but it was a pretty strong change implemented on the basis of weak consensus among few editors. No wonder it's causing havoc at RM. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related note

Why do we now have both WP:PDAB and WP:INCDAB (which overlap each other significantly)? Isn't this an undesirable redundancy? —David Levy 02:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to remove the recent missplaced addition of WP:PDAB, since it's not really a disambiguation guideline at all, but a naming/article titling guideline. But that's what I've been saying all along. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
If it isn't removed, wouldn't it make sense to merge it with WP:INCDAB? —David Levy 17:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Since it doesn't make sense to include it, merging it with something that does make sense to include does not make sense. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina

Bizarrely enough, a dispute exists over whether the title U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina is ambiguous. Other opinions would be welcome on its talk page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Should WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically say something stronger about our geek-TV-mp3 systematic bias? Such as "page views are not a reliable indicator of what is the real primary topic for an encyclopedia when one of the topics is related to popular culture" ? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Page views are still reliable for usage, even for pop culture topics, when there is not a single topic that meets "long-term significance". Pop culture topics without long-term significance are handled by that criterion. Readers of the encyclopedia who are interested in pop culture topics are also served, and topics inappropriate for encyclopedia coverage should be deleted instead of changing the primary topic criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Given how the usage criteria has been discounted in recent move discussions, we might as well remove it altogether as a criterion. older ≠ wiser 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have observed the same thing, and recommended before that we simply scrap the criteria entirely, since every title's discussion goes with WP:IAR, and those that want to use usage can continue to do so without needing permission here, and those that want historical significance can do so without needing permission here. Once any given title's kerfuffle has settled and either there's a primary topic or not, the dab guidelines can show how to arrange them and format the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Problematic disambiguation template

There is a species list generating template that is very problematic. Please comment on it at Template talk:Species abbreviation#No good for disambiguation. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Partial title match discussion in progress

Please see Talk:Digital#Disambiguation page -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad you waited till the 3rd time you reverted to actually join the discussion. And your friend DexDor didn't even join the discussion when reverting it again today. But I guess you consider your weak consensus of 2 people enough to justify your sloppy hatchet job edit warring tag team. Then you had the nerve to tell me not to revert with only edit summaries. Take your own advice. At least I was in on the actual discussion page of the disambiguation page.
You didn't mention why you think any of the links you deleted specifically had no significant risk of confusion or the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) couldn't plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. DexDor only mentioned 1 "Digital Surf" when he deleted the 13 other links. To be honest, I don't give a sh!t about the entertainment titles or the organizations. I didn't add the links. I just left them there from previous edits because they weren't being addressed case-by-case. It's the links under technology that are often misunderstood or oversimplified as digital. It's the links under technology that prove neither of you are being careful with your administrative "efforts" if you can call it that. It doesn't take much effort to destructively delete content and point to a guide.
Go ahead. Tell me you've never heard electronic media colloquially or generically referred to as "digital." Go ahead. Just keep running around looking for disambiguation pages to apply your beloved guidelines to without getting involved in the discussion. Just keep shooting from the hip with your vague subjective MOS badge of authority. Way to go folks! Way to encourage participation! Oicumayberight (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't "join" the conversation, I started the conversation after the move request was closed and carried out; it's too bad you didn't start the conversation instead of reverting. It's also too bad you cast edits you disagree with as "bot like". It's too bad you assume that anyone else who reverts your edits must be doing so because they're my friend. It's too bad that you disagree with the disambiguation guidelines and think that streamlining the readers' navigation means a "hatchet job". And it's too bad you're using this forum to discuss Digital rather than Talk:Digital. Just keep shooting from the hip with your vague subjective IAR badge of authority. Way to go folk! Way to work with the community! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I did work with the community. I worked with it from the detailed surgical "boots on the ground" level at talk:digital data and that specific disambiguation page. I worked constructively. And I got plenty of cooperation for good reason. The MOS was applied destructively at a hatchet bot-like "drone from the sky" level with little regard for what was going on at the detailed level, on the ground. You dropped a bomb on your own troops. You didn't care about the specifics of the articles. You are obviously looking at just the titles and assuming that the guide applies. WP:IAR is not about authority. It's about encouragement and concern for quality when the rules and guides oversimplify the problem. Oicumayberight (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Parenthetical dismbiguatory terms and article titles

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Inadequacy of current WP:UE guideline with regard to Chinese names, where it is discussed if non-English characters are ever acceptable in article titles, even in disambiguatory parens. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Set index articles

Do Set index articles have a talk page template, or not? --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

They can, as appropriate to their subject matter, just like any list article can. They aren't disambiguation pages, though, so they don't use the disambiguation project talk page template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have added {{WikiProject Anthroponymy|class=list|importance=low}} to the Withe:talk page, above my earlier question there. Please help me understand how to untangle Withe as a surname from the term withy or withe for the thatching material. I want disambiguation for the different word usages for a surname, and a material. How can I do that?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you move the page to Withe (surname)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoe1967 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 July 2013
That would be inadvisable unless another page were created at Withe. --BDD (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
From the above, I believe I know what to do, but not late at night. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually another editor added a hatnote, which solves the dilemma.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC

