Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 49

< Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Latest comment: 5 years ago by BilCat in topic Interstate 285
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

What is the purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?

Latest comment: 6 years ago214 comments16 people in discussion

What is the purpose of primary topic? We have (rather vague - see discussion just above this one) guidelines for determining primary topic, but we really don't say why any ambiguous name should ever be the title of any article. What problem does this solve? Why is this better than always have a dab page at every ambiguous base name as some seem to favor? Or is it even better?

The reason I ask is I think stating a purpose might help develop consensus about whether a primary topic exists in a given situation. So I'd like to hear what others think about the purpose of primary topic. Don't be shy about stating the obvious. Just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it is to others. Thanks, --В²C ☎ 00:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Purpose? I think the main purpose was to make it easier on average for editors to wikilink. A thoroughly unworthy purpose in my opinion. I think nothing would be lost by any reader if Paris were located at Paris, France. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, that explains much. Do you believe making wikilinking easier is also the point of WP:CONCISION? —В²C ☎ 07:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
      • No, concision is good advice for any message. It’s good for all writing. Minimise the words to convey the same information. Some go too far though, confusing concision with brevity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I thought the main purpose was to get readers onto the article their looking for as smoothly as possible as well as avoiding surprise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Exactly. A major purpose of a primary topic is to take readers where they expect to go when they type that topic into the search box. If we moved Paris to Paris, France, what would we do with the title Paris? Redirecting to the city article that we just moved wouldn't achieve much other than changing the title displayed above the article: all wikilinks would continue to lead to their current destinations, so it's still PT by the back door. Moving Paris (disambiguation) to Paris might do more harm than good, because 90%[citation needed] of readers who type "Paris" would be ASTONISHed to land on a dab. We'd also get a plethora of links-to-dab to fix, because new editors (and those set in their ways) would continue to write "Durand was born in Paris". That's not just extra work for editors; it's inconveniencing readers until someone gets around to fixing it. I think we should use primary topics less often, and I often !vote for a dab to go at the base name when others see a PT, but they certainly have their place. Certes (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
            • That’s criticism of MALPLACED, not support of PT.
“wouldn't achieve much other than changing the title displayed above the article”? That something is significant, but it is not all. It would also achieve precision in urls, hovertext, category listings, and any number of downstream uses. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There is logic to PrimaryTopic, but getting readers to the page they want is not it. Now you are moving to a different question “where should dab pages be located”. Paris is a good example of a valid PrimaryTopic, as everyone who knows any Paris knows that Paris, France is a bigger topic, and so it is logical that the dab page should not be at the base name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    • You believe getting users to the page they want is NOT what PT is about? Then how do you explain, ...much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term? And what do you believe it IS about? Are you suggesting that for a given term X, only a topic with name X known by anyone who knows any X should qualify as the PT for X? Why does it matter whether everyone knows about it? What if everyone knows about it, but very few ever look it up? And how would you even know how many "know" about what? Using page view counts to determine how likely someone is to seek one topic relative to the others is far more useful and is completely objective. --В²C ☎ 23:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "You believe getting users to the page they want is NOT what PT is about? Then how do you explain, ...much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term?"
I explain that as a very poor guideline. Who wrote it? Who is psychoanalysing what readers? Where is the issue of systematic bias, the fact that Americans have far easier access to fast devices and connectivity than Borneans?
"Are you suggesting that for a given term X, only a topic with name X known by anyone who knows any X should qualify as the PT for X?"
Almost, but within reason.  Not "anyone", but "any reasonable group of readers"
"Why does it matter whether everyone knows about it?" Because it is not OK to be routinely ASTONISHing reasonable groups of readers with topics they have never heard of under titles that they expect to be a title for a topic they do know about.
"What if everyone knows about it, but very few ever look it up?" I think: Give up on what you think people might look up. Not only is that not reliable, it is not even data. Titles should be decided based on sources. A topic is only a local topic if the topic's sources have only local distribution.
"And how would you even know how many "know" about what?" Look at the the distribution of publications that are used as sources for the article. Give some consideration to missing sources, and add the missing sources before suggesting a new title.
"Using page view counts to determine how likely someone is to seek one topic relative to the others is far more useful and is completely objective"
No, it is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says:
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
I think that is sufficient. Do we really need to spell out that the reason we care what readers are seeking is that we want them to find it? PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, based on the arguments I see in RM discussions almost every day that don't seem to recognize this purpose of PT, and some made above in this discussion, yes, I think we do have to spell out that the purpose of PT is to help readers get to the topics they are seeking. Not to mention how the "historical significance" criteria has muddied the waters of what you have quoted. --В²C ☎ 17:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A currently active RM at Talk:Mario Beaulieu (politician)#Requested move 18 September 2018 may be relevant in that it posits that a comparison between two same-named regional (not national) politicians shows that because one has 17 times more views than the other, the one with more views should be the primary topic. Neither politician, however, has an international reputation, thus raising doubt as to whether a primary topic is called for.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"has international reputation" isn't a PT criterion. 17 times the views and indistinguishable historicality is a good indication of calling for a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It is in practice, and it should be explicitly. An American niche fan topic, unknown outside the American fan base, should not be PrimaryTopic if there is a globally known less fanatic topic known by the same name. The fans will find their topic even if it has a slightly longer title. Page views are a good an easy indicator, but there may be reason to overlook this indicator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
This gets to the heart of what I'm asking about. "An American niche fan topic, unknown outside the American fan base, should not be PrimaryTopic if there is a globally known less fanatic topic known by the same name." Why? This gets back to the purpose of PT, which is what I'm asking about. Yes, the "fans will find their topic even if it has a slightly longer title", but they will have to do so only after clicking through a dab page. Isn't that what we're trying to avoid? If not, then why have PTs at all? Why not just have a dab page there every time? See, PrimeHunter? This is why we have to spell it out. Let's not dilly dally around the apparently obvious. Let's be clear. --В²C ☎ 23:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
“Why?” is ASTONISH and meta:Introduction to Structurism (the encyclopaedia should have a logical structure). The fans will not need extra clicks to get to their precise (nb minimally precise) title, unless someone does something silly like follows MALPLACED and puts the dab page at a catchy basename. Where different groups may separately and reasonably think their different topics are both PrimaryTopics, it is most important that the dab page does not go at the base name. I am still yet to hear a single reason why all DAB pages are not better suffixed “(disambiguation)”. The PT discussions are distorted due to the MALPLACED policy error. An imperfect PrimaryRedirect is far less bad than to put either article under the basename title that google (and all sorts of other ways in) will take readers to the wrong page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
You are also talking about a different case, at least. An American niche fan topic, unknown outside the American fan base, would still be PrimaryTopic if there is another less fanatic topic also not known globally by the same name. The case of "Mario Beaulieu" involves two topics with the same "fan base" (Canadian regional politics), one of whom vastly outstrips the other in usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
JHunterJ wrote: "An American niche fan topic, unknown outside the American fan base, would still be PrimaryTopic if there is another less fanatic topic also not known globally by the same name". I disagree. If the other, less fanatic (do you mean less ghits/pageviews?), for example a Bornean niche fan topic of coincidental same name, exists, then its fans can be expected to be ASTONISHED if taken to the unrelated American topic. Hatnotes, for an example a hatnote at the American topic just for the Borneans, is an ugly solution, impacting the article, and not necessarily understood for by Borneans. If one group may be ASTONISHED, there is not PrimaryTopic. Both should be titled per PRECISION.
The Mario Beaulieus is a much less interesting case because the audience of one should be aware of the other, meaning not ASTONISH factor. However, one of them remains titled in violation of PRECISE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The titling isn't up to WP:D, but to WP:AT and the appropriate project naming conventions. And I disagree that fans of any niche topic will be astonished to discover that their niche topic isn't the primary topic for any give title, even if the primary happens to be a topic in some other niche. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a guideline is driving readers to an article they're likely to be looking for, but also not driving them to a topic they're unlikely to be looking for (that's why WP:ASTONISH is explicitly mentioned). That's a reason why page views is a poor indicator of primacy on its own, and why historical significance is an essential criterion to take into account.

