Wikipedia

Talk:Nosedive

(Redirected from Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation))
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Bradv in topic Requested move 14 August 2018
Learn more about this page

Requested move 14 August 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago91 comments30 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Clear consensus that the Black Mirror episode is not the primary topic for this term. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv 04:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

– WP:ASTONISH. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 03:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:ASTONISH may not be policy, but it's good advice. WP:DAB is policy, and it says that the primary purpose of disambiguation is leading readers to the page they may desire. Finding an obscure topic, as it is a single episode of a popular series, can be disorienting, when it seems likely that Wikipedia might cover elsewhere the concept in either aviation or economics. Diego (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Support. Some claim the science fiction episode, 63 minutes, 21 October 2016, Middling reviews, noted for predictability and repetitiveness, is the primary topic? Seriously? The article, like the independent secondary sources, introduce and refer to the topic throughout with scare quotes. This is because the episode alludes to the word. Nosedive. A sudden large decrease. A noun since 1912. A verb since 1915. The words "nosedive", like "stall and "sideslip", are aviation allusions frequently applied to popularity, which is the central theme of the episode. Clearly derivative. Therefore, not the primary topic, just a flash in the pan popular scifi episode with a very brief rush of fan coverage.
Commercial products, whether toys, songs, or TV episodes, should not easily be afforded "Primary topic" status. It is just a clever form of promotion, name your product with a catchy common word that can easily be slipped into everyday usage in a jingle, a slogan, human memory. Everyone knows what a nosedive is, in a vague way, and so the human mind is prone to something new being slotted into place over that long term memory.[1] No, commercial products must not be allowed to grab "primary status" for common concepts or words.
And quite apart from not being a primary topic for a nosedive, the episode is of no interest outside the context of being a Black Mirror episode. "Black Mirror" belongs in the title, for consistency (see Category:Black Mirror episodes), and for recognisability, and because the sources always include the context of "Black Mirror".
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Middling reviews, noted for predictability and repetitiveness". You mean the Emmy-nominated episode which won its lead actor a Screen Actors Guild Award? But seriously, I don't see how your low opinion of the episode has anything to do with this. Your argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And the idea that the creator of an episode chose the episode title so that it would the be primary topic on Wikipedia, or somehow intrude its way into the viewer's mind, is a preposterous conspiracy theory.
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY very specifically says "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative" and we are not a dictionary. Your ramblings about commercial products do not match our article naming policies in the slightest. WP:PRECISION contradicts what you say about consistency in Black Mirror episodes (it's not convention at WP:TV to disambiguate all episode articles in the way you describe). I suggest you reconsider your comments. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The middling reviews stuff speaks to the improbability of ongoing significance. Being the original source is not determinative, but it is important. Commercial aspects go to WP:NOTPROMOTION. PRECISION and CONSISTENCY both matter; the first is failed because the term is ambiguous, the second supports all episodes carrying the same parenthetical. I checked your comment, nosedive meaning Descent (aeronautics) is pretty significant. There is no PRimaryTopic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you just want to look up the definition, you're at the wrong venue... find that at wikt:nosedive. wbm1058 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have a problem with the second item listed on the nosedive (disambiguation) page, "In sailing, a trapeze (sailing)". The trapeze refers to a wire that comes from a point high on the mast, usually where the shrouds are fixed, to a hook on the crew member's harness at approximately waist level. From that article, "This is necessary to prevent racing catamarans such as the Tornado from digging the bow into the water, also called pitchpoling, and causing a nosedive and often a spectacular capsize." In other words, a trapeze is a thing, it's not a "nosedive". Nosedive isn't even a valid term in sailing; it's the everyday word used to describe the meaning of pitchpoling, the actual sailing term which nobody's as yet bothered to create a redirect for. Nor is there a redirect for pitchpole; see wikt:pitchpole. But you know that, the minute some TV writer names an episode "Pitchpole", there will be a knee-jerk reaction to retroactively create a disambiguation page to define the term. Or maybe not, if nobody's astonished by seeing an unfamiliar term used to name an episode. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I expect pitchpoling/pitchpole don't exist because they aren't common words, the term nosedive is a common word, but I'd say that those 2 redirects should probably be created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
On seeing the update to the target of Dive (aviation), I think this is a reasonable link to the topic with the greatest long-term significance. Whether that's enough to counteract the weight of current usage, I'm still not sure of that. wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