I think the term 'primary topic' needs to be further defined. When there is a term that has two or more commonly used meanings but one term is more common, the page should not be redirected. Redirecting the page would cause many users using the Wikipedia search engine to be directed to the wrong page and therefore have to use alternative terminology to reach the page they are looking for. This effectively means Wikipedia is influencing the terminology people use to describe an entity which I don't think is right. An example would be the Britain article, which currently isn't redirected to the most common topic (the United Kingdom) however could be under the current policy. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It already has to be "much more used than any other", along with being "more than all others combined". The identification of an agreeable extension to that has proved elusive, and the extension to "use a disambiguation page at the base name for every ambiguous title" has also proved unworkable (as it would displace William Shakespeare, Earth, and Banana). It could be further undefined to simply leave every PT decision the the base name's talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Based on your explanation, The Dark Knight (film) should be moved to The Dark Knight without a discussion. Randomuser112 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
That would be an incorrect conclusion from my explanation of one of the criteria for primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is vitally important that we remember that disambiguation pages are not an end in themselves. They are merely a navigational aid, like an index or a table of contents. Where most people will be looking for a particular meaning of a term, there is no need to provide further navigational assistance. Where there are only two or three meanings, and one is the most prominent, putting the other meanings in a hatnote can provide all the navigational assistance that is needed. I think Apple has it exactly right - a primary topic based on historic significance, and a hatnote indicating the most likely second choice, and linking to a disambiguation page for all other meanings. bd2412 T 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I disagree ever so slightly. A disambiguation page is more than a navigation aid. As a reader, I often find disambiguation pages very useful for the quick summary on a number of related, conceptually and phonetically, subjects. Much more useful than any Portal page I've seen! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with SmokeyJoe here. Not infrequently, a disambig page clues me in to an important relationship about my topic that I was unaware of. I say "oh, there were two people by that name, and I had them in mind as one", or "hey, that movie came from a book, which might be where I'll find what I'm looking for", or "whoa, so many cities with this name", or whatever. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    They are happenstance means to discovery, sure, and those unexpected discoveries can be cool. But that's not disambiguation's mission, it's just a happy side effect. And the side effect is still achieved whether the dab page is at the base name or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    If a movie came from a book, it should say so in the lede of the article about the movie (and probably should have a hatnote to this effect). Since many movies come from books with titles different from the title of the movie, it should not generally be left to disambiguation pages to convey that relationship. As for other relationships with other terms, if this is significant than it should be mentioned in the article. For example, the article on Jupiter says, "The Romans named the planet after the Roman god Jupiter". In the rare case that there is much more to be said about the word itself, then we can have an article on the word, such as Eureka (word). As a practical matter, we need to balance the desire of those who wish to be whisked along random paths of discovery with those who are actually searching for a specific, concrete result. bd2412 T 16:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back to my example, most people searching the term Britain will be looking for the United Kingdom however there will still be a huge amount of people looking for Great Britain. Even though more people are looking for the United Kingdom then all other pages combined, it still wouldn't be right as a huge amount of readers would end up at the wrong page. I really don't think hatnotes are ideal because readers will still be influenced to use alternative terminology to get to the Great Britain article in future. Regards, Rob (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the hypothetical influence on future terminology selection is going to be significant or detrimental. If more people are looking for "UK" than all other pages combined, then sending them to the "UK" could be right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
There would still be a huge amount of people looking the the Great Britain article who would end up at the wrong article. I don't think primary topics should be decided on ratios. Disambiguation pages really aren't that inconvenient and therefore I think a primary topic should only be chosen if all other pages are rarely described using the term. Regards Rob (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Then we'd have to understand "rarely" (which would still move the disambiguation pages for "Apple", "Earth", "Adam", "School", etc., etc. to the base name. They have alternate meanings that are more-than-rarely described using the term, which would not be the consensus). So we're back to my original response: there are plenty of opinions on what primary topics shouldn't be decided upon, but precious little agreement on what they should be decided upon. Usage and long-term significance are the best we've got so far, and we're willing to accept those rather than put those not-too-inconvenient dab pages at the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You have a good point. Personally I would have all these terms moved to disambiguation however as you say that would not be the consensus. I would like to see long-term significance part of the policy as it would remove anomalies such as Britain. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Being taken to a disambiguation page can be a great inconvenience to the person who is clicking through from a link in another page, and expects to be taken to the subject of that link instead of a possibly massive directory of terms that might have been meant (but obviously were not). bd2412 T 16:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Initially yes, but eventually all links could be directed to the appropriate pages. Short term issues really shouldn't decide what decisions are taken. The only real disadvantage is when using the wikipedia search engine, however I would argue that it's better for all readers to be taken to a disambiguation page rather then have some readers being directed to a page they are not looking for. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no "initially" and "eventually" here, as this is a constantly evolving project, with new links constantly being added. We already have hundreds of thousands of disambiguation links, and get hundreds of new erroneous links every single day to clearly ambiguous topics like Mercury and Phoenix and MA. Imagine how many we would get if Apple and George Washington and Mouse were also disambiguation pages, just because some readers have another meaning in mind when they search for the term. bd2412 T 23:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Long-term significance is currently part of the guideline: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious what exactly is meant by educational value? Would this exclude Britain from being redirected to the United Kingdom due to it also being used to describe Great Britain? Thanks, Rob (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this: 'In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic.' Surely this would mean there effectively isn't a primary topic and therefore the term should be left at the disambiguation page? Regards, Rob (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It means consensus determines if one of the topics is primary or if there isn't a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rob and Smokey Joe. The Disambiguation pages should be more useful than search. The recent edits based on just a handful of interpreters of this guide are making it no better than search by their own admission. I know this wasn't a primary topic dispute, but it's the same effect. Disambiguations pages are being stripped of their usefulness. It seems to be putting forum over function. What's the point? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Rob, Smokey Joe and Oicumayberight. Disambiguation pages originated to overcome a technical limitation of the Mediawiki software, but they are right now used by the community as micro-portals that link to the entry points of the major topics described - that means including articles even if they don't adhere to a strict interpretation of ambiguous title. If the guideline isn't describing this current practice, the guideline is wrong and should be amended accordingly. Diego (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It's a matter of basic mathematics. If two thirds of users are looking for a particular meaning, then having that answer at the undisambiguated title with a hatnote reduces by half the number of clicks users must make on average to find what they want. If one meaning is the target of half of the traffic, and there is a second meaning that is the target of, say, a third of the traffic, then having the option of going either to the second choice or to a disambiguation page for third choices has the same effect, because no further searching is required to find the second option presented in the hatnote (as with Apple). This being the case, there is no reason to ever have a disambiguation page for a term with only two or three meanings, if one of those meanings can be identified as the likely target of over 50% of the searches; and there is no reason to have a disambiguation page at the base page name if one meaning can be identified as the likely target of over 50% of the searches, and another meaning can be identified as the likely target of over 25% of the searches. Whatever else you may think about disambiguation pages, people will usually get what they are seeking the fastest if those principles are followed. bd2412 T 23:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Right now the community uses the disambiguation pages as they are right now described by the guidelines as micro-portals, right up until the pages described by the guidelines no longer suit their micro-portal needs, at which point the community creates set indexes or list articles or broad concept articles or... and so maximizing the utility of the encyclopedia, providing information to those who seek it without sacrificing navigational efficiency for those seeking other information; so the guidelines are currently describing the current practice. The guidelines do not put form over function; they put primary function (navigation) over coincidental function (micro-portal). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Even if the guideline is not putting form over function, interpretation and bot-like application of the guide is what's putting form over function. Better wording could fix that. Simply stating goals and easy examples aren't enough to make it accurately guide, especially in the hands of the biased, even if the intent is clear. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Your bot-like rants on the talk pages are less useful. The equation is not "consistency of application rules I happen to disagree with = bot-like". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
            • When use of links based on adjectives (not the nouns that are in the example of PTM) aren't considered case-by-case, that's bot-like. When there's multiple removals of links with little or no discussion other than WP:JUSTAPOLICY, that's bot-like. It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree or disagree. I can't disagree with what hasn't been discussed. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
              • Your use of "bot-like" is incorrect, however you want to rationalize it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
                • Okay then. No need to explain your criteria or rationale for labeling it "wrong." We should just take your word for it. If JHunterJ says it's "wrong," then it must be wrong. Got it!!!! Oicumayberight (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
                  • On the other hand, when editors repeatedly explain to you exactly what is wrong and you ignore them, we're supposed to continue to put up with your rants. older ≠ wiser 22:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
                    • No rant. Just calling tactics to avoid discussion as I see it. When someone actually explains what is wrong instead of avoiding discussion or just pointing to policies that don't apply without subjective interpretation, there's no reason to rant, if you can call it a rant. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
                      • When you stop ignoring the explanations just because you disagree with them, it will look less rant-y. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
                        • Addressing and rebutting explanations is not "ignoring." You could agree to disagree or you could rebut my rebuttal. Don't expect me to just accept your ad hominem so called "explanations" as Gospel without question. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

3 (music)

3 (music) is a disambiguation page. That can't be right. bd2412 T 00:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Looks like a reasonable split from 3 (disambiguation). Diego (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Dab pages are not so split. WP:Incomplete disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC, wikilawyering and plain good old good sense: To run or not to run - that's the redirect question

When is a runner not a runner?

  • 1. I have run into a spot of trouble that appears to be a running theme over here ... I was looking for "runner" (mechanical) and saw that although it appeared on a dismbiguagtion page, the page had been redirected to "running" (sport). I changed it back to a straight disambiguation page, as there were already two points on it that would take the readder to "running".
  • 2. My change was reverted by an editor who is no stranger to this page, citing some "malplaced disambiguation" (whatever that means). The same editor has just reverted it for the third time. Same editor suggests I request a move. It is rich that he reverts willy-nilly, but I must request a move. I can't find that policy page that explains that some are more equal than others.
  • 3. Does it makes sense that to get to "runner", I have to first be taken to "running", to then switch back to "runner", whereas running is already a direct entry and there are two points at which the reader can hop from "runner" to "running"? Who would go looking for "runner" (athlete) in the first place? Would one go looking for "boxer" or "boxing"? "high jumper" or "high jumping"? "tennis player" or "tennis"? The fact that the pages named after the practitioner have bee redirected to the pages named after the sporting activity already says it all. The mere fact of making "runner" point to "running" is corroboration of the fact that we presume readers will mostly look up the activity and not the practitioner - ie that the majority of readers will go to "running" and not "runner" if they are looking for "runner" in the context of the sport. It is like consulting a dictionary - you don't look up "disgusted" or "annoyed", you look up "disgust" or "annoy/ annoyance" - you look up the main term, which - as far as the sport is concerned - is "running". But for other instances, "runner" is the main term. So what we are doing is sacrificing a base name disambiguation page for the sake of the minority of users who go to "runner" when they actually wanted to go to "running" .... It is like going to the dictionary, looking up "screw" (fastener [hardware]) and finding that it tells you to consult "sexual intercourse", then at "sexual intercourse" to read that "screw" may also refer to a metal fastener with a helical ridge. Back and forth, and back and forth and back .....
  • Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:MALPLACED -- Bkonrad linked to it in the edit summary. Yes, you must request the move, because you want to change the assumed existing consensus of the primary topic of "runner" being "one who engages in running". (See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the explanation of why some pages are more equal than others.) There is already a hatnote on running that would take the reader to the disambiguation page. Yes, it makes sense that if you are looking for a non-primary topic for a title that has a primary topic, you have to land at the primary topic article, click through the hatnote to the disambiguation page, and then click through to the non-primary topic article. Point 3 is the kind of thing you'd include in your discussion for the WP:RM, if you decide to request it. No back and forth is needed. -- JHunterJ 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
JHunterJ (you forgot to sign). You say no back and forth? What do you call (quoting from your comment:
  • 1. There is already a hatnote on running that would take the reader to the disambiguation page.
  • 2. for a title that has a primary topic, you have to land at the primary topic article,
  • 3. click through the hatnote to the disambiguation page,
  • 4. and then click through to the non-primary topic article.
I get it - "no back and forth". Got it!
And please don't rush to reply before taking the time to understand what you are reading - I never said anything about any pages being more equal than others. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no back and forth in that sequence, only "forward". You said "I can't find that policy page that explains that some are more equal than others." Feel free to take your time before replying to understand what you've already written. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, JHunterJ - reading is obviously NOT your strong card, so let me help you: "Same editor suggests I request a move. It is rich that he reverts willy-nilly, but I must request a move. I can't find that policy page that explains that some are more equal than others." It OBVIOUSLY refers to editors, not pages, as you interpreted here: "See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the explanation of why some pages are more equal than others". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying what you wrote above, since writing for clarity is obviously NOT your strong suit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to know where they are getting the statistics that proves a primary topic is the intended usage often enough for it to be considered a primary topic. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's never "proven"; we're not wikilawyering. Usage stats are available through the tool linked at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however, and then those are (hopefully) considered by the editors forming consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sounds like you are saying that it's a matter of case-by-case judgement that may require article talk page discussion and not a simple matter of pointing to a policy.. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds like what I've been saying all along: get consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I guess as long as we both know that a policy ≠ consensus for an article edit or revert, we are in agreement. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • (ec2) Yea, those number get cut and diced to support a position. I believe that there is more then one case where the 'primary' article was selected with under 50% of the page views. Then you have the issue of which page view to consider. That is like the wild, wild west with no rules at all! Page views are only one part of the story. What may be more important is when editors simply refuse to even look at how a topic is used by the press and simply decide what is meant even if there are actual facts that show something very different. My opinion is that page links are best used to show that something is not the primary topic. That is usually safe. Another metric is inbound links which we tend to ignore. The problem with counting those links is they can also provide false information. Take the case of SFO airport. It is not in SF, but at least one city south in a different county. However every airline that flies in lists the destination, by convention, as SF. Likewise for reference purposes, at least in the US, when something happens, mileage and direction are generally given from the legal definition of the center of the major city in the area. Both of these facts tend to over inflate the number of links to a specific city article. People also like to ignore the work done to disambiguate inbound links to a topic. If a large number of inbound links are to the wrong page, there is something wrong with the article at the main name space. But a lot of editors simply don't care about this. Probably because if the topic is truly ambiguous it requires work to figure out what links are correct and which are not. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings! Let me see if I can help here. Of course, some terms have many meanings, and some meanings have many terms that refer to them. A person looking up Barack Obama may merely type Obama, or may type his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.. The fact that multiple routes lead to the same end does not suggest that the person who merely types Obama was really looking for some different meaning of term, even if one exists (or if many exist. For each term with multiple meanings, we have to determine whether there is a primary topic, or whether there is no primary topic. Usually the primary topic is what we expect people to be looking for most of the time when they type in that term. That's why Running is where it is, despite there being other meanings of "Running". There would be no point in having separate articles on "running" (speedy bipedal locomotion) and "runner" (the person who engages in running), so one title points to the other. This doesn't mean that "runner" in the sense of the person who runs is not the primary topic of "runner". There just needs to be one title to which the other redirects. Compare skier, bicyclist, entertainer. Whether a term is primary is determined by its popular use, but also by historically important meanings of a term, which is why Apple is about a fruit and Avatar is about a Hindu religious figure. There have been "runners" for as long as animals have had legs. It therefore seems sensible that both in terms of what people expect "runner" to mean, and in terms of the historical importance of the term, that the primary topic would coincide with running. bd2412 T 20:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Standby Rui Gabriel Correia. I can see that Runner (disambiguation) has yet to get the abrasive clean up job that some other disambiguation pages have gotten. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, everything on that page seems fine to me, as every line describes something commonly called a "runner" in reliable sources, without the need for additional terms to qualify it as a "something runner" or a "runner something". bd2412 T 21:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't see what you are referring to as "reliable sources." All I see is links and descriptions as to why they are on the disambiguation page. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • The sources are where the sources always go, in the articles themselves. bd2412 T 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, let's look at another case. A case can be made that the article currently at Las Vegas Valley is the primary use of 'Las Vegas'. By the numbers, sightly less then 95% of the hotel rooms and gaming income does not come from the city but from the other communities in the valley. This entire area is the destination known as 'Las Vegas'. Since 85%, maybe more of the hotel rooms and gaming income are in unincorporated areas everything gets lumped in under the general destination of Las Vegas. Visitors and locals tend to ignore and not care about the differences. But since there is a city with that name, many editors believe that it has to be the primary topic. So what is the primary topic? Where people who go to 'Las Vegas' actually go or when they may think that they go? And which answer is more encyclopedic? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:America re-opened

