Talk:Telegram (disambiguation)

Chat application

What about chat application named Telegram by Pavel Durov, based on MTProto protocol? There is review from techcrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/27/meet-telegram-a-secure-messaging-app-from-the-founders-of-vk-russias-largest-social-network/ `a5b (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of piping

The piping of the primary meaning to telegraphy is non-standard. There is an issue arising about equating the telegram(me) with any message sent by telegraphy. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved - clearly there is still a primary topic by long-term significance according to the consensus here (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Telegram (disambiguation) → Telegram – The primary meaning of the word 'telegram' is not by almost full majority for the 20th century communication service but significant coverage exists for the messaging app. For example all first page Scholar results are about the app, one of the Google Books results, most of New York Times results. So per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the page telegram should be a disambiguation page and not a redirect to telegraphy. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Pageviews Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Since we don't actually have a dedicated article on the original meaning of the word, the DAB page should probably be the primary page. But the top of the DAB page should give the original meaning of the word, the same as the Discord DAB page. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The redirect is to a description of the telegram for which the word was coined, so is certainly primary in that sense. Surely the percieved problem should be solved by adding a link to the messaging app in the disambiguation page.--TedColes (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point, but then the hatnote for Telegram (software) should (also) be at Telegraphy#Telegram_services and not just on the top of the page, as that is where you get redirected to first? Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose judging by NGRAMS results, which go up to 2019, it seems that the original telegraph technology is the primary topic here.[1] (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• Google Books search for telegram certainly shows the original meaning to be overwhelming, but at the same time, most of these references are rather cursory, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While the original term from telegraphy is certainly generally relevant, I think its long-term significance has, for most modern-day readers, clearly been switching into mainly being the etymology for telegram style and in turn the modern-day apps etc. Full disambiguation might indeed serve most readers best, rather than short-circuiting navigation to point mainly to the old term. Mass views for the current page is rather overwhelming. If we look at e.g. Page views for the most popular terms and the navigation aids it seems like most people who look up "telegram" do indeed already seem to click on the disambiguation hatnote. This seems to be rather consistent in Page views comparing the two navigation options since 2015, it looks like throughout this period a significant number of clicks have gone to the hatnote, which indicates a lack of primary topic status in that regard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I am still of the opinion that primary topic should be deprecated, until and unless this view prevails we go by the current policy. And I don't think there's any doubt looking at the DAB entries that by cultural significance the traditional telegram is the overwhelming winner; Page views I regard as far less relevant but they give the same result, so no contest. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa what page views give the same result, where exactly are you looking? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Very clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2021 (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.

Requested move 25 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus regarding the long term significance of Telegram (app) and Telegram (communication method) (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Telegram (disambiguation) → Telegram – Telegram currently redirects to Telegraphy#Telegram services. That is a primary topic by long-term significance, but certainly not by usage. The instant messenger dominates search results, incoming links by 2:1 and Page views by 15:1. A 20th-century Wikipedia would rightly have redirected Twitter to Bird vocalization, but usage changes and the oldest meaning may not remain primary forever. Certes (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: By the page move you proposed here, there will be no primary topic. But the disambiguation pages on names of software or IT company usually have a primary topic: Windows (disambiguation) chooses that by usage and Apple_(disambiguation) chooses that by long-term significance. And Twitter has a primary topic as well, while the other topics are linked from a hatnote instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving the instant messenger to Telegram as a primary topic is another valid option, but it would be more disruptive to incoming links and overlooks the long-term significance of the traditional telegraphic message. I suggest putting the dab at the base name as a compromise. Certes (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I will now support per [2]: The number of outgoing pageviews of Telegraphy from Telegram (disambiguation) is similar to that of Telegram (software). NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the same outcome, let me point out that we should look at all of these statistics instead to get a tad more comprehensive picture:

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Telegraphy (which includes the clickstream for the Telegram redirect, sadly without full distinction in the graphs) - where we see that there were 487 identified outgoing clickstreams to the telegram hatnote, plus 272 to the software hatnote, in May '23
• https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-06&end=2023-05&pages=Telegram_(disambiguation)%7CTelegram - where we see that the title "Telegram" received 3,991 views and the hatnote destination page received 2,269 views in the same month
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Telegram_%28disambiguation%29 - where we see that ~2.3k people saw the set index and 493 people went to the telegraphy meaning, 458 to the software, and then a long tail of three other meanings with 10+ clickstreams (and possibly more beyond that).