If you're referring to the addition of the words "or nosedive" to the article, I believe that is a faulty edit. The 3 sources added - two dictionary definitions and one discussion of a definition - seem to corroborate Narky Blert's statement below, that nosedive is a subset of dive, not a synonym as presented in that edit. A dive has a number of intentional purposes, while a nosedive involves lack of pilot control and possibly ground contact. While a paragraph could probably be written about nosedives, as of now nobody has written it and the article appears to be inaccurate. Station1 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Where do you see that nosedive is a subset of dive? All the references define nosedive as a steep and sudden fall, and only the Linguistics analysis introduces a suggestion to distinguish uncontrolled falls as one particular case of several (with both dive and nosedive appearing either with or without control). Diego (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Although sometimes used synonymously, the Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms (the original citation in the article) says that a dive is simply "a steep descending flight path"; it has no entry for nosedive. The Cambridge source just added, says a nosedive is "a fast and sudden fall to the ground with the front pointing down". The Oxford source says "plunge". The Token source says "without the pilot's control", while the rest of Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives describes only dives that are under the pilot's control, such as used in acrobatics and dive bombing. I'll add that Webster's says a dive is "a steep descent, in which the air speed attained is greater than the maximum speed in horizontal flight", while a nosedive is more specifically "a head-on dive in an airplane". Station1 (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:NOTDICT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Of the three "Nosedive" topics covered by Wikipedia (the episode, the song, and the character), the episode is the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. There is no other article on WP that is or could reasonably be titled "Nosedive", and this article gets almost 2000 hits per day, the large majority of which want this topic, based on pageviews of other episodes in the series. Station1 (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Descent (aeronautics)#Dives describes nosedives. Although it's a section rather than an article, I think it's a credible enough rival to the episode for the post of primary topic, and when that happens the best outcome is often a dab. Certes (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Users show very little relative interest in that entire article, Descent (aeronautics), as compared to the very high interest in the episode. --В²C ☎ 21:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    That interest is transient, and limited to a subset of readers who are the target demography for the series (which happen to be interested now, but will fade away with time). Readers from other demographics will be more interested in the topic covered by the largest number of reliable sources over the years. Diego (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Since I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL should I just take your word for it that that interest is transient? Never mind that interest in TV shows can last years and even decades. Of course the people seeking an article are the ones interested in the topic of that article. Do you really think we should discount their activity and search behavior on that basis? --В²C ☎ 23:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    If that interest turns out to be sustained, it will create a level of coverage in reliable sources enough to compete for primacy; combined with its higher usage, that might be enough to grant it PRIMARYTOPIC status. Meanwhile, we can recognize that we have two topics competing for it, one by current usage and the other by long-term significance, and help all readers to find their target instead of only a subset of them, which is what PRIMARYTOPIC mandates when there's no clear winner. In other words, it's too soon to grant the TV chapter primary status when its level of coverage in RSs is not up to the task. Diego (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    BTW, the level of attention is not that high. It got two peaks (mostly in the US, UK, Canada and Australia) coinciding with its original airing and the airing of season 4, and then attention quickly declines to a new baseline. So there's an increase of awareness of the term because of the chapter's title, but it's not to at the levels of a global phenomenon. Diego (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Either Support the disambiguation, or change the redirect to Descent (aeronautics) which is the article for the primary meaning of the word. In any case, the Black Mirror episode is not a primary topic for the term, and linking them is against WP:ASTONISH. Nosedive (Black Mirror) would be a much better title for this article, making it easier to navigate to and understand the topic at first sight. If we don't agree to a consensus that Descent is the primary topic, WP:PTOPIC requests us to have a disambiguation page there. Diego (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support: The TV series episode article would clearly be WP:ASTONISHing to readers, and not in a good way. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support moves. It's pretty obvious by this point that the Black Mirror episode is in no way the primary topic, even in the present day. As BM fades out of the public consciousness, so will this episode. ONR (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The two biggest contenders for an actual primary topic for "nosedive" would be the physical nosedive, which we have encyclopedic content on, and a figurative nosedive, which we can best serve readers with a wiktionary box. The argument that the Black Mirror episode is automatically the primary topic because it is the only one with this title entirely falls apart if someone decides to spin out the content at Descent (aeronautics) into a stub article that would also reasonably be titled "Nosedive". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Navigational pages (redirects and disambiguation pages) navigate present Wikipedia. Future Wikipedia would make changes to support future Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Present Wikipedia contains a page about nosedives in aviation, and even a link to sister website Wiktionary (just like WP:NOTDICT recommends doing, in place of keeping the knowledge of basic words within the encyclopedia). What is your argument for preferring Nosedive (Black Mirror) over these? Diego (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    [2], which of course counts all readers seeking "Descent", not just those seeking it as "Nosedive". We could create a Nosedive (aeronautics) redirect and compare its usage after a few months (like we did with "Lincoln" for a while). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    That redirect sounds like a good idea anyway. A link to it would improve the disambiguation page, and it would make a useful entry in the search dropdown. Certes (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - While the episode is popular, it is clearly named for the broader metaphor. This is a beneficial move in the long-term. -- Netoholic @ 10:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per others. And per serious treatment by sources: Current Debates in Media Studies, vol.25. People take tv and movies and music seriously, folks. Dohn joe (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, of course, who said they don't? But a Primary Topic is not just "something that people take seriously", it must be the thing that people unambiguously thinks of as the thing that goes with the name (if it's not unambiguous, it needs disambiguation); and not just as the first thing that comes to mind, but also after reflecting upon it, even then it must be the thing that makes people say "well, of course this subject is the primary topic, what else could it be? Oh yes maybe there's such and such, but I understand how this one is is primary". So I ask, what is the percentage of the English-speaking population that when hearing "nosedive" think, "Of course, you're talking about that Black Mirror episode"? (I really enjoyed the episode, by the way; it may be one of the best in the series. Not that it's relevant to the discussion). Diego (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support there are many episodes of television shows that are currently the primary topic that should not be. At least for Black Mirror episodes are sometimes referred to by title. The Descent_(aeronautics) topic is at least as notable as the Black Mirror episode. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support WP:PTOPIC#2 - episode does not have long-term significance over descent. And remember, it's primary topic, not primary title - it doesn't matter that there is nothing else titled nosedive, the topic is at Descent (aeronautics), and so the topic of the episode is not primary Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    It matters tremendously that there is nothing else titled Nosedive. The policy is WP:Article titles, not WP:Article topics. Primary topic comes into play only when there are two topics that could reasonably have identical titles. That is not the case here. When titles are not identical, there is rarely a reason to disambiguate titles. If topics are ambiguous we can disambiguate using less intrusive means, such as hatnotes. (There are rare cases where WP:Primaryredirect comes into play, but certainly not in this case.) Station1 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    There are two (or more) topics that could reasonably have identical titles. In the absence of the episode, Nosedive could reasonably be the title of (or a primary redirect to) the topic of rapid descent, even though it happens to be covered by a section of Descent (aeronautics) rather than a separate article. The term is genuinely ambiguous, not just with a dictionary definition but between multiple topics actually covered in Wikipedia. The only question is whether one of those topics is so much more notable than the other that it should be the term's primary topic. Certes (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Unless someone proposes to move Descent (aeronautics) to Nosedive, there is no conflict between titles and no reason to disambiguate a title. If someone did make such a proposal, I would point out Descent (aeronautics) gets fewer than 2% of the pageviews of Nosedive and that the term "nosedive" is not even listed in the Dictionary of Aeronautical Terms. Station1 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    When titles are not identical, there is rarely a reason to disambiguate titles. Nice consideration. Too bad the policy covers that point and explicitly says the opposite: "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". The policy for disambiguation is WP:Primary topic, not WP:Primary titles nor WP:Article titles (which is about setting the label at the top of an article, not for writing the navigation pages). If these were rare cases, why would we have a whole section dedicated to them, a guideline stating that a different article title doesn't impede the topic being primary? (The term is defined as nosedive in A Journal of English Linguistics BTW, as well as appearing with that meaning in numerous aviation books).