In case anyone is interested, discussion for a proposal to move the disambiguation page at America to America (disambiguation) and change America to redirect to the United States has been re-opened. An experiment using specially constructed redirects on the dab page was agreed upon, but after claims were made of the stats being manipulated, some participants are suggesting the traffic stats be ignored. older ≠ wiser 04:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary topics - acronyms

(moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation to unify discussion with Dicklyon's proposed WP:NOTFORNERDS change to PRIMARYTOPIC [6]with Talk:DNS#NOTFORNERDS)

For acronyms, would it be useful if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC mentioned how it is contrasts with WP:ACRONYMTITLE which some editors are explicitly conflating, others seemingly conflating in the discussion? Widefox; talk 08:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

How does it contrast with WP:ACRONYMTITLE? That is, what would we change or add in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Clarify...WP:ACRONYMTITLE talks about "To determine the prominence of the abbreviation over the full name, " and to check abbreviations.com. My hunch is the awareness of those may be distorting the PRIMARYTOPIC debate which should be focussed on likelihood and longevity. As to what to add, maybe something along the lines of "In contrast to WP:ACRONYMTITLE, the selection of an acronym as a primary topic is unrelated to usage of the full title versus the acronym, and solely about in comparison with the other ambiguous terms." That is one thing I'm thinking, but it may need some work so rather than contrast, maybe unite would be better, a suggestion. Widefox; talk 12:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I like that. In general, not just with acronyms, the article titling guidelines are about "Here's a topic. What title should it have?" While disambiguation asks "Here's a title. What topic should it have?" A topic article always has to have a title, but a title doesn't always have to have a (primary) topic. It doesn't matter if the Title1's topic should be titled "Title2" -- that just means we redirect Title1 to Title2. If Topic1's title should have Topic2 (the primary topic for the title is Topic2), then Topic1 needs a qualifier appeneded to the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There's separate issues going on coming out of the DNS primary topic discussion (Domain Name System), I will try to summise:

  1. (Strong candidate for) most likely article is technical (arguably obscure or nerdy)
  2. Usage of acronym (like any other alternative name), and in particular primary topic redirects
  3. Countering systemic bias - how do we factor that in? e.g. WP:NOTFORNERDS is to counter the IT/technical/obscure bias
  4. Readers come to articles through Google "DNS": #1 is Domain Name System which didn't have a hatnote as there was no DNS redirect to it, and I guess others didn't consider this (as it wasn't a primary topic)
  5. article popularity may not be correlated with acronym popularity (or any alternative title) - having stats on clickthroughs from DABs would simply tell us (http referer or server logs for example) - this may be overkill but would focus on DAB usage (e.g. America experiment)
  6. WP:ACRONYMTITLE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are not the same thing, not in conflict, and can both be satisfied in a 1:n fashion
  7. Awareness of the acronym (or alternative title) is a deciding factor in WP:ACRONYMTITLE, but arguably isn't in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (per 6)
  8. discussions involving primary topic selection are getting sidetracked with confusion over article titling, when no articles are getting renamed anyhow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC =/= WP:ACRONYMTITLE

1, 3 and 4 together: If we counter systemic bias by biasing so strongly against current usage for technical terms, we cut our nose off to spite our face when access via routes like Google give readers the article in one click anyhow, not via a DAB and we didn't have a hatnote for the other DNS uses. There must be a balance for each case. I'm not sure how the DAB is the right place to counter systemic bias of the readership (unless a weak or pathological example)...I don't know.

Lots aren't known to the wider readership, but neither are lots of non-IT acronyms, and WP is fully of nerdy topics/acronyms so a WP:WARONNERDY seems counterproductive IMHO. Examples of primary topic redirects (acronyms):

...etc...there's probably hundreds or thousands Widefox; talk 15:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If it helps, there is a Category:Lists of TLAs, from which you can see lists of all three letter acronyms in the encyclopedia. You can see which ones are red links, and with the right skin you can see which ones are disambiguation pages (which is most of them), and which ones are articles or redirects. As a general matter, I prefer to have disambiguation pages at such titles unless there is a clear primary topic, and no other topics reasonably vying for primary topic status. bd2412 T 16:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec from DNS)...Anyone Googling DNS finds the page anyway, and never sees the DAB, the move/discussion is somewhat moot. There was no hatnote until now at the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE to discover the other DNSs. What some folk are arguing for, is that WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be different. Let them make their case. Primaryusage topics, and "Google primarytopics" at least need a hatnote to cover that route. This is important and useful to prevent walled gardens (primarytopics get redirect hatnotes anyhow). I think we're trying to be too posh and dropping the ball. It's just a DAB, how exactly inconveniencing 97% of current readers help / steer / inform / correct systemic bias needs to be justified more that NOTFORNERDS. WP is for the readership of WP, including nerds - any flavour of nerd is welcome. There's a spectrum of primary topic redirect acronyms, at one end, I'm sure nobody is arguing for removing the likes of UK or UN, but theres lots at the generally unknown end DHCP and TLS TCP. Widefox; talk 00:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a related issue of hatnotes when they aren't primary topics - see Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Fixing NAMB. Widefox; talk 12:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that an acronym can be little known - is with NQR - and still have one topic that is clearly the primary topic for that acronym from among all possible choices. bd2412 T 13:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
We agree, but others didn't about the red-herring of widespread knowledge of the acronym (c.f. ACRONYMTITLE) in the PT discussion at DNS (disambiguation) needs to be clarified in PT to prevent such distractions in future as a shorthand. Widefox; talk 14:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the primary topic for "Oprah Winfrey"?

It seems obvious to me that the primary topic for "Oprah Winfrey" is the topic of the article at Oprah Winfrey. The primary topic for "Whyalla" is the topic of Whyalla. The primary topic of Oprah is also the topic of Oprah Winfrey, so Oprah redirects to Oprah Winfrey.

This notion seems so obvious to me it seems like it should not have to be said. Others too. For example, today, sroc (talk · contribs) implied it was obvious in this edit at WP:PLACE, where he simplified:

City or Town alone is "acceptable if the name is unique, or if the place-name is the primary topic for that name"

to say:

"the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary topic for that name "

He clarified on the talk page that he thinks "unique" is redundant ("if it's unique, it will be the primary topic") [7].

But, as I've run into objections to this notion in the past, for clarity I thought we should modify WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to say this explicitly. But when tried to do this in the past [8], by adding the following text to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

When a word, name or phrase refers to only one topic on Wikipedia, then that topic is the unique use, and so also the primary topic for that term.

It was reverted by SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) [9] for reasoning I cannot comprehend ("No. A dictionary word, or swear word, or neologism, and other things may make a uniqui topic an inappropriate title").