When there are several split target audiences that may be looking for different topics, that one article is slightly more popular for one group does not provide any evidence as to what other demographic groups may be looking for. Someone recently mentioned "even if I'm not looking for the primary topic, at least I've heard of it before", and I think that's a good criterion. Diego (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Paris? Wasn't he Helen's boyfriend? or a character in Romeo and Juliet?
IMO a WP:PTOPIC needs to be at least 90% and preferably 99% of all search requests. I see far too many WP:RM proposals based on marginal differences or on WP:RECENTISM.
Always remember why we are here. It is not to enforce rules. It is to help readers to find what they are looking for, with accuracy and certainty.
Hindu deity Krishna shares his name with Krishna (Malayalam actor) and Krishna (Telugu actor). I wonder how many of the incoming links to Krishna suggest that the deity (who, by my understanding, is dead) has starred in movies? Narky Blert (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm working through those but there are probably only a few dozen bad links. Even in films, most links are to the original Krishna who is a popular character. I don't think I've yet found two with the same correct target; the first one was meant for Krishna (Kannada actor) who wasn't even on the dab. The most numerous fixes I've found in recent trawls are President → President (corporate title) (1644), Republic of China → Republic of China (1912–1949) (970), Adventure → Adventure film (443) and Family → Family (biology) (405). There are lots of bad links to Alcohol (meaning drinks rather than the type of chemical) but the best destination is controversial. Certes (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Some very good points above. I have for some time been working on a proposal to deprecate Primary Topic, see User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC for my latest thoughts. In actual scenarios, it generally does more harm than good... perhaps always! Some of this is counter-intuitive, but when I actually work on examples, that's my conclusion.