    Note also that If no primary topic exists, then the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). When two topics (not titles, topics) compete for primacy and there's no consensus that one of them is primary, the default is having a disambiguation page at the term. Diego (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, but that's wrong. Policy is WP:Article titles, which says titles should be natural, recognizable, consistent, concise and no more precise than necessary. "Because no two articles can have the same title", you're looking at WP:Disambiguation, which is only a guideline about what to do in that situation. Station1 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Are you saying that WP:Primary redirect doesn't apply because it somehow contradicts WP:Article titles? If not, I don't get your point. That the Dive (aviation) article has a different title, which no one denies, in no way reduces the need to disambiguate the ambiguous term Nosedive with respect to the topic under that title. There's nothing at WP:Article titles saying that there's no need, and there's WP:Primary redirect saying that such need exists. At this point we're merely applying reading comprehension to what the policy and guideline say, not interpreting how they apply to the case at hand. Diego (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    "Nosedive" is recognizable, concise, consistent with similar articles and as precise as it needs to be. Is it conceivable that, despite that, we might need to name it something else, under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? Yes, if there were another article that needed the title, either directly or as a primary redirect. But there's not. If the need is to disambiguate a topic, rather than a title, just stick a hatnote on the article. That way, the rare person who lands on Nosedive by mistake, clicks on the hatnote, while the 98% who do want to read about Nosedive are not inconvenienced. Station1 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    “Nosedive” (the BM episode) is highly misrecognisable from a simple listing such as in categories or from a url or from hover text. It does not precisely describe to topic. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    It's in the categories 2016 British television episodes, Augmented reality in fiction, Black Mirror episodes, Social media in fiction, and Social reputation in fiction. Hover text would normally be in some context, I assume. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    It is also in tracking and maintenance categories, as well as a larger number of talk page categories. There are also downstream use considerations. External search engines with non-verbose or low-end output just give the title. The need for hovertext, a frequent accessibility need, happens because of a problem with context, the more incoming links the worse the issue, the less incoming links the less justification of PrimaryTopic. Wikipedia titles frequently stand alone, out of any context. This is why WP:Precise, which it clearly fails. The PRECISE failure is cross-over failure due to ambiguity and misrecognisability. Nosedive is an old common word with a singly etymology, a well-defined concept, with a multitude of derivative uses, one of which has been coined for the title of this single episode of very narrow strong popularity. A great many readers will have zero awareness of Black Mirror or this episode, but a very plausible interest in the aviation subtopic or the other derivative uses, which is the gist of ASTONISH. There is a very clear disadvantage to many readers of putting the episode at the basename, and zero, to my reading so far, advantages. What is the advantage to any reader of the episode sitting at the basename? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    The advantage is that for those people typing Nosedive/Enter in the search box, the large majority will land on the article they are seeking. Station1 (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    That is a zero advantage for your large majority because they can do the same thing if the title were "Nosedive (Black Mirror)". Type in "nosed", take the first or second option. You don't think it is a disadvantage that no one knows exactly what they will get, first attempt? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    I referred only to those people who type Nosedive/Enter. There will be some of those even if the move goes through, just a smaller number. The large majority of that group - whatever its size - expect to get the TV show on their first attempt. They will be disadvantaged, however slightly, by landing elsewhere. Station1 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Anyone typing just "nosedive"<enter> should end up on the DAB page, especially when they are overlooking the suggested "Nosedive (Black Mirror)". The DAB page is a light and easy-to-read safety-net good for all. I oppose sending clumsy searchers to Descent (aeronautics)#Dives because are sent to a subsection below to fold where they can't even see the automatic "(Redirected from ..." hatnote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    It sounds like you want to punish the poor souls who would overlook what's right there on the dropdown menu (assuming javascript is enabled). As to the second point, I agree, especially since there's nothing in the article specifically about nosedives, as opposed to dives generally. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    Most page readers navigate there from wikilinks or from google. Black Mirror fans should assume that the world knows about Black Mirror, so yeah, if they do, they get the DAB page with Nosedive (Black Mirror) at the top. Black Mirror fans reading about the episode on Wikipedia are not the world's most needing of assistance. In contrast, the school kids in Borneo, they hear about "nosedive", are oblivious to UK TV popular fiction, with their limited devices and access, they should not be punished with the relatively heavy Black Mirror page. That's a navigation reason for the move. There's still the fact that the episode should have "Black Mirror" in its title for the proper function of a title typical of scholarship as opposed to headlinese. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. WTF is Black Mirror? (And, I'm in UK.)