I can't comprehend this because I don't know how a topic can be made into a title. A topic is the subject of an article - which can have many names, but none of the names is the topic. For example, the topic of Oprah Winfrey is not "Oprah Winfrey", but the biography of the celebrity known as Oprah Winfrey. A topic is a concept that is the subject of the article, and the primary topic for a given term is the topic most likely to be sought by someone searching with that term. If that term has only one topic associated with it, isn't it obviously the primary topic?

Anyway, that was a few months ago and I didn't pursue Smokey's objection.

But prompted by sroc's edit today at WP:PLACE, I tried again[10] by adding the following statement to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

Whenever a word, name or phrase is used to refer to only one topic on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic for that term. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.

Pretty obvious, right? Yet it too was reverted, this time by Dicklyon (talk · contribs) [11], with the rather unhelpful edit summary, "I don't think we're ready to commit to that extreme case."

Extreme case? Recognizing that the primary topic of "Whyalla" is the topic of Whyalla is extreme?

What am I missing? --B2C 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem that I see with "Whenever a word, name or phrase is used to refer to only one topic on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic for that term", is that it expands the definition of a primary topic. It is pretty hard to imagine anything not being a primary topic that only occurs in one place, though. Apteva (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, we can certainly imagine a term that has only one use on Wikipedia. I gave three examples above. Oprah Winfrey, Oprah and Whyalla. Here are a few more: United States of America (a redirect to United States that has no other uses), Anarcho-syndicalism (title of article about unique use of "Anarcho-syndicalism"), Ubristes (title of article about the genus Ubristes).
And we can all ask the question: in such cases is the topic of these articles the primary topic for each of these terms with unique uses on WP?
What's the answer? No, because it expands the definition of primary topic? Does it? You would argue that "Oprah" has no primary topic? Because it has only one use? Really?

People like sroc edit policy pages assuming the definition already encompasses such terms.

I think it can only help to clarify it one way or another. It's just a definition. We should be clear on whether we have to say "or is the unique use of the term", or whether that's already implied by saying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No? --B2C 01:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary topic only has significance when there is more than one topic that might have the same title. When a title is unique, there is no question of primary topic. Sroc's edit introduced imprecision into the other guideline. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Right, I think I follow that. If a particular title has only one topic, there is no primary topic per se and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant. Ergo, strictly speaking, deleting "unique" from "unique, or… the primary topic" excludes cases where the name is unique and there are no other uses (hence no primary topic). I suppose my edit was also intended to reflect cases where the name might be unique amongst places but there are other uses (besides places) and hence a question arises whether the place is the primary topic deserving of an undisambiguated title; being "unique" as a place name is not enough. Anyway, I thought my edit made it clear enough that this would apply where the place name was truly unique (not used for anything else), but I have no objection to restoring the "unique" if its omission causes a fuss. —sroc 💬 03:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, when a title is unique, like with Oprah, there is no question of primary topic, because the primary topic is obviously the topic of the article to which it uniquely refers. What's wrong with defining it like that? --B2C 04:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

B2C, there are a few things at least wrong with it. That it not reading clearly what you intend is certainly one. Requiring deciphering of your intent per se means that ita title is unique, there is no question of primary topic is not ready for the guideline. One problem of logic is that it effectively redefines "primary", and it is not reasonable to provide multiple definitions in parallel, presumably in the hope that one of them will be read correctly.

A particular problem is the "on Wikipedia". We should always be looking outward, not inward (a founding principle). The definition of PT (still thinking on how it should be renamed, the current name being very poor) should not depend on Wikipedia content or existing titles, but on external measures, such as usage in sources, whether "best" sources, or "currently referenced" sources etc, whether recognisable by what (all/educated/online/English-speaking/subject-aware?) readers.

A dictionary words, or local-use swear words, or neologisms typically don't have existing topics, but they will prevent a new invention from being able to claim PT.

Is Wagga the PT for Wagga Wagga, or is PT an ambiguous consideration, or is PT not the primary consideration? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Wagga redirects to Wagga Wagga, if there is no error, the PT of "Wagga" is the topic of Wagga Wagga. If that article's topic is not the PT for "Wagga", then Wagga should not redirect to that article. This is the definition of PT.

What's the problem? --B2C 04:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, maybe, "PT" is not normally considered a property of a term, but instead a term may or may not be a "PT" of a topic. ? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
No. A term is not a topic, so a term can't be a primary topic. Also, you can't have a topic of a topic, so the phrase "'PT' of a topic" is nonsensical.

A term can refers to a topic (or to several topics), and a topic to which a given term refers may be the primary topic of that term.

For example, the term Ford refers to many topics (see Ford (disambiguation), but one of those topics, the topic of the article at Ford Motor Company, is consider to be the primary topic of the term "Ford", so Ford is a redirect which takes you to Ford Motor Company. Make sense? --B2C 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


  • comment I'm not sure I understand either side of the story here. If you're the only person in a room, you're also the tallest person in the room. And the shortest. And the most handsome. etc. All of these are trivially true - but they ARE true. However, I'm not sure why we need to enter a trivial identity into the guideline.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the solution "Unambiguous terms may be redirected to the relevant article"? If so, an if worth mentioning, it surely belongs on Wikipedia:Redirect? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You've got it, Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs). It is a trivial identity. I too wouldn't think we need to state it in the guideline, except that a surprising number of even experienced editors don't get it. The practical implication is that every time any other guideline refers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it needs to qualify the trivial identity case. So, for example, WP:PLACE can't just say, "If the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of its name, then ...". Instead, it needs to say, "If the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of its name, or the name refers to no other topics besides the city, then ...". It's awkward. And that awkwardness can be avoided (not only in many guidelines, but also in countless discussions) if the trivial identity is stated here in the guideline. Make sense? --B2C 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


"The primary topic of Oprah is also the topic of Oprah Winfrey, so Oprah redirects to Oprah Winfrey."

What do you mean by topic?

Did you mean to write "The primary topic of Oprah is also the primary topic of Oprah Winfrey, so Oprah redirects to Oprah Winfrey."

If so, does not this mean that "The" [singular] "primary topic" is ill defined because one topic may have multiple "primary topics"?

Sorry, but this "primary topic" jargon is so confusing. It appears to be wikipedia ill defined jargon, used to mean whatever the writer shooses it to mean at the time.

If you don't mean that "Oprah is also the primary topic of Oprah Winfrey", then Oprah must be possibly ambiguous, and then no, it should not be redirected. (Aside, actually Oprah is arguably ambiguous between the person and the product)

No, I am not the only one. So many RMs contain both "Move per primary topic" and "Oppose per primary topic".

The term "Primary topic" is inherently a bad term. It would probably be very much better for communication if everyone could minimise or avoid unnecessary use of the phrase "primary topic". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote. Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Every article has a topic. The article at Oprah Winfrey has a topic - the subject of that article (the celebrity).

Terms refer to topics. "Oprah Winfrey" is a term that refers to the topic of the article at Oprah Winfrey. "Oprah" is another term that refers to that same topic.

Some terms refer to more than one topic. If one of those topics is most likely the one being sought and more likely than all the others, by someone using that term to search, then we call that topic the PT for that term. The trivial case is when a term refers to only one topic... It's that term's PT for the same reason the only person in a room is the tallest person in the room.

"Oprah" and "Oprah Winfrey" are two terms that (both trivially) refer to the same PT. So each one must either be the title or a redirect to the article about that topic. Since Oprah Winfrey is the title, and "the primary topic of (the term) "Oprah" is also the topic of (the article at) Oprah Winfrey, Oprah redirects to Oprah Winfrey."

Make sense? --B2C 05:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In summary:
  • The primary topic* of Oprah Winfrey is the American talk show host named Oprah Winfrey; it is the primary topic because it is more likely that anyone going to that article will be looking for that topic than for anything else. (It is also the most appropriate article title for this person in accordance with WP:NCP, so the article goes here.)
  • The primary topic of Oprah is the same person, so this name redirects to the above article. "Oprah" has a secondary topic being her talk show, The Oprah Winfrey Show, which is therefore included in a hatnote at the top of the article.
  • James Smith has no primary topic. There are many people with this name, none of which is so well known that they are more likely than all the others to be who the reader is looking for. Therefore, this title returns a disambiguation page.
  • James Brown has a primary topic, being an American musician referred to as "The Godfather of Soul". Even though there are many other people with the same name, it is more likely that readers going to that article will be looking for an article about him than about any other. Others with the same name are listed at James Brown (disambiguation).
*Arguably, there is no "primary topic" for Oprah Winfrey if there is no other topic associated with this name. However, it may be argued that The Oprah Winfrey Show is also associated with the same name, so the person is the primary topic and the talk show is a secondary topic.
—sroc 💬 10:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, arguably, there is a "primary topic" for Oprah Winfrey if there is no other topic associated with this name - it's a trivial mathematical identity - if there's only once choice, that choice is primary. But what I don't understand is, why does it matter either way? Can someone give a specific example where a unambiguous title with no other options being "primary", or not being "primary", matters? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Obiwankenobi that a truly unique title is trivially also a primary topic. In the context of disambiguation, it seems unnecessary to point this out. To modify my earlier statement, Primary topic only has significance when there is more than one topic that might have the same title. When a title is unique, there is no question of primary topic is a trivial consideration. As an aside, why does the hatnote only mention Oprah's now defunct television show? There are any number of other potentially ambiguous media properties such as the Oprah Winfrey Network (U.S. TV channel), Oprah Winfrey Network (Canadian TV channel), O, The Oprah Magazine, Oprah Winfrey Foundation, and numerous other less likely but potentially ambiguous (through ellipsis). older ≠ wiser 13:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I expected to see the others listed under Oprah Winfrey#See_also, but no. That section, appropriately filled, could virtually serve as a disambiguation section since all the other uses relate to/derive from her. —sroc 💬 14:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, well, I wouldn't quite say that "a truly unique title is trivially also a primary topic". I would say "the topic of a unique title is trivially the primary topic of that title". I don't quite agree that it's a trivial consideration, because if we're not clear about this here, then any place we refer to a primary topic we also have to clarify with something like "or is the only use".