I'm not ready to propose it yet, but if you'd like to help refine it, the place to go is User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios and of course User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm getting at. A minority but nevertheless many of the arguments I see in RM discussions imply that PT really has no purpose. This, PrimeHunter, is why I think we need clarification about the purpose of PT. The bottom line is how are readers best served when one enters an ambiguous term in the Search box and presses return, and the topic of one article is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term? --В²C ☎ 20:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagree that your bottom line is the bottom line. Also, your bottom line is far from objective, and suffers from biases.
A failing of erring on granting PT is that an ambiguous term becomes available in the autofill Go box.
A failing of MALPLACED is that it puts a DAB page on the ambiguous term. It is this MALPLACED old bad idea that I think has caused so many to want to be overzealous in grant PTs.
PRIMARYREDIRECT errors are minor compared to bad, PRECISE-failing titles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that an experienced editor like you thinks the much older concept of PT is somehow supported by the much younger concept of MALPLACED is just another reason why the purpose of PT needs to be clarified. —В²C ☎ 20:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think your beef is with WP:DABNAME, upon which MALPLACED is founded. —В²C ☎ 20:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not quite, but close. There is a logic to PT, but the driver for many bad PT decisions seems to be MALPLACED / DABNAME. If the DAB page on the basename would cause people to unwanting load a DAB page, the solution is to title the DAB unambiguously. Why not? Getting people to the page they want is a reason to support more emphasis on PRECISE and RECOGNISABILITY. DAB pages on basenames fail both. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
There's logic to P T, but it's faulty. It's based on the assumption that having the article that the reader wants at the base name is going to make it easier for them to find it. It seems intuitively obvious that this is true, but unfortunately it's not. That's just one of the problems with P T as it is now, but if we can muster the evidence and get (I predict very grudging) consensus on that, then possibly the whole house of cards comes down.
Alternatively, there are a couple of related problems with disambiguation that could be fixed independently and the process might stir people's mental juices. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Watching. Interesting for sure. I tend to agree that the logic for PT is flawed. Paris is a very strong contender for PT, yet no reader would be harmed if it were at Paris, France, with nothing at Paris. Google, wikilinks, autocomplete, never take readers to redlinks. If it must be blue (why?), it could redirect to Paris, France. PRIMARYREDIRECTs are fine, they don't force imprecise titles. Paris is strong for a PT because everyone multiple criteria support it. Page views. Long term signficance (which does not mean "oldest"). Does not derive from another important use. Everyone who has heard of another Paris should know of the French city. WP:PT would be much safer from astonishing anyone if ALL of these criteria were required. One, eg pagviews, others failing, is not good enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. That would be a great improvement. But there seems no chance of it happening, we have tried many times. So my at first reluctant conclusion became, nothing lost by going for the more radical and far simpler option of deprecating the concept. But the more I developed this idea, the more attractive it became. It has surprised me how much it has going for it. And (at the risk of being boring) the most remarkable thing is, it's not to the readers' advantage to have an article at an ambiguous base name. It seems obvious that it is. But it's not. Andrewa (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Simplicity we could eliminate all primary topics, and use primary redirects. PT (without a redirect) is the simplest way to get a reader to the article, and similarly for writers. It's not just about navigation, but complexity. There may be reasons to increase complexity, but if search needs improving it's easier to improve search than make the structure more complex than needed (that's my gut reaction). Widefox; talk 12:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, could be a good idea. PRIMARYREDIRECTs do not conflict with PRECISE. PTs do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a very good idea. It's a more complex solution than deprecating P T, and only solves half the problem IMO. But it does address an important issue, and would mean that every article was at an unambiguous name, so I'd support it.
It's actually a very good idea. It just mustn't happen. [1] Andrewa (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that wasn't a proposal, but highlighting how using primary redirects to eliminate all primary topics just makes things more complicated. It's just an unnecessary layer of indirection. I prefer simple, let alone stable namespace. Take one scenario - we shouldn't have to move Paris, just because there's a new film called Paris. Ambiguous titles are fine if we "WP:BALANCE" the probability. We trade off ambiguity for complexity. Any proposal needs to take any trade offs into account. Widefox; talk 13:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Simplicity

Simplicity we could eliminate all primary topics, and use primary redirects. PT (without a redirect) is the simplest way to get a reader to the article, and similarly for writers. It's not just about navigation, but complexity. There may be reasons to increase complexity, but if search needs improving it's easier to improve search than make the structure more complex than needed (that's my gut reaction). [2]

As an RM regular, I can assure you that P T as it currently stands is anything but simple. See wp:NYRM for the specific example that eventually led to my wondering, is P T really worth it? Our eventual (and I hope permanent) solution was, DAB at base name. But this is arguably contrary to current policy, as New York City is probably the P T of New York. It took twelve years and some very hard work and bitter discussion just to move the state article away from the base name, despite consistent consensus that the state was not the P T. And it cost us several editors over those years. I would never have been involved myself had I known that NYRM2016 would fail as it did! It still astounds me, and was probably not in glorious hindsight worth it.

And that was the start of a journey for me. And the real breakthrough came when I finally questioned the common assumption that having an article at its base name advantages those looking for it. In fact it seems to me that the opposite is true. I'm gathering examples at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios and it's early days yet, much analysis to be done before the RfC is ready. But input there very welcome!

In my current view, deprecating P T is a very desirable simplification! But as I said, still early days. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just in case this isn't clear - the end result is simplicity. The process to get there is a different question entirely. Widefox; talk 21:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
A very important distinction, and I've phrased my post badly I guess if you see the need for that clarification. It's the end result that most interests me.
P T complicates things at all levels. But I suspect this is as counter-intuitive to others as it was to me. That's why I give the history above. Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. I was looking at PT afresh. The premise that PT complicates things needs reasoning, as using an ambiguous title for a most likely topic reduces the complexity to that when there's no ambiguity. It's pragmatic. In comparison with EB we seem to me much better organised, specifically for navigation with dabs and concise titles. From what I can understand, this the motivation comes largely from a concern about search? Widefox; talk 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
(I've taken to using the abbreviation P T, see WP:PT for why.)
Agree that The premise that PT complicates things needs reasoning. And that's at User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC (and its three predecessors to which it links), and discussion at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC would be welcome. Particularly, we might start a section there on the claim that P T simplifies things.
Done. Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
...using an ambiguous title for a most likely topic reduces the complexity to that when there's no ambiguity... No. It simplifies things for readers who are (1) looking for that article and (2) unaware that other meanings of that title may be considered primary by others. For all other readers (including of course any who don't agree with us on what the P T is), it complicates things. Most of the damage can be addressed by redirects, as discussed elsewhere. But this isn't simplicity. The simplest method is, have a DAB (or a redirect to a more general DAB) at every ambiguous article title. But that's not necessarily the best method. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
The simple rule of treating all ambiguous titles equally does not lead to a simple outcome, no. We should put readers first, and PT discussions are irrelevant for readers. If the PT is wrong, then it can be fixed. The principle remains. Nope - it is right to give due weight to topics. It is that simple. Anything else is, by definition, undue weight. Equal weight is just a special case of undue weight - it guarantees that irrespective of how important the topic is, the title changes whatever new (ambiguous) article is created or retitled. That affects stability, expectation, and is the opposite of the simplicity of getting gold when inputting "gold". Widefox; talk 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well put, and I'm sure others are thinking along similar lines without putting it nearly so well! It's a intuitively attractive approach, and the benefits are obvious. But what seems obvious is not always true.
Yes, it seems simple to regard some topics as more important and give them extra weight by giving them the article base names even if those are ambiguous, and disambiguating only the less important topics. It seems intuitively obvious that this is a good idea. And it worked well for the first few years of Wikipedia, when most of the articles to be written were about these important topics. But as the years have gone by, it has become problematic and not simple at all. I think this is important enough to reset the indenting. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem number one: Controversial cases in which the primary topic is not so easily determined. In the early days, these were few and far between, and a minor annoyance at worst, although we've always had some such as Macedonia. But as the years have gone by and the article count has grown, they have become more and more numerous. In a larger encyclopedia in which articles on most of the trivially primary topics (such as Mathematics and London) have already been written, it becomes more of an issue. It is no longer either the simple method or the simple outcome.