This means that we have a disambiguation page that is not at a natural title yet still receives a lot of organic search traffic, which is suspect - it's legitimate to ask why are the users and the search engines visiting it so much if there's a primary topic. At the same time, it's also clear that there is no clear majority for the software meaning - a substantial part of identified traffic is people reaching for the telegraphy meaning. By usage, this would be a typical situation where there is no primary topic. --Joy (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support but keep the traditional use of "telegram" as the primary first mention on the disamb. page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good idea. New York makes a suitable model, with the two obvious meanings at the top and the rest classified normally. Certes (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  New York does that because there are, uniquely, two primary topics. If we have to put one PTOPIC at the top of the DAB page, the bare term should just be a redirect. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  If there's one PT then yes, the bare term should be an article or redirect. Technically we can't have two PTs, but if (as I believe) there are two outstanding candidates then we have plenty of precedents for giving them priority: ABC Television, Albany, Alcohol, etc. Certes (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is by far the primary topic by long term significance but less so by usage. I don't find the point about Twitter to be salient because "twitter" now, by and large, only refers to the website, which clearly isn't the case with "telegram". WPscatter ^t/_c 17:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Can you explain your assertion on long-term significance? It's not that obvious. The threshold per WP:PTOPIC is that the telegraphy topic would need to have substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  At the risk of conflating usage and long-term significance, let's discuss the impact of the two main topics on the world population. The telegraphy article says that at their peak in 1929, an estimated 200 million telegrams were sent. Estimates of historical world population indicates that the population was ~2B at the time. A crude and generous interpretation would be that 10% of the population used the service. On the other hand, last year Telegram said 700 million active users, with a total population of a bit under 8B. A likewise crude interpretation there would be a bit under 9%. By this measure, they're already in the same ballpark, so the argument for notability and educational value of talking about telegraphy has to be pretty strong to meet the standard. --Joy (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm honestly baffled that I need to explain this, but telegrams were an entire method of communication. They were revolutionary. Telegram is a single app. A popular one, but still. Of course it's more significant long term, up to the present and likely into the future (though I understand that future speculation can't and shouldn't be an argument here).