I remind you this was prompted by a real guideline edit that is affected by whether we modify here or there. The problem with not modifying here is that we have to modify in countless theres. See below. --B2C 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • comment We should all recall that primary topic is a wikipedia invention. it's sole purpose is to avoid users having to click a second time on a dab page, and bring them directly to where we think they are going. If we eliminated primary topic, then ambiguous titles would always go a DAB page. So, while it's certainly a useful thing, we should not elevate primary topic to some great importance - its ultimate purpose is to save a single click.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It arose as an issue because I replaced a reference that said if a place name is unique or the primary topic to say if a place name is the primary topic (paraphrased), and someone claimed that place name that is "unique" would not be the "primary topic" (and "unique" is better understood anyway) so we should keep both. Then, for better or worse, Born2cycle thought it necessary to revise WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to include cases where a title has a sole topic within the meaning of "primary topic" (although I think this is unnecessary). —sroc 💬 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
is there a specific case where this actually makes a difference? Hmm, I think I do agree with B2C on this, we should be consistent, and the easiest way is to always use Primary topic, and define a unique name as being trivially the Primary Topic to avoid having to say "unique name or primary topic" everywhere else.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I was relying on common sense, but of course, Wikipedia requires it to be set out in a guideline (see WP:COMMONSENSE). —sroc 💬 14:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think JHunterJ said it brilliantly in a discussion above:

In short, the question of what is the primary topic of a term is a separate and distinct inquiry from the question of what is the best title of an article discussing that topic. Of course, if the primary topic for James Brown is the soul singer, there is no compelling reason to have an article on the soul singer at any title other than James Brown. bd2412 T 13:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that JHunterJ's analysis and phrasing there are pure gold. This quote should be prominently incorporated into our guidelines. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
JHJ's analysis is indeed spot on, but it doesn't address the problem I'm trying to address. That is this: when the text in a guideline refers to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as in "if it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then...", we are currently unclear on whether that condition applies when a term has only one unique use. We can address this two ways:
  1. Clarify this trivial case once in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as I originally did (documented/linked at top of this section), OR
  2. In every such relevant guideline and countless discussions clarify such phrases as "if article topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term, or the topic is the only use of the term, then ...".
It seems to me that #1 is much simpler and, so far as I can tell, causes no problems. I don't understand why anyone is objecting to this, much less why so many are. --B2C 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with B2C here. If there is this much confusion, and people saying "well, that's not really primary b/c there aren't other options, therefore some different rule might apply, unless it has already been clarified in some guideline or policy as "primary topic and/or unique", we're better of settling it once and for all, and explicitly noting the trivial identity in the definition of primarytopic, so that it applies everywhere primary topic is invoked. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you make sense of Dicklyon's point below? I thought I finally understood, but then I realized that since PT does not favor titles over redirects, his objection stopped making sense again. --B2C 22:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad (talk · contribs)? What do you think? --B2C 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Summer camp

On the first day of summer camp after everyone settled the camp leader gathered everyone and asked them to share their primary goal at the camp. Johnny went first.
Johnny: My primary goal is to make some really good friends.
Jack: My primary goal is to learn how to canoe.
Jake: My primary goal is to learn how to carve wood.
Leader: That's great, guys, how about you, Paul?
Paul: I don't have a primary goal as I have only one goal. Since I choose to interpret "primary" as a relative term, the concept of a primary goal only has relevance when one has more than one goal. So my one goal can't be a primary goal.
Leader: Okay... Paul... what ever... So what is your one goal?
Paul: Practice pointless pedantry.

The point of this is to ask, other than to practice pointless pedantry, why object to clarifying that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies in the trivial case like "Oprah Winfrey" where a term refers to only one topic?

What is the harm in defining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC such that the primary topic of the term "Oprah Winfrey" is the topic of the article at Oprah Winfrey?

The benefit of clearly including the trivial case in the definition of PT is that when we we are talking about PTs of terms (whether in guidelines or discussions), we are clearly including the trivial cases, and so don't need to clarify that we mean to include those cases in every such reference.

--B2C 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Frungi (talk · contribs), this discussion is still open to anyone who wants to read it and contribute. The opinions expressed here range from the addition in question is "extreme"[12] to "trivial/obvious". Where are you on that spectrum, and why? --B2C 19:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. I’m at the latter end of that spectrum, per your summer camp joke above. Has there ever been a demonstrable need for such a clarification? Do we have DAB pages with only one working link? Do we have titles like A Song of Ice and Fire (book series) where there is no content at A Song of Ice and Fire? Where is the need? —Frungi (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As explained above, the only need is for the mere convenience of being able to refer to the concept in guidelines and discussions in fewer words. Instead of being able to say "if the topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term...", without this clarification added we currently have to say something like, "if the topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or is the only topic with an article on WP... for the term". See recent edits to WP:PLACE caused by this.

Granted it's not an overwhelming strong need, but given that no one has been able to explain what's wrong with including it, I don't understand the objection. Why not meet even a small need if the price is nil. Yes, technically, a term that refers to only one topic is not ambiguous, just like one person in an elevator is not the tallest in the elevator. But does it harm or bother anything to say the only use is the "primary topic", and the only person is the "tallest" person?

If there is no harm, and it helps simplify guideline wording, why not do it? --B2C 00:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I just don’t see the point of the clarification, either here or in guidance referring here. If a term is unique to a topic, wouldn’t that be the PT as it stands? I’m sorry, but this just seems like unnecessary WP:CREEP. As a ridiculous example, say there was a rule that “The tallest person in the room may stand on the table.” If there’s only one person in the room, of course he’s allowed to stand on the table. —Frungi (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
So… are you sure this discussion isn’t dead? Because no one else is taking part—including yourself. —Frungi (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be more careful

I don't think there's much to be gained by continuing here. B2C made an edit, he was reverted, and discussion is now ongoing. If people want to continue to engage about B2C's policy editing style, they should do so at their userpage.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could B2C avoid putting his own, untested views into the guideline, please? It's now been reverted, I notice. Good. Tony (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, B2C has quoted this particular edit as part of the strategy he's advocating at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#When can a new RM be initiated after a controversial RM is closed?. It doesn't seem to be attracting much support there either. Andrewa (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't been following that conversation. Is there a headline version of the problem with noting that if there's only one WP topic for a WP title, it's the primary topic for the title? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Not that I have seen, either at the discussion to which I linked above at WP Talk:RM or elsewhere, but I may have missed it, and would welcome a link or diff if there is.
See the current version of their user page for B2C's views. While I feel that these views depart from existing guidelines in their underlying approach, that's not a problem provided these views are promoted in the right way, and much of B2C's proposals I heartily endorse. I'm not even sure that this particular edit is a problem, that's not the point at all. But there seems some unease about B2C's approach, and again see the discussion at WP Talk:RM.
Personally I'm concerned that B2C seems to think that they have the right to interpret existing policy and guidelines and rephrase them to better reflect this particular interpretation, without prior discussion. Again see the discussion at WP Talk:RM, and sorry it's a bit convoluted. This seems to be a case in point, by B2C's own admission there. See this diff at WP Talk:RM, and comments welcome, particularly if anyone feels I am misinterpretting this particular diff. Andrewa (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, I think all contributors "have the right to interpret existing policy and guidelines and rephrase them to better reflect [any] particular interpretation, without prior discussion", as long as that interpretation is genuinely believed to improve WP and to be consistent with community consensus. This happens all the time. It's common practice. The vast majority of edits to this guideline page, for example, fall into the category of contributors exercising this right.

Of course, if such a good faith edit is reverted, we resort to discussion to develop consensus.

In this particular case, I too am looking for the headline "of the problem with noting that if there's only one WP topic for a WP title, it's the primary topic for the title?" The closest I've seen is Bkonrad pointing out that PT is part of D which only applies in the context of terms with multiple uses. But that doesn't explain the problem with stating that PT also applies for the trivial case of the unambiguous term - that the one and only topic to which the term refers is by definition its primary topic. --B2C 21:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you have the right to push your views, but when you do that directly on policy pages, as you have done so frequently for the last 7 years or so, and your views are so out of step with the mainstream, as they very frequently are, it's on the extremely annoying end of what we tolerate as "bold". Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The current point on which you should be very familiar with the controversy is about your wanting to define "ambiguous" as meaning only that a term could be the title of more than one WP article. Many editors interpret "ambiguous" in a broader, dictionary-like, sense, esp. as concerns the "precision" provision in title considerations. You have consistently pushed to devalue precision, and this appears to be yet another tactic in that direction. Dicklyon (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not pushing my view, Dick. I'm pushing the view of the community consensus as reflected in the first line at WP:D: "ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles."

It is your personal view - not supported by community consensus as reflected in policy and guidelines - that "ambiguous" on WP can apply to a term that refers to only one topic covered by Wikipedia articles - that is contrary to community consensus. Yes, once in a while you can find a majority of a relatively insignificantly small self-selected group of contributors who want to interpret "ambiguous" more broadly in some context, but that is not evidence that community consensus agrees with you. The position I advocate, in contrast, is right there in black and white on WP:D.