Problem number two: In glorious hindsight, it was never terribly logical. Intuition can be misleading! When we actually do some case studies, we find that having an article at an ambiguous name is not generally helpful. Intuition tells us that it's going to be easier for readers to find the article on Capitol Limited (Amtrak train) if we move it to Capitol Limited. In fact, the opposite is the case. See #A current case in point below. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

As promised. Get the brain juices going on these relatively simple proposals. And they might even give you a new perspective on P T. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unambiguous redirects

Whenever an article is moved from an unambiguous, disambiguated name to the base name, a redirect is created, and that is good. I'll call these unambiguous redirects.

But articles that have never been moved, that is they've always been at these ambiguous base names, typically have no such redirects. This means that, in a search results list, there may be no result that unambiguously identifies the topic to the reader. This is an obvious (or is it?) hindrance to readers. They must guess that the article that they want is at the base name, and certainly many will do this. But not everyone, particularly if there's a long results list.

We should as a matter of policy have an unambiguous redirect pointing to every article that is at an ambiguous name. (I'd prefer that we didn't have any articles at these names. But this will prevent nearly all of the damage, and at no downside that I can see.) Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Andrewa Titles, navigation and search are a bit of a trilemma. Redirects being a secondary issue. If the aim is to improve search, improving the software may help without having to touch titles and navigation. Widefox; talk 10:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Software modification may indeed be an alternative solution. But why would we even look for it? This proposal does not touch article titles, nor does it touch software.
Agree that Titles, navigation and search are a bit of a trilemma. Redirects being a secondary issue.
But it is a valid (but often ignored) principle of software maintenance that you fix the little problem that you understand, because then the big problem that you don't understand often magically goes away. This is a little problem. This trilemma is an enormous topic, and discussing it is unlikely to produce anything other than discussion.
So let us just fix the little problem that some readers can't see the article they want in a search results list. The problem and solution are both easily understood. The downside is...? Andrewa (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You're free to create {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects should you see any that should be created. You don't need to update policies or guidelines to do so... True, but misses the point. The point I'm making is that these harmless, common and useful redirects should always exist. And ensuring that they do exist does require a change of policy. Andrewa (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No, ensuring they exist requires editors to take the time to create them. No policy or guideline is stopping them from being created. -- Tavix (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think this still misses the point. Yes, wikignomes can already create them, and will if the policy is changed, but generally won't if it remains as is.
So the issue here is, are they a good idea? And if they are, then their creation should be encouraged by the appropriate policy, and it will then happen. Not overnight, but in due course. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
For redirects, WP:RCATs—not "policy"—are employed to explain the reason a redirect exists. One of these RCATs, {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, encourages the creation of the type of redirect you describe and explains why these are helpful redirects to anyone who views the redirect. Literally the only reason that they are not ubiquitous is due to the effort it takes to create them. If you think there should be more of them, please, be bold and start creating them. This is not a "policy" issue. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point. If we were to update that template's documentation to explicitly encourage creation of these redirects, that would be quite sufficient.
I don't see that it does so now, in fact the very phrase redirect from unnecessary disambiguation discourages them.
The disambiguation is, in terms of current policy, unnecessary. But the point I'm making is that the redirects themselves are useful, and not just for preserving incoming external links. And that's why I called them unambiguous redirects not redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
An alternative which I hadn't thought of is to have all articles at unambiguous names, and whenever a P T is agreed to exist, make that base name into a primary redirect. Good suggestion above (but there are other parts of this post with which I don't agree, see #Simplicity). Andrewa (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

What does "(disambiguation)" mean anyway

We should rename every disambiguation page to something that is normal, common, easily understood English.

The qualifier (disambiguation) is Wikipediaspeak, not English. A name such as Wave, list of articles would be far more helpful, particularly to newcomers looking at either a Google or Wikipedia search results list.

And there's nothing stopping us from creating redirects from such names, except that without a consensus decision it might be seen as disruptive. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