The primary meaning in UK of 'nosedive' has been a subset of Dive (aviation) since WWII, and I suspect also since WWI. A nosedive is not a good idea: it implies an impending crash; most likely, because a plane has just been shot up, and is heading straight towards the ground, nose first, most likely under power; with unfortunate (i.e. fatal) consequences for everyone in it.
"He went into a nosedive" is laconic 1940s RAF understatement.
Where did that UK TV series get their episode title from?, I ask myself. Narky Blert (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Playing the Wikipedia:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT card? I hope the closing admin has the policy understanding to weigh such !votes appropriately... --В²C ☎ 16:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Narky Blert makes the pertinent point that even in the UK many people know absolutely nothing about this TV series. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I find funny that B2C's new argument is that the closer will know how to understand policy properly (linking to a guideline stating Because many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind"), when the whole position for not moving is that the TV chapter is popular among people looking for information about the series. Diego (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm also in the UK and have never heard of Black Mirror, I agree to most people "Nosedive" means the descent. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are we serving the users, or not?

edit

Any user who enters nosedive into the WP Search box and hits Go is most likely looking for the article about the episode. We know this from page view counts and Google test results limited to en.wp discussed above. The Astonish argument is essentially, "too bad", because the tiny minority looking for the relatively rarely viewed aeronautical article will be "astonished" upon landing on a TV episode article titled Nosedive. It is a disservice to all the users searching with nosedive in order to read about this episode to send them somewhere else instead, and they are clearly in the majority. Are we about serving the users, or not? It seems to me anyone supporting this move is not. --В²C ☎ 02:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone supporting the move is not trying to serve the users. But I agree with the sentiment. One interesting thought I had is that ASTONISH is not really related to whether editors coming to the discussion are astonished about where they landed. It's about whether a reader would think "I wonder if Wikipedia has an article on ___; I'll just type in 'nosedive'" and end up somewhere unexpected. And it seems quite rare that a reader would type in 'nosedive' if they were looking for something aviation or stock market related, but of course it's the only thing someone looking for the Black Mirror episode could possibly search for (and it's a highly searched-for article). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 02:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
 
If the episode were titled Nosedive (Black Mirror), "Nosedive (Black Mirror)" would appear at the top of the drop-down autocomplete suggestions, the best result for everyone. Under the ambigfuous "Nosedive" title, no one know for sure what they will get. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • As just posted at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Meaning_of_words_in_disambiguation, there is a conflict between the meaning of "search" and what happens with the "search box", which is auto-completion allowing two typos. If the episode were titled "Nosedive (Black Mirror)", then "Nosedive (Blac'k Mirror)" would appear in the drop down list, in position 1 or 2 after "nosed" is entered. This would best serve all readers. All readers wanting "Nosedive (Black Mirror)" immediately see it and choose it from the top, all readers wanting something else do not choose it and do not download the largish page unwanted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
All of this is not so hard to work out on a large desktop screen. On a small computer or handheld device, working it out is awful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's best to ignore the role that drop downs may or may not play. On mobile if I type in nosedive and click Search, it takes me to Nosedive. Which is good, because that's where most people typing nosedive in the Search box are looking to go. Where someone unlikely to ever enter nosedive in the Search box, like many of the participants in this discussion appear to be in (including myself), would expect to be taken if they ever did search for nosedive, is hardly relevant compared to where users who are likely to enter such a search are looking to go. And that, at least for the foreseeable future, is the article about the TV episode. --В²C ☎ 16:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Now you want to ignore the dropdowns? What proportion of even English speakers do you think know anything of the TV episode? What proportion know about aeroplanes? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Of the people who search for "Nosedive" on WP, a very large majority know about the TV episode because that's what they are searching for. Everybody knows about aeroplanes, but very few would expect a separate article about nosedives. Station1 (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The use of the search box is not restricted to those only interested in separate articles.