So, what your revert is all about is pushing your POV favoring the broad meaning of "ambiguous" that encompasses uses not on WP? You're concerned that some term, say "abcxyz", might have only one use on WP, perhaps the name of a book, but another use outside of WP (not on WP presumably because it's not notable or not encyclopedic - why else would it not be covered here? that's the whole point of limiting the scope of "ambiguous" to topics covered on WP), and you'll want to disambiguate it as Abcxyz (book) because of that non-notable use? And make Abcxyz a redirect to the article at Abcxyz (book)? And if we add this trivial case clarification to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, implying that the PT of "Abcxyz" is the book, you won't be able to advocate for your more precise title? But that doesn't even make sense, because as long Abcxyz is the title or a redirect to the article about the book, PT is satisfied. The issue here would be unnecessary disambiguation. But maybe you think you'll have to argue against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to unnecessarily disambiguate the title of the article about the book? Well, thanks. I'm starting to get it, but at least one of us still unclear about something. Maybe you can take it from here? --B2C 22:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The page reads in part Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. I would have thought that clear enough, but we seem to be interpreting it differently. Andrewa (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No one has explained how this edit is against consensus, or how it's even substantive. As others have noted, it's a clarification regarding the trivial case of PT. I don't have any doubt that the addition reflects consensus. But it was quickly reverted and we've been discussing since, per BRD. So, if anyone still believes it does not reflect consensus, or harms WP, of doesn't improve WP, or changes anything substantively, please explain. --B2C 05:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't think we have a rough consensus here that your edit should have been put up for discussion first? Andrewa (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is whether the trivial case content I inserted and Dicklyon reverted has community consensus support, not whether a rough consensus of a self-selected small group of contributors is that we should have discussed it first. We won't know whether it should have been discussed first until it's determined whether the substance has community consensus support. But at this point I still don't see any substantive consensus-based reasons to object to including the trivial case clarification. Do you? If not, doesn't that mean it's reasonable to conclude it has community consensus support, just as I believed when I made the original edit? --B2C 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Your wording was not describing a "trivial case", it was redefining Primary Topic to exist when there is only one article for the term (and therefore to always exist, instead of the previous "it is sometimes the case that..."). This doesn't reflect community consensus in any way. Diego (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I used the word "trivial" in the edit summary of that edit. At least one other person has described it as "the trivial case". It's like determining the "tallest" person in a room. While it is sometimes the case that one of the people in the room is clearly the "tallest", often one or more are of equal height and so there is no clear "tallest" person. But the trivial case is when there is only one person in the room - that person is trivially "tallest".

Same with primary topic. When a term has multiple uses, sometimes one of those uses is clearly primary, sometimes not. But in the trivial case, when the term has only one use, it a trivial matter of semantics to define that one use to be "primary". How is that not a trivial case? Why be unclear about this? --B2C 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's the correct use of the word "trivial" there. The trivial case for "disambiguation" is when there is no ambiguity. When a title refers to only one topic covered on Wikipedia, even if the universe has more topics that for whatever reason aren't covered on Wikipedia, that topic is the primary topic (in Wikipedia terms) for that title. Just like Wikipedia "consensus" does not mean real-world "consensus", Wikipedia "ambiguity" and "primary topic" do not mean real-world "ambiguity" or "primary topic". Putting the only WP topic at the WP base name (whether you call it the trivial case of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or just simply WP:PRECISION) is indeed the community consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Right. Put another way, when there is only one article for a term, the topic of that article clearly meets the PRIMARY TOPIC criteria for that term. That is, "it is highly likely...to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". So the only topic for a term is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term by definition. Trivially.

Further, the only topic associated with a term has at least some enduring notability and educational value, and since there is no other topic associated with it, it trivially has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." So it meets the long-term significance criterion too.

I definitely see objection to adding clarification about this - but I see no reasoning for the objection whatsoever. So why the objection? Anyone? --B2C 16:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note to those reading - trivial is used here in the mathematics/computer science sense - see Trivial_(mathematics) - not in the sense of "of little significance or value" or "concerned with or involving trivia".
To reply to AndrewA's note above, obviously we are still explaining this and the edit was reverted, but if I had though of it I would have been bold and made the same edit myself, as I, like B2C and JHunterJ, see this as a trivial identity. Topics without competing topics at the same name *are* the PRIMARYTOPIC - so rules or discussions that involve PRIMARYTOPIC should apply to those articles as well. You don't need to discuss EVERY change to a policy page, but if you get reverted, then you do discuss.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
When there's only an article for a given title this is not the PRIMARYTOPIC, this is the ONLYTOPIC. I don't think using mathematical terms and redefining common English words is the proper way to write policy. Your "trivial" concept is against the current definition, which is that PRIMARYTOPIC is something that exists when "a word, name or phrase refers to more than one topic".
We're largely discussing semantics here, but I still believe in an explicit enumeration of possibilities instead of using set theory to handle degenerate cases; guidelines are written for people, not mathematicians.
There are also more pragmatic concerns for avoiding this generalization of the concept. I'm afraid that expanding the already disputed concept of PRIMARYTOPIC to cover ALL WIKIPEDIA PAGES is asking for problem, and that somebody will use this to wikilawyer their way onto unsuspecting editors. Diego (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The mathematical connotation of "trivial" is being used in the discussion about whether to include the clarification in the guideline; no one is suggesting it be used in the text of the guideline itself. Understanding the wording I proposed does not even require an awareness of set theory, let alone being a mathematician.

We are discussing semantics here. Thank you for finally providing at least a hint as to why someone might think the definition of PT should not be clarified in the trivial case.

So, those who dispute the concept of PRIMARYTOPIC fear this change will weaken their case even further? That's what this is all about for you, Tony, and Dicklyon? You're objecting due to internal WP politics? Really? That makes it "pragmatic" for you? And you've got nothing else? --B2C 17:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll use "obvious" instead of "trivial", if that helps with the English. WP:PRECISION also covers all Wikipedia articles, and comes to the same conclusion that the addition of the obvious case of "If there's only one topic for a title, it's the primary topic for the title", if that obvious case were re-added to the dab page: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that" -- that is, if there's only one topic for a title, that title doesn't need a qualifier to distinguish it from the non-existent WP topics that would have been ambiguous with the title if they existed. We could make it a separate ONLYTOPIC section if there's an issue with adding it to the PRIMARYTOPIC section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
LOL. But that would be an improvement, because then we could say "if the topic is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or the WP:ONLYTOPIC for the term then ...".

Hey! We could also have WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC defined as "a topic which is either the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or the WP:ONLYTOPIC for a given term is also the WP:PRIMARYONLYTOPIC for that term". Then we could simply say, "if the topic is the WP:PRIMARYORONLYTOPIC for a term....". Works for me! --B2C 20:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"WP:OFFTOPIC" as not disambiguation. Widefox; talk 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I accept that you believed that it was a good thing to make this edit without previous discussion, and it's obvious that you were very confident in this. But this was a mistake, as the reaction showed. Everyone makes mistakes. My personal definition of an expert is someone who has already made most of their mistakes. That's how they got to be an expert.
As I pointed out previously, guidelines are headed When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. In view of your misplaced confidence that this particular edit needed no discussion first, I think you should now give an undertaking not to edit any guideline or policy without prior discussion, however trivial or logical the edit may seem to you.
I'm not saying don't edit. I am saying, in your case you should always discuss first.
The discussion may simply be a single sentence that receives no replies at all, but I expect that you will receive a surprising amount of feedback. Give it a go. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protest

Does anyone else think that the closing of this discussion, above, is unhelpful? Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. A discussion is in progress. Why should it not continue? Omnedon (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I have no idea, but yea, it seems odd to have this one closed. I don't seem to have the time that is needed to participate in these long drawn out discussions. Someone made a suggest today to limit a single editors comments on one of the ANI pages to 500 words. If B2C had that restriction on talk pages maybe these discussions would be easier to understand. I'm aware of WP:AGF, and I'm also aware of WP:OWN. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there would be support for some sort of restriction. My last post was to suggest a voluntary one. This would be a good outcome IMO.
The problem is not that B2C made a mistake, the problem is that they don't recognise it as one, and can now cite this discussion... if it remains closed... in support of their contention that, if they think an edit to a guideline is justified, they don't need to discuss it first. Which seems to contradict what the guidelines themselves say... so I suppose we can expect a similar clarification of Template:Subcat guideline next, without prior discussion... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
OFFTOPIC in name, OFFTOPIC in nature, WP:TALKO says it may be collapsed. Widefox; talk 22:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No one's behavior should be discussed on a policy/project talk page. Last I checked, I wasn't an exception. But if anyone wants to continue this discussion on my user talk page, please. I've started a section about this.

Thanks, --B2C 22:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Subjective CREEP Partial Title Matches

Consensus is to oppose altering guidelines on partial title matches. Specifically, 1) Partial title matches are inappropriate for disambiguation unless the full term can be confused/conflated with the partial term, as per current policy. 2) Disambiguation pages do not preclude a broad concept article that could include coverage of related topics inappropriate for a disambiguation page per PTM - ie, "digital divide" could be an appropriate topic in an article "digital", but not as a link on the disambiguation page "digital". and 3) The current wording is sufficient to convey policy consensus.

support comments/!votes: Oicumayberight (talk · contribs)

oppose comments/!votes: JHunterJ (talk · contribs) BDD (talk · contribs) BD2412 (talk · contribs) Joy (talk · contribs) Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs)

other comments: Bkonrad (talk · contribs) DexDor (talk · contribs)

NAC per request at WP:ANRFC by VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's no surprise that 2 of the 3 people whom have tag-teamed reverting my edits to the digital page are behind the development and advocacy for this policy. The wording of this section is vague. There's no way to prove evidence of absence in the "no significant risk of confusion or reference." Evidence I've shown of exceptions "article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title" is being rejected as "dubious ambiguity" (whatever that means) and excluding "informal conversations on chat boards" as evidence of any use in a generic context.