PS I'm not proposing that we deprecate the term disambiguation in Wikipedia documentation etc.. Just in page names in the main namespace. Updating the doco etc to eliminate the term would be arduous, unnecessary, pointless, stupid, and a few far less flattering terms. We all know what it means. Andrewa (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is "helpful" - are there any metrics or evidence for useability? Ignoring disambiguation and dabs not technically being "lists", we're free to choose a different arbitrary identifier. "(disambiguation)" is 16 characters ", list of articles" is 18. There may be shorter ones "(articles)", "(multiple)", "(ambiguous)", "(list)" / variants without brackets. Considering we're currently struggling to delete newly created invalid (disambiguation) redirects, we'd have to keep both in use, so wouldn't any alternative have to be much more than a marginal improvement for that cost? If we decoupled the titles from the MW search, they could be translated in the search into human readable, which comes back to the central question of what is the COMMONNAME of disambiguation, disambiguation would indicate it is. Widefox; talk 11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Replying to Widefox 11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC):
Lots of good issues here, thank you!
But if we focus on elegance as we, the contributors, see it, then we tie ourselves in knots (and we're good at that). What is elegant to some is ugly to others. We need to focus on the reader... but even that is controversial, aaargh! Another knot in which we can tie ourselves.
Agree that The question is "helpful". But do we really need metrics or evidence for useability? Is there any doubt that (disambiguation) is our own local jargon, and would be better avoided?
Agree that dabs not technically being "lists" can (and I guess will) be made an issue, does it have any downside for the reader? What in terms if WP:IAR does improve Wikipedia mean?
Agree that "(disambiguation)" is 16 characters ", list of articles" is 18. There may be shorter ones "(articles)", "(multiple)", "(ambiguous)", "(list)" / variants without brackets. Do the extra two characters really matter, compared to avoiding Wikipediaspeak in article titles? But other suggestions welcome. I considered ,index of articles and just (index). Either would do. Some of your suggestions just seem to be changing to another local jargon term.
But disagree that disambiguation would indicate it is (ie is the COMMONNAME). Disambiguation redirects to the article on Word-sense disambiguation, a topic of Computational linguistics. See also Disambiguation (disambiguation)! There's far more chance that readers will understand the term disambiguation in its Wikipediaspeak sense than as the technical term it is in computational linguistics. But even better, use a term that is common English! And disambiguation is not. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
"list of articles" gives no indication that it's about different meanings. "X, list of articles" sounds like a list of articles about whatever topic the reader mainly associates with X. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But it's not about different meanings, it's just about getting the reader to the right article. If they think it's a list of articles about whatever topic the reader mainly associates with X then that's better than a term they don't understand at all... and if they're looking for another topic that they don't mainly associate with X and can't see the article they want in the search lists, won't they give it a go? Rather than something they don't understand at all? Perhaps it's still not ideal and I'm keen to hear better suggestions. Andrewa (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But disambiguation is not "a list of articles about whatever topic the reader mainly associates with X". And disambiguation is not "a term they don't understand at all...". Just because you think someone in theory doesn't understand it (despite all the evidence given to you otherwise), doesn't mean we should introduce all these issues where there isn't one in the first place. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion here has been rather waffly and opiniated. Not sure how to get it back on track. Andrewa (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The name of a disambiguation page is also seen by readers who are not looking for a specific meaning, e.g. in searches. If they click "X, list of articles" because they are looking for articles about the main meaning of X then they have been misled if they get a single link to the main meaning and many links to unrelated meanings. And like others, I question your premise that readers generally don't know what disambiguation means. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that addresses the issues here well! But perhaps often would be a better description of my premise than generally. And even that's too strong. Even sometimes would be reason enough to question whether there's a better identifier for these important pages. (The question then of the process to fix it, and whether it's even worth the effort, only becomes relevant if we have consensus that there is. And I admit it is not looking good.) Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion that it isn't a problem, and that disambiguation is a common English word. But the evidence doesn't seem to me to support these opinions. Yes, it's in wiktionary. Exactly what does that prove? Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well... that it's an English word, not "Wikipediaspeak" as you claim. It's not even like it's a cryptic word! dis- "to remove or reverse" added to ambiguous "vague or unclear", with the -tion suffix to make it a noun, forms "a removal of vagueness or unclearness", which is precisely what disambiguation does. On the other hand, what is ambiguous is the proposal to replace "disambiguation" with "list of articles", which would signify any article related to the term, not simply articles with the same name—which is distinctly different -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Accepted that it's an English word, and apologies of my term Wikipediaspeak was understood to mean it's not English. It is, and even if it weren't previously our use of it would attest to it being English now, even if it were not in Wiktionary yet, and it is. And it was previously used in other very specialised areas. But not by the general readership, that's my point.
  • The proposal is to replace (disambiguation), not specifically to replace it by ,list of articles. There may well be better alternatives. Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Which simply isn't the case! Do you have evidence of anybody being confused by this word to the point where they couldn't get to what they were trying to find? -- Tavix (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, there is no evidence that "disambiguation" is a confusing word for anyone, let alone enough people to the point where the cost-benefit ratio would be anywhere near appealing. If you posted links to people being confused by this word, that would be evidence. Until then, a proposal to alter hundreds-of-thousands of pages due to a theoretical problem is a non-starter. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And if we had some links that did show people being confused by this word, then we'd have a case? I'm not quite sure how to gather them, but I'll have a go... provided that they would actually make a difference. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That should now read see above following this edit (which was mainly a good idea, but I thought if I did as recommended in that edit summary it would also cause other problems of stringing). I do not know why bullet points have been introduced here, they seem to serve no purpose other than to make the stringing hard to follow. Or perhaps that is it? Naw, AGF. But the wikilink I put in to wp:stringing doesn't seem to have helped. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, disambiguation is a redirect, fair point, but still my question being is there a more common name, preferably more concise? "(word-sense disambiguation)" and "(WSD)" are worse. "(disambiguation)" may be ugly-useful. One could even reduce it to a prompt for the user to reinforce that selection is needed "(?)" (note we have (?)), "(*)", or just "()". I'd avoid "index" and maybe "list" completely due to already having those. Changing the identifier may bring some marginal benefit for users, especially if they type it (do they?), but it's such a disruptive change and MW would need to at least cover the redirect of all "(disambiguation)" urls to the new identifier, which could alternatively be done already in the other direction i.e. "(?)" -> "(disambiguation)". My gut reaction is that it's good enough, we're probably stuck with it like QWERTY keyboards i.e. high cost/highly established with marginal gain, and that cost means we'd want to identify the gain, yes. (SIAs on the other hand, but I digress). Widefox; talk 18:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it really such a disruptive change? That seems to be the unsaid assumption above. It would IMO be quite painless... except for messy discussions such as the above! Why do I bother... (;-> Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The pain may be worth the gain, but until the gain is identified, it's an assumption that different is better. I see growing desire to have something better for searching/navigating, and our navigation assumption about PT -> dab -> article may not be the major navigation path or that useful nowadays? Stats anyone? What's coming with MW/WMF? Widefox; talk 18:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I provided a case that deserves an answer and hasn't had one... although I now see that I did say Wipediaspeak not English and stand corrected on that. What I was trying to say was, to the contributors that term is fine, but to the general reader it's not obvious what it means. Is that clearer now?
And I still think that the pain is minimal. And it's not change for change's sake. There is an advantage in using page titles that the average reader understands easily, and particularly so with pages such as DABs which, by their very nature, are frequented by those who don't know what the page they really want is called. (Do I really need to look for evidence of that?) Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Info cf. Encyclopedia Britannica 1. doesn't have dabs 2. has only one passing mention of "disambiguation" 3. has longer titles 4. relies more on search 5. seems worse Widefox; talk 19:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't think anyone was suggesting that we do away with DABs. I'm actually suggesting that we should make them easier to find. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We should aim for the exact opposite - getting dabs out the way as much as possible, as they only a stepping stone to what the reader actually wants. If we had more information we wouldn't need them at all. Widefox; talk 13:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree that we should get dabs out the way as much as possible. But disagree that this is the exact opposite. In fact my other relatively simple (famous last words) proposal aims to do exactly that... make it more probable that a reader will recognise a link to the exact article they want, and so avoid any need for them to go to the DAB.