There are very many reasons someone one Wikipedia would want to search for "nosedive". The word occurs in many articles, very often a key word where if you don't know what it means you can't understand the sentence. examples include:
"Attendance took a nosedive,"
"Tourism takes a nosedive in Crimea"
"a nosedive and crash like the one that killed Lilienthal"
"Disney, in particular, saw its ratings nosedive"
"The airplane plummeted into a nosedive" (ua93)
"Raasi's career started taking a nosedive"
"can lead to a nosedive crash"
"Used VW diesel prices nosedive"
"Karate's Prestige Takes a Nosedive"
"in an attempt to send the plane into a nosedive"
"sales took a sharp nosedive"
The Wikipedia search box does not include a warning to not search for words. A reader who just happens to not be a fan of a particular TV anthology may very well search for this key word, and end up somewhere astonishing. People searching "nosedive" are best taken to the DAB page where there is the Wiktionary link. By retitling the episode "Nosedive (Black Mirror)", it will appear in the search box at the top after the fifth letter is typed, preventing the access-rich TV pop culture fans from accidentally seeing a DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's best to be taken to a dab page with a Wiktionary link for those people searching for a definition of nosedive. It's best to be taken directly to the TV episode for those people searching for the TV episode. The latter outnumber the former by a huge margin. Station1 (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's true, but... If the episode were at "Nosedive (Black Mirror)", everyone wins. People searching for the episode see "Nosedive (Black Mirror)", people searching for other things (definition or the other topics) will not go to the episode. It's better for everyone to win, than for just most to win. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
You're assuming everyone who wants the TV episode will click on that new title. I assume many will, but not everyone. Some will still type Nosedive/Enter, and the vast majority of that smaller number will still want the TV episode. It's a small number who will be slightly inconvenienced, but still a net detriment to WP. Station1 (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
And how large is that number of readers looking for the episode who will not click on Nosedive (Black Mirror), compared to readers who are not looking for the episode and will get a net improvement? 'cause for people deliberately avoiding the tag (Black Mirror), the most likely explanation is that they are not looking for Black Mirror. Diego (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
How is any of this discussion related to policy-based arguments? It's all hypotheticals. Wikipedia editors skew unduly towards using browsers and being sighted. I personally have very little idea of what navigation with the search bar is like when using mobile or speech-to-text software (or a Braille keyboard etc.). But I would imagine that in these cases, users looking for the Black Mirror episode would benefit from it being located at Nosedive. Now of course only a minority of readers will be blind, but a large majority are on mobile, so there's little point to approaching this from the perspective of how we use the search function. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 16:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

@JHunterJ and Uanfala: please stop making changes without consensus. Let's discuss the links which should be included in the dab page, and in what order. My suggestion is we include all of the links that were originally there. Note that to include a link, the target does not need to use the word "nosedive"; it only needs to cover the topic that "nosedive" describes in that context. Then, I think we should have two sections for "Terminology" and "Arts and entertainment", and the Black Mirror link will either be in the opening sentence or the latter category depending on the closure of the discussion above. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • There is an argument in the discussion above against inlcuding an entry for the trapeze. Other than that, I think the only genuinely contestable matter is the order of the entries. What makes for a logical order is consistency in grouping similar entries and a progression from the general to the specific: it seems best to begin with the most obvious meaning (nosedive of an airplane) as it makes clear the metaphor underlying the term as used in the other entries and it can easily acommodate in its entry a description of the generic derivative meaning. I don't like this version, which starts with an entry for a specific proper noun (the episode) and then changes gear and lists the general meaning and then goes on to list some more derivative proper nouns: that's just jarring. – Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Agree, the Primary Meaning is the nosedive of the airplane. The link to Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives belongs at the top (I don't support linking to redirects, give the real link piped instead), with the Wiktionary box for the same thing at the top on the right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • The primary topic is the point of discussion in the section above, so there's no point rehashing that here. Linking to a section is diallowed by WP:NOTBROKEN ("Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links."). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