PTM is WP:CREEP being used as a fake badge of authority to make sweeping changes and shoot from the hip bold edits without building consensus. PTM is being applied sloppily with little regard for details or harm it may do to specific topics. And there's no proof of principle when the legislators are also the main enforcers. Oicumayberight (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, while the specialized language used here can be confusing, I hope you realize that the "partially disambiguated page names" (WP:PDAB) discussed in the preceding sections is a completely different topic that the "partial title matches" (WP:PTM) you have been edit warring over. older ≠ wiser 03:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've made it it's own section now. You could have just moved it yourself, but I don't mind the jab. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be a jab (well, perhaps the mention of edit warring was). But I try to avoid refactoring comments by other editors except in extreme cases. older ≠ wiser 04:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, it's no surprise that one editor who has been revert-warring against multiple editors and the broader consensus is grasping at straws and resorting to wikilawyering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:JUSTAPOLICY is not "broader consensus." Oicumayberight (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Grasping at straws again. Yes, the policies and guidelines are indeed the broader consensus. Their application to disambiguation pages in general and to Digital in particular has been explained beyond simple linking to the policy, so WP:JUSTAPOLICY is not a counter argument here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure there's broader consensus on what should be said/intended by the policy. There's no broad consensus on the individual articles that were reverted based on the policy. WP:JUSTAPOLICY reverts without discussion was what occurred 3 times before you got involved in the discussion. Why are you so defensive if your certain you were justified by the policy? Oicumayberight (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Like everything else, you misunderstand. My responses are not defensive, but explanatory. They only seem defensive by comparison to the aggression in your comments. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about your actions as they relate to the policy as evidence to room for improvement in the wording in the policy. You haven't mentioned the wording once. Your first post in this section was an attack on my intent as "grasping at straws." You don't seem to be here to discuss the policy. You only seem to be here to defend your actions and condemn mine. Try being constructive. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You're starting from the assumption that the policy is wrong and you're right, and trying to change the wording of the policy to agree with you. Your first note here referred to the multiple editors who reverted you as a tag-team. You accused Bkonrad of a jab where there was none. You then accused me of being defensive. Yes, some constructive comments would be useful, and even more useful after some reflection on why the guidelines are the way they are and where your approach might benefit from changing to align better with the policy, rather than trying to align the guidelines to your preferred approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've read the policy. I'm not convinced of it's clarity, which means there's room for improvement if not simply the wording to make it more convincing to people like me. You're actions are proof that the subjectivity in the guide is potentially problematic. Deal with it or accept it. You wouldn't be going round and round with me if you didn't think you had anything to lose. Nobody is threatening you. There's only room for improvement here. If you can't see that room for improvement in the actual guiding potential of the guide, then move on. I'm sure there's some other messy disambiguation pages that could use your bot-like editing style. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
No proof here, other than of your wikilawyering. Accept it or deal with it. Your attempts at deducing my motivations for being here are as inaccurate as your reading of WP:PTM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"Inaccurate reading" is an assumption on your part, which is telling. Go ahead, tell me which words you think I've misinterpreted. Just don't try to tell me that I've misinterpreted an adjective or adverbs. The fact that you assumed I didn't read it accurately leads me to believe that you are basing that assumption on the fact that I didn't interpret the subjective parts the same way you interpreted them. This leads me to believe that you fail to see that adjectives are subjective. Assuming good faith, this would explain your overconfidence in your ability to edit without stirring up conflict, applying WP:JUSTAPOLICY and ignoring WP:BRD while deleting multiple links in bot-like fashion. If you don't understand what subjectivity is, then of course you wouldn't know it when you see it in PTM. I'll give you a hint, look at the PTM policy words that end in "ly". Oicumayberight (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • PTM is a sound guideline and not new. This is absurd. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the subjectivity of the wording was ever noticed or challenged as a problem until it has been stretched and over-applied recently while ignoring WP:BRD with JHunter's 3 attempts at WP:JUSTAPOLICY on the digital page alone. And now we have Bkonrad interpreting it in the strictest possible way on the discussion page, obviously lacking neutrality in the debate.
I've encountered a similar situation where another user was reverting using WP:ICONDECORATION with no discussion other than WP:JUSTAPOLICY in the comments. There was only one user that was abusing the guide, but never saw himself as the problem. The conflict escalated when the non-neutral advocates for the guide jumped in on the side of the one abuser. After several pages of discussion and dozens of other users complaining about the same type of abuse, that section was reworded to be more objective. I'm sure that most editors aren't as assertive as I am and would just give up when WP:JUSTAPOLICY is thrown at them, never knowing that WP:IAR is an option. So you'd never suspect that subjective wording would be a problem if it weren't for the rare editor willing to WP:IAR. And I would consider myself to be a rarer of the rare editors willing to collaborate on improving a guide that is used against their own edits.
This is how the guide gets improved with neutrality. The original developers and newer advocates never see a problem with their own guide until someone like me who's not an advocate for the guide gets involved. If the guide made perfect sense to everyone who reads it, than nobody would ever have a problem with it. If you don't see how the subjectivity in the guide could get exploited, then you may miss the opportunity to improve the guide. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, that was a bit harsh, so I should elaborate. Listing a bunch of titles at a dab that just happen to share one or more words in their titles is bad practice because it results in cluttered pages that become less useful to readers. A partial title is only ok to list on a dab when that entity could reasonably referred to by that name alone. So it's ok to list Pittsburgh Penguins at Penguin (disambiguation). You might hear something like "The Penguins won last night" to refer to the hockey team. But to pull some examples from Digital, you would never hear a term like digital divide referred to solely as "digital." The role of a dab is not to perform a search for the reader. There's nothing wrong with using an {{intitle}}, as Digital has, but the template is all the more reason to avoid listing PTMs. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
They wouldn't call it "digital." But they might only link the word "digital" in a phrase from an article that said something to the effect of "digital country" or "digital nation" to refer to a country that is mostly "digital" not knowing that there was an article titled "digital divide." The disambiguation page would make it easier to find the digital divide article without knowing that was the common term, but not if it was buried with hundreds of other links with the word "digital" in the title. And "digital divide" may not be the best article to describe the concept, but I'm certain it would be more accurate than "digital data." It's better to have a disambiguation page with the 10 or 20 most common meanings than to have the 3 or 4 of the most oversimplified meanings and then 1 link to hundreds of other alternate meanings at the bottom of the page. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There might be scope for a broad-concept article serving as an overview of all things digital. But that would be separate from the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That was discussed on Talk:Digital data before the page was renamed. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The existence of a disambiguation page for truly ambiguous uses of a term does not preclude a broad concept article addressing related variations on the theme. See Particle, Particle (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 22:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It was one of my suggestions in the discussion. The disambiguation page seemed to be the easier fix for now if only temporary. And the way things are turning out, it was very temporary. It only lasted 2 days before someone deleted half the links. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I also don't see any reason to dispute the PTM policy based on what's been going on at digital, it's still as clear and meaningful as before. If anyone wants to change "digital" into a broad concept article, that's orthogonal to the partial title match policy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I consider the subjectivity in the policy a road hazard. Sure the drivers may be partially at fault for the collision that has occurred. But the road conditions and traffic signals could be improved. I can see three possible ways of improving it:
1. Remove the subjectivity either by reducing the adjectives in the wording or showing more examples of how to determine what's ambiguous enough to be linked on the page. All adjectives are subjective to a degree.
2. Add more thorough instructions as to how to apply the guide to avoid the temptation of WP:JUSTAPOLICY from people who lack the ability to judge more carefully or just like to make bot-like edits. Maybe Add a rule that PTV shouldn't be applied without discussion on the talk page (instead of the edit comment) and without discussing each link removed case-by-case in the case of multiple links removed.
3. Add more thorough instructions to what doesn't apply. For example, I don't think WP:V applies to this policy, nor was it meant to be used in this policy. Even if it applies, it shouldn't be applied as strictly as it has in this case. Verifying of ambiguity to a degree acceptable for the deletionists wikipedians isn't as easy as proving something as absolute as facts or quotes from reliable sources. And a directory pages and listings aren't the same as articles that are supposed to be factual. It should be a judgement call, but not one that is made legalistic by wikipedia rules designed to solve problems of a different nature.
Any or all of the above would be an improvement. A broad concept article would only fix one problem. Fixing PTM wouldn't hurt. It could only help. It could avoid this sort of collision in the future. Or we could just let it happen again. This time, maybe it was hurt feelings and damaged reputations. In the future, it may lead to good editors and even users getting turned off from wikipedia altogether. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally I don't really see the problem. The examples now used in the policy are fairly clear to me: the first is an apposition (Baltimore Zoo) and the second is an adjective (North Carolina). Allowing the vernacular uses of "digital" to creep into the disambiguation page as if they were disambiguation items would be a very slippery slope and it would be contrary to the spirit of the partial title match policy - keep the disambiguation pages straightforward, rather than a messy amorphous mass. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The examples in the PTM wording are not good examples of what we are dealing with on the actual disambiguation page. Both examples are about nouns, places, explicit locations, not about adjectives like "digital." Adjectives are much more ambiguous than locations. Adjectives get used more often. Just google the words "mississippi,"[13] "zoo,"[14] and "digital"[15]. The word "digital" gets 10 times more hits. The word "digital" is used much more often than the other two words. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If "digital" is a disambiguation page, it needs to list the different meanings of the word "digital". It does not need to list all the various phrases in which the word "digital" is also used. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The page didn't simply list phrases that contained the word "digital." There are hundreds of phrases that contain the word "digital." The page listed only a dozen or less of the most common concepts (not labels) that could generically and colloquially be referred to as "digital" whether or not the word "digital" was used in the terms. But the guide was over applied and over half were carelessly removed while some of the least common uses were allowed to stay. It should have been a case-by-case edit with more discussion than WP:JUSTAPOLICY. The subjectivity in the policy mistaken as objective is what invites this kind of abuse. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that that edit was subjective. For example, it was pointless to link to "electronic media" because the linked article doesn't even mention this usage. Another clear example is "digital native" - it's both undocumented in the target article, and quite confusing, because you simply don't call one of those people "a digital", IOW there's no ambiguity between "digital" and "digital native". Besides, you seem to be missing the more general point: disambiguation exists to distinguish between several eponymous but different topics. Electronic media and digital media and the other uses of "digital" aren't ambiguous, rather, they're applications of the same broad concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