  If barely losing by usage and overwhelmingly winning by long-term significance constitutes no primary topic, then fine, I withdraw my opposition, but I wouldn't have thought that was the case. WPscatter ^t/_c 14:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  The main issue with short-circuiting navigation is that the use of the word telegram has those two popular meanings but also a legitimate topic described in telegram style, which arguably demonstrates the long-term significance of the original telegraphy meaning, just like the software meaning in turn. The description of the use of the word in original telegraphy certainly has significance and is of educational value, but that particular meaning has been obsolete for longer than it has been popular at this point, so it's not necessarily clear why we should focus on the historical description so much that we overshadow its rhetorical children, so to speak. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Note that I'm under the impression that we're generally a bit inconsistent about eponyms and eponymous topics. For example, recently we moved away the names Julia and Leonardo away from those article titles because so many other notable items were named the same way, yet I see equivalence to this sort of a case, as most of those meanings only came about because there was a prior meaning of significance. --Joy (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Telegram style deserves its See also entry but is really a PTM rather than a topic of the single word "telegram". Being the origin of a name is a factor but can be overridden, e.g. Boston was named for Boston, Lincs. Certes (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, I'm not sure I agree it's just a partial title match. If you ask the average reader these days what's a telegram, they'll probably assume it's a foremost a form of short written communication, while the information about electrical telegraph or teleprinter or similar is implementation details behind e.g. going to the post office and writing the message on a piece of paper to hand in to the clerk. IOW we could describe both in the telegraphy article or both in a telegram article. --Joy (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  The printed output delivered to the recipient is definitely a telegram, and the form handed in by the sender requesting transmission is debatably one too. (Is a caterpillar a butterfly?) Both are in telegram style, but are a distinct concept from it. I think See also is a good place for borderline PTMs like this. Certes (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support, especially since Telegram is just a redirect to a section of another article and not an article in itself. Recent pageviews show Telegram (software) gets about 15 times as many hits as the entire article Telegraphy. With the Telegram redirect getting about 128 hits/day (high for a redirect), it seems the large majority of that number are looking for the software article. Telegram (software) is probably the new primary topic, but a dab page at Telegram is a step in the right direction. Station1 (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support I don't think there's harm in sending people to a disambiguation page, though I'd strongly oppose the software being primary for the term, of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
• I stand by what I said in #Requested move 15 March 2021. The difference today is that we also have WikiNav to analyze clickstreams, so it seems even more reasonable to disambiguate fully and then after a couple of months be able to see the actual pertinent reader interest and make informed decisions based on that. It's easy enough to restore the primary redirect or keep the disambiguation then. --Joy (talk) 09:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm honestly surprised that we don't have an independent article about telegrams, and I want to encourage someone to start that article by replacing the current redirect with content. Even now, the telegraphy meaning is the overwhelming primary topic by significance and so the current redirect is appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 12:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Netoholic sadly, that's unlikely to happen. Redirects are extra functionality that is slightly obfuscated for new editors and which makes it that much less likely that they'll figure out that they can make an article in the same place. Right now, one would have to open telegram, then scroll back up near the top of the page, notice the small "(Redirected from Telegram)" notice and then click on that instance of the word which has a &redirect=no in the link, and then edit there. It just doesn't happen often enough in practice for us to consider this a generally encouraging environment for editing. By contrast, a disambiguation page would simply show the edit link and would be that much more inviting for people to start editing that (even if they mess it up as a set index as a result). --Joy (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've made a suggestion to mitigate part of that problem at WP:VPIL#Redirect hatnote link. Certes (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't imply that a "new editor" should make the article, so this feels like a tangent. -- Netoholic @ 13:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I just used them as the example of a demographic that has the potential to add this. If we want to consider if experienced editors have the potential to do it, existing history of 18 years of inaction isn't really indicative of much, either. In the two years after the previous curated discussion about this, there's been no interest in this, either (there's been more people complaining about how hard it is to navigate to the software instead). --Joy (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Telegrams, significant for many decades, are still the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  At the risk of appearing to badger two people in a row, since we haven't heard much more two years ago either, I just have to ask - can you please explain this opinion. (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.) --Joy (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing on that list comes close to the significance of the communications system that was vital to the world for well over a century. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination, NmWTfs85lXusaybq, Randy Kryn, Station1, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and per comments by Joy. There are 21 entries listed upon the Telegram (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the redirect to the sub-section header, Telegraphy#Telegram services, continues to hold such lasting historical significance that it overwhelms the combined renown of the remaining 20 entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 June 2023 (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.

followup to move discussion

From the page view stats ([3]) and the clickstream archive:

August '23

incoming 4087

• Telegram_(software) link 708 (~17%)
• Telegram_style link 137 (~3.4%)
• Telegram_(disambiguation) link 135 (~3.4%)
• Telegram_messenger link 102

September '23

incoming 3753

• Telegram_(software) link 582 (~15.5%)
• Telegram_style link 126 (~3.4%)
• Telegram_(disambiguation) link 102 (~2.7%)
• Telegram_messenger link 71

October '23

incoming 3749

• Telegram_(software) link 662 (~17.7%)
• Telegram_(disambiguation) link 100 (~2.7%)
• Telegram_style link 96 (~2.6%)
• Telegram_messenger link 86

November '23

incoming 3815

• Telegram_(software) link 586 (~15.4%)
• Telegram_style link 105 (~2.8%)
• Telegram_messenger link 85
• Telegram_(disambiguation) link 74

December '23

incoming 4569

• Telegram_(software) link 585 (~12.8%)
• Telegram_style link 128 (~2.8%)
• Telegram_messenger link 101
• Telegram_(disambiguation) link 84

--Joy (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)