But some readers will want to go to the DAB, for whatever reason... otherwise as you say, why have them at all? And for these readers, it's an advantage to have the DAB at a more recognisable name. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really following make them easier to find and get dabs out the way as much as possible, but I presume this is a mix of search, navigation, and link recognition. In search, dabs could be used by MW to prompt users for the selection of article, thus avoiding the dab navigation step completely. Combined with auto-generation (in theory), it could be completely handled by MW, as well as adding the hatnote (for some but not all cases). Widefox; talk 18:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, get dabs out the way as much as possible was your suggestion.. and I took it to mean, it's far better for a reader to be able to go straight to the article they want than to need to look at a DAB first, and I agree. Did I misunderstand you?
But as I said, some people will (for the moment at least) still need the DABs (and otherwise why have them) and so (as with every other page) the more recognisable the page name is, the better... because a recognisable page name makes the page easier to find. Am I missing something?
MW I assume is MediaWiki. Yes, it could probably be improved too. But in this case that seems to me to be a messy way of going about things. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I assumed that get dabs out the way as much as possible meant: Get dab pages off basenames. A DAB page on a basename is ASTONISHING to anyone using the Go box autocomplete if they think their topic is the primary topic. Even if they are mistaken. This is where some may say they need to be astonished out of their ignorance. I think the DAB page should be suffixed with "(disambiguation)", so that the autocomplete functionality tells the person that they are about to choose a disambiguation page, even if the basename redirects to the DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes Andrewa, that's what I meant - just status quo. I agree with your sentiment, I still don't understand the proposed change. Dabs are like Schrödinger's pages, we're dealing with uncertainty, but that collapses. Yes being more explicit about a dab not being an article may be helpful, but the namespace is a totally different question to the UI.
SmokeyJoe - I did not mean "Get dab pages off basenames". I do mean status quo as in WP:MALPLACED is good. This is back to the trilemma... having all dabs as MALPLACED just to improve the Go box? Does the Go box behave differently at present with MALPLACED dabs? As I said, isn't it better to improve MW than workaround a less good interface using redirects (if that works)? I think it doesn't help to conflate/tradeoff namespace/navigation for search/Go box. I wouldn't call dabs ASTONISHING out of error (a bug in the data), but more out of design (a feature, and one that EB suffers from by not having, forcing users to search) and only when we probably don't have enough information (else they get out the way per PT). The Go box does have enough info to treat dabs differently. It literally doesn't matter what the reader assumes, only what info they give us to get them to the right place, and what we give them in an interactive way at the Go box. A dab feature is not an ASTONISHING bug. Yes we're free to have all dabs as MALPLACED, but what does that achieve? Widefox; talk 12:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I confess I'm at a loss as to what is being discussed here and why. There's no proposal to eliminate DABs, so can we stop talking as if there were? There's no case for modifying MediaWiki, that's just asking for trouble (as is using the abbreviation MW which means something else). There's a misunderstanding (not by me) of what was meant by get dabs out the way as much as possible, but that seems to be cleared up, and we seem to be unanimous that it's a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this is if there's only one solution, MW is to be ignored when talking about search, and the problem isn't even well defined. Widefox; talk 12:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The problem I am raising is that (disambiguation) is an esoteric term that many English speakers will not recognise as giving them a list of articles that is likely to include the one they want. This does not seem agreed, which surprises me a little, but there you go. If it were agreed, then we could go on to the next question of whether or not it matters. If it does, then we could discuss what to do about it. But that's rather pointless if rough consensus here is that (disambiguation) is well understood anyway, as seems to be the case. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:P T

User:Andrewa Sorry I've only just read Wikipedia:P T. Instead of me adding hatnotes (c.f. Wikipedia:PT), can you explain what it is, as I don't get it. Should it be marked an essay/possibly moved? Widefox; talk 13:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest discuss at Wikipedia talk:P T, probably in the existing first section Wikipedia talk:P T#Why this page. It's not IMO an essay, as no opinions are expressed, and I'm not quite sure what moving it would achieve, or where you'd move it, or what would take its place... I guess making it a shortcut to either the guideline or the policy would be best, but that defeats part of the purpose, which was to help people to find both the policy and guideline without cluttering discussions.
But a redirect to either would still fulfill the most important function of WP:P T, which was to avoid the messiness of WP:PT, which has at various times pointed to protection templates, WikiProject Portugal, Protected titles, and of course Primary topic most recently. It has been protected and unprotected, and see this edit for something quite worrying! Andrewa (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion is probably best here Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:P_T. Widefox; talk 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree, now that you have proposed it for deletion (which you have every right to do) that's the primary discussion until the MfD is closed. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Scenarios and evidence

As I said before, I'm working on an RfC to deprecate primary topic (which I like to call P T for clarity but see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:P T). It seems to me that its purpose and benefits are not as obvious as I once assumed, and as many still do assume.