First, when someone mistakes "digital" to simply mean "electronic," then it's an oversimplification. There is no need to mention the misuse in the article if the misuse is mentioned in the disambiguation page. If they found the article any other way besides the disambiguation page, then they obviously aren't making the mistake. The disambiguation page only serves to correct the mistake in that regard. An editor may even find the digital media article and see that it's an oversimplification. But not knowing that there's an electronic media article which includes digital media, they might simply link "digital" as part of a phrase.
Second, as mentioned before, because digital is an adjective, it's often linked by itself as part of a phrase. So it's unlikely that someone will call a digital native, simply a "digital." But not knowing there's an article called "digital native" someone might link just the single word "digital" in that phrase (e.g. digital native) or the single word "digital" in a similar phrase such as "digital youth" or "digital generation." If they were to link the entire phrase, a redirect might solve the problem. But the disambiguation page could serve to preempt the need for a redirect. Not all editors will think to use a redirect. I've found dozens of articles where they simply link the adjective digital. If you don't believe me, check the "what links here" for digital data. Most of those links were made before the article was renamed from the single word "digital." Many of them are still linked from a single word even after the bot linked the single word to digital data.
Third, I don't see disambiguation pages as exclusively for linking to ambiguous concept articles. I see how a disambiguation page can help (more accurately than search) clear up confusion when linking from ambiguous terms. So although the articles aren't ambiguous, the links from the term "digital" even as part of a phrase is often ambiguous enough to link to an oversimplification or misunderstood meaning in the context in the article it was linked from, not the article it links to. I'm not missing the more general point of disambiguation pages. Instead some of the project disambiguation members seem to be misunderstanding the full scope of what it means to be ambiguous. People who project there own perspective on to other people tend to think somethings are not ambiguous just because they personally understand the context themselves. What makes a term ambiguous is whether or not one or most people understand it, but instead, whether or not it could be misunderstood by anyone. It's never a question of whether or not an adjective like "digital" is ambiguous, even as part of a phrase. All adjectives are ambiguous to a degree. The question is whether or not any particular usage of the adjective by itself or as part of a phrase is ambiguous enough to be included in the disambiguation page along with any synonyms whether or not they include the adjective. It's a question that should be answered on a case-by-case basis. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there are several noun senses of "Digital", as the name of songs or albums. All words are potentially "ambiguous" to the degree that people are paying attention. Somewhere out there is a person who would confuse digital with didgeridoo, but if we listed every possible point of misunderstanding, our disambiguation pages would be endless, and therefore useless to anyone trying to find the most likely search target. bd2412 T 20:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like my main point that's not coming across is that "digital" would no longer be a disambiguation page, rather it would contain the broad-concept article. In other words, the broad concept would be the seen as the primary topic, and the disambiguation page would move out, and in turn be linked from a hatnote. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the broad concept article would make the difference, if it existed. And even if it existed, it's not mutually exclusive from a more helpful disambiguation page. The disambiguation page could serve as an easy temporary fix if it only listed 10 or 20 of the most common usage and misuses of the term. It doesn't have to be hundreds of links. There's already hundreds of links in the links from the see also section. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. I still think that a disambiguation page should simply be a disambiguation page, it shouldn't attempt to fix all sorts of tangentially related problems - a broad concept article can do so instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All flaming aside, I'm not looking to have PTM removed. I'm mainly looking for acknowledgement of the obvious ambiguity in the wording rather than simple denial, and for someone to address my 3 numbered suggestions for improvement midway through the discussion. Either tell me why they wouldn't improve the usability of this guide or consider supporting a rewording effort. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Do you think Running back, Running mate, Running on Empty, Running Scared, and Running with Scissors should be on Running (disambiguation)? That is the sort of thing that this policy is intended to stem. If we included every title containing "Running" then the page would expand by about 300 entries, most of which would never be something someone would look for, or expect to find, under the word "Running" alone. That's why the page only includes things that can be shown to be referred to by the disambiguation term alone. bd2412 T 03:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not the same problem. I understand that PTM is to keep too many links from ending up on a single disambiguation page. Limiting the number of links can be as simple as saying no more than a dozen or two dozen links per page. Then it would just require a little judgment on determining which links are most likely. However, disambiguating a noun (like the "zoo" or "mississippi" examples in the PTM wording) or a verb (like the "running" In the examples you give) isn't the same as disambiguating an adjective like "digital." I can't see that a person would link just the word "running" in the word "running back." But more often than not, if single adjectives like the word "digital" are linked, they will be linked as single words in part of a phrase. The examples given in the PTM wording are easy noun examples that don't address the more difficult and more likely use of ambiguous adjectives. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Here's some examples of "digital" linked as a single word in part of a phrase: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Oicumayberight (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
        • First, "running" is both a verb and a noun. The senses on the page are primarily noun senses. Second, we can't limit a disambiguation page to a certain number of links. Look at Phoenix and John Smith. Each has dozens and dozens of exact title matches. Without a PTM rule, a numerical limitation would be meaningless. How would you decide which ones to leave out? Finally, as to your examples, when used purely as an adjective, digital should not be linked at all. When used as part of a phrase like "digital landscape" or "digital switching systems", the entire phrase is the thing that should be linked, and ideally should link or redirect to a relevant article. We have this issue with pages like Beautiful, where there are many songs, albums, and similar works by that name, but where the adjective by itself is a common word that should never be linked. bd2412 T 12:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You said "without a PTM rule." Again, I'm not advocating to get rid of PTM. I'm advocating to improve the wording of PTM. Yes, PTM should primarily determine what doesn't get linked.
It is good that you have addressed an adjective this time. We are getting closer to understanding each other. PTM works well on disambiguation pages like beautiful where there's lots of articles and uses with the single word title, and there is a broad concept article. Most people know that beauty is subjective and know that linking just the single word "beautiful" of a phrase (not a title) will be used in the intended context. There are very few alternate meanings, although it wouldn't hurt to have a link to aesthetics and Taste (sociology) in the disambiguation page.
However, In the case of "digital," a particular user's interpretation of PTM didn't work well. There is no broad concept article. There isn't as many single word title articles. I'm finding more often than not, articles linking the single word are not in the intended context. And there is more than just a couple of alternative meanings. Since digital is the near opposite meaning of analog, it should almost be a mirror inverse of what the analog disambiguation page looks like. You can see by the Talk:Analog page that it was handled with a little more sensitivity by the same user in hindsight of how the digital disambiguation page was handled. Oicumayberight (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"A particular user's interpretation" is incorrect since it is "All but one of the editors' interpretations". And it is working well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"All but one?" how soon we forget. So now it's about WP:MAJORITY? And that assumes that all the editors before you got involved agree with your deletions too. I know they didn't put the links there just to have them removed. I suggest you take a cue from your fellow wikiproject disambiguation member bd2412 and address the actual points of the discussion. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh BTW bd2412, on your last point, I agree that the entire phrase should be linked and pointed to an actual article. My goal is to make disambiguation pages more useful in helping editors find the most relevant articles, without making the disambiguation page too long to browse or too short to be functional. Thats why I think if the disambiguation page has no more than a dozen or two links and they are listed in order of most common to least common usage, it will work as well as it could without being a search engine. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
No. Listing "in order of most common to least common usage" (rather than dividing into sections for people, places, books etc) would make dab pages harder to use - and much harder to maintain. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You can still divide into sections and sort the sections from most common to least common usage in the context of the word or term. Then you could sort the links within the sections from most common to least common usage within each section. It's what is known as a multiple sort criteria. It's what's already in effect. There isn't that much consistency the way it is now. Sometimes people even sort alphabetically. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oicumayberight, I'm not sure how many more times can we rehash the same argument... please write the broad concept article! :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Joy [shallot], I've agreed with you on the need for a broad concept article, although I probably won't contribute outside of the talk page. I've accepted your agreement to disagree on the need to improve the wording of PTM in the guide and digital disambiguation page. If you don't have anything more to add, I'm here to discuss it with anyone else who is willing. So far, bd2412 has been the only one willing to advanced the discussion by addressing PTM as it applies to adjectives. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Support WP:PTM staying. It's common sense but I've seen many an example of folk linking to things just like the Baltimore Zoo example. --RA (✍) 23:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is advocating removing WP:PTM. I'm advocating amending and maybe rewording it to help the guide users be a little more sensitive towards disambiguating adjectives. Oicumayberight (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_39&oldid=1077446448"