          • But a NOTBROKEN good reason dot point 2 is for the hovertext feature. The section link tells the reader what page they will really go to, the redirect misleads. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
            Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives has been stable for almost eight years, since added here. I think it is stable enough. Would an {{anchor}} make you agreeable? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
            • No it wouldn't not, because of the "never" in the above quote, which is specifically talking about section links (unlike your point, which I suspect is aimed more at redirects from book names to authors and suchlike, and mostly redundant with the introduction of hovercards). Local consensus here cannot override the larger consensus described by that guideline anyway. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
              • Bilorv, what quote? Your non-applicable "Wikipedia's advice pages" quote? Or "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." Descent_(aeronautics)#Dives is not a Wikipedia advice page. As for the next quote, why not? Since when is hovertext never helpful? I see there is a current thread on the topic at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#'Do_not_"fix"_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken'. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
                • I don't know which part of "Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed" you are misunderstanding but it's very obvious. I won't debate this any further because you are quite simply in the wrong. I would appreciate it if you could accept that rather than responding with this childish attempt at Wikilawyering. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
                  • Bilorv, I'm afraid you're misreading WP:NOTBROKEN, which applies exclusively to rewriting existing links ("bypass" in that policy means "replace a link to a redirect with its target", so "never bypass" means "links to redirects to sections are never broken"). The relevant policy regarding links to sections at DAB pages is MOS:DABPIPE, which discourages piped links and redirects ("Apart from the exceptions listed below, piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages"). What WP:NOTBROKEN discourages is doing a project-wide replacing of redirects to sections (which are easier to fix if the target is centralized in the redirect page). It doesn't apply to creating new links, nor to links to sections for which there is no redirect. The current version (a link to Dive (aviation)) is covered by the exception at MOS:DABREDIR. Diego (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Agree about the piping, but just pointing out that in the context of ordering the entres, I was talking about the primary meaning, not the primary topic – of course people are welcome to disagree with making such a distinction, but let's be aware that such a distinction is on the table. – Uanfala (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The changes I made conform to the consensus guidelines WP:D and WP:MOSDAB, and there is no consensus here to deviate from those. There is no such thing here as "primary meaning", because Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICT. There is a "primary topic" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), which would be the Wikipedia topic that is primary for an ambiguous title. Descent (aeronautics) is not a topic for this ambiguous title, because it does not MOS:DABMENTION "nosedive". Even moreso the unlinked dictionary definition. Readers accidentally using the encyclopedia as a dictionary will find the Wiktionary link on the disambiguation page. Descent (aeronautics) belongs in the see also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's reasonable to include Dive (aviation) in the main body of the dab. I wouldn't object to mentioning the term "nosedive" in the Descent (aeronautics) article, defining it as an "extreme dive" which puts a plane at risk of a crash or actually results in (perhaps causes) a crash. I'll bet if you searched for news articles about small-plane crashes you could find one quoting a witness who saw the plane "nosedive into the parking lot" where their attempt at an emergency landing failed. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's a widely used term (though somewhat tautological: you really don't want to attempt a taildive). Certes (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nosedive&oldid=1241786663"