Let me try two scenarios, and ask everyone three questions:

  • What would you do in this case?
  • If what you'd do is different to what I'd do, why?
  • If what you'd do is the same as what I'd do, do you think that others might do something different, and if so what and why?

This is again to get the mental juices going, and to provide me with input as to whether any RfC might have a chance, and if so exactly what that RfC would be. Andrewa (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Scenario one

You want an article on wave as in physics, and you find links to two pages (or more, but two that look particularly relevant), one at wave (physics) and one at wave. I would click on the link to wave (physics). What would you do? Andrewa (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I would get annoyed. I think I should expect that wave is a very broad concept article probably covering some physics. I know there are different sorts of waves in physics. Wave (physics) is very likely overspecific, “physics” makes me think I'll get a page of diagrams and equations, as I have seen in some articles before. I’d probably open both, if working with the luxury of a multi-tab device with fast connection. If working with difficulty, I’d be wishing for a Wave (disambiguation) option, expecting a clear list of options on a short page with no heavy images. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Scenario two

You want an article on wave as in physics, and you find links to two pages (or more, but two look possibly relevant), one at wave (disambiguation) and one at wave. There's no link to an article at a title such as wave (physics) which you recognise as the one you want, but you don't know what disambiguation means. I would click on wave. What would you do? Andrewa (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • the first time I saw “disambiguation” I thought it odd, but quickly deconstructed the word to work it out. Whenever unsure what title I want, I go to the disambiguation page. I find disambiguation pages to be light and very helpful, often including things I had quite forgotten, if I ever knew, and always impressively articulated. I think the premise of “you don't know what disambiguation means” is true only very briefly. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

After two days

At the risk of arguing from silence, if nobody responds I'm tempted to conclude that everyone sees my answers as reasonable, and as reflecting what most readers will do. Or, is there a better way of measuring this? Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think you make a lot of sense. I do not follow everything perfectly, so I am not jumping in to sign of as in full agreement. WP:Silence exists, as a page, as a concept, for a good and necessary reason. Go to the next step. We are watching. Talk page silence means little. Edit the guideline. If anyone disagrees the onus is on them to say so, but only after you do something tangible. Talk page posts are not quite tangible. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Replying to SmokeyJoe 02:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC) and not seeing any reason for the bullet...

Your replies above are very welcome. They raise a lot of issues that hadn't occurred to me.

You mention tabs, and mobile devices. The oldest version of WP:disambiguation currently in the database is this one from 2 February 2002, and it's not very informative. It doesn't speak of disambiguation at all, and might not have been called that either... we need to look further into the history to find that out. And its edit summary indicates that it's not the first version, but that earlier versions have been deleted in a database reorg at some stage.

But some of our younger editors were not even born in 2002. The Danger Hiptop, the first smartphone to have any impact outside of Japan, was released in 2002, so mobile computing as we now know it did not yet exist; The first release of Android was still six years in the future, in September 2008. Internet Explorer didn't adopt tabs until Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, the last major browser to do so admittedly.

The point is just, in many important ways, 2002 as seen by Wikipedians was a very different world to 2018. And it would be surprising if some of our principles weren't due for a rethink in view of this. Disambiguation in general, and Primary Topic in particular, look like good candidates for this. Andrewa (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The point being

OK, I'm going to assume in the absence of any disagreement...

  • Most readers, facing a choice between Wave and Wave (physics) and wanting an article on wave as in physics, will click first on Wave (physics). (They may then open another tab for Wave if their device facilitates this.)
  • Most readers, facing a choice between Wave and Wave (disambiguation) and not having an article title that they identify as being the one they want, will click first on Wave.

If this is true, then it seems to me that clicking on the link to Wave (physics) should take a reader straight to that article, but that clicking on the link to Wave should take them to the DAB, and that this is the best setup regardless of any consideration of primary topic.

And that is the point of these scenarios. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If all page views came via WP's built-in search box then I might agree, but we need to consider other routes in which the reader never sees the option "Wave (physics)":
  • via typing "Wave" and hitting Enter without reading through a list of possibilities
  • via an external search engine, having searched for "Wave" without adding "(physics)"
  • via a wikilink, possibly added by an editor who assumed that Wave means what we all know it means so that's what the article will be about
  • via an external link to WP's "Wave" page, either one which already exists or one added later without checking where it leads (because it's obvious)
For these reasons, I think we still need primary topics, though I agree that they should be used less often. Certes (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Very good point, and one I had already investigated at User:Andrewa/The third draft regarding avoiding primary topic#How readers find articles (and it might even have been you who suggested this to me). And it changed my approach somewhat. My conclusion was, they all benefited from moving the policy away from use of ambiguous names, if this were to be done carefully.
And that means far more carefully than I first assumed, I admit that. There's no case for moving most articles currently at ambiguous names, and probably never will be for the vast majority of them. But avoiding that is surprisingly simple.
So agree that it's not just WP's built-in search box that we need to consider. See #A current case in point for just one other route that is similarly affected.
And agree that we still need primary topics, and my latest proposal is not to eliminate them. See User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC#Proposal and User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC#Scope.
And much of the same benefit might be achieved simply by raising the bar on P T. Two problems. One, exactly how far do we raise it? Two, how do we get consensus to do so?
(But in some ways I suppose my current proposal could be seen as raising the bar I guess. Which might answer question one! Is it too much to hope it might also answer question two?)
My conclusion has been that replacing an illogical rule by a significantly less illogical one is still not the way to go! But I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A current case in point

See User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Capitol Limited and Talk:Capitol Limited (Amtrak train)#Requested move 8 October 2018, which may have closed by the time you read this. The move seems inevitable, as it should be under current policy.

Discussion is now moved to Talk:Capitol Limited#Requested move 8 October 2018 and closed as move, as expected. Don't know why the redirect creation was suppressed. Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

But see also http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/129510039/Capitol%20Limited which is the Google results list taken before the move... it looks perfect, does it not?

How exactly does this move benefit the reader? Isn't it at best a case of our following a rather pointless rule?

Which was of course the original question that sparked this whole section. Andrewa (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This has now (correctly according to current policy) closed as move as expected. And also as expected, a Google of "Capitol Limited" now returns only the Amtrak train. All direct mention of our article on Capitol Limited (B&O train) has vanished from Google.

(And there's not even a hatnote from the Amtrak article to Capitol Limited (B&O train), just one to Capitol Corridor, operated by Amtrak in California, which is I guess very loosely related to both but doesn't mention the B&O train, run by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad between New York City and Chicago via Washington D.C. and Pittsburgh, at all. But that's easily fixed.)

The challenge: This has obviously made Google less useful (understatement perhaps) for those looking for the B&O train (discuss if you disagree). But exactly how has it improved Wikipedia? Apart from compliance to a rule which, in this case at least, was quite possibly counterproductive?

It has unimproved Wikipedia. And there is no benefit to counter this unimprovement. Is there? What am I missing? Andrewa (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The move of Capitol Limited (Amtrak train) to the basename has further obscured the old Capitol Limited (B&O train). The new article doesn't discuss the history of the name, or inform readers that there was a previous train of the same name. For someone looking for the older train, confusingly there is early mention of "the other" in the lede sentence, but referring to something else entirely. So, I added a hatnote. So, now, instead of a PRECISE title, there is a short ambiguous title with a lot of title whitespace, and more hatnoting, hatnoting that is distracting to the majority who don't care, and not even shown for many depending on their device. So Google has noticed? The old page has less prominence. Fewer will find it. Google will notice. Pageviews will decline. This is a self-reinforcing bias. I think WP:PRECISE needs a thorough thrashing. Cut the lede word "usually". Cut the off-point blather after the first sentence. Cut the trailing backward off-topic clause. Cut the unhelpdul and odd"topical". Yields: PRECISE: "Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the scope of the article". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • (Still not sure how best to respond to your mixed indents, but otherwise) Very well put! Lots of downside. Still interested to hear of any upside. But I'm expecting a deafening silence. And it raises some other good issues.
    • Support "Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the scope of the article". But wouldn't this bring it into direct conflict with WP:P T, and perfectly into agreement with User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC? Because, that's exactly what I'm proposing there, with a plan of action to achieve this with a minimum of effort and inconvenience. Or that was my intent, anyway.
    • Move was a good close (in theory... it was bungled in practice, I'm discussing that with the page closer). There's no grounds for MR. None of this was raised in the discussion, I considered whether it was pointy of me not to chime in but even if I had there was consensus to move IMO. The move was based on policy, I'd have needed to invoke IAR to oppose and IMO I can't validly do that until I've demonstrated some consensus for my concerns with WP:P T. And I don't think that has happened yet, but I'm hopeful it's not too far away. Andrewa (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I just searched Google and got both articles, as the third and fourth items. My understanding is article titles have little to no effect on Google results. Station1 (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
See my first eight results now here, and of course pre move still here (in a different format I'm afraid but I think the difference is still obvious). As two different editors (myself and SmokeyJoe) have now observed the disappearance of the Wikipedia B&O article from their Google results lists post move, it seems to me that it may be more complicated than you thought. Interested to see what your results list looks like. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Different people, at different times, from different places, get different results. Google uses AI. You can’t know for sure what does and does not influence google results. Google is an unreliable source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A second challenge: In terms of silence I think there's rough consensus here that this move was a very bad idea indeed. But I also think the move was completely justified in terms of policy.

Ergo, policy is at least a little but busted.

But is this an isolated case? I don't think so, obviously. SO, the challenge... Look around and comment at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios, either commenting on an existing example or raising a new one in its own section.

I'm interested in two sorts of evidence of course:

  • Examples (such as this one) where the policy I'm proposing would work a lot better than the existing policy.
  • Examples where the policy I'm proposing would work a lot worse than the existing policy.

TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree "policy is at least a little but busted". I have long argued that there is a lack of logic in WP:PT, as written, and as practiced. It has more history and faithful adherents than underlying logic. I don't agree with repealing it entirely. I agree with User:Certes 12:20, 15 October 2018 "... we still need primary topics, though I agree that they should be used less often". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair enough... You've heard my suggestion for exactly how far the bar should be raised (and which does not mean repealing it entirely, I gave up that idea some time ago). I'm going to continue to gather examples that will either support it or result in further modification to it, and I'd welcome any help with this as stated before.
    • Or, very interested in any other suggestion as to exactly how P T should be tweaked.
    • Or, I still support "Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the scope of the article", as above. Andrewa (talk)
      • It’s unanimous so far. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
        • No it isn't. I'm not engaging because I'm not even sure what the proposal is. If it's about changing the concept of primary topic (?) then that's what RfCs are for. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Agree that this would need to go to an RfC.
          • Disagree that it's not unanimous so far. It was at the time the comment was made, and arguably still is... But that may not continue, and nobody is proposing to change guidelines or policies just because it's allegedly unanimous so far. So let us not quibble over words, and thanks for your contribution now.
          • There are two proposals. The one under discussion here is this one. I think it's functionally identical to another proposal, the one at User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC, and whether or not this is true is also under discussion. And I'd welcome discussion of my foreshadowed RfC as well of course, but that's better on its own talk page IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"I think there's rough consensus here that this move was a very bad idea indeed." Andrewa, where exactly is "here" and what makes you think such a rough consensus exists "here"? How the Capitol Limited (Amtrak train) → Capitol Limited move is a bad idea at all, much less a very bad one, is not at all obvious to me. The vast majority of people searching with "Capitol Limited" today will be looking for the train that is active today, not one that was discontinued almost 50 years ago. How is sending all those people to a practically pointless dab page instead of to the article they seek an improvement? It's good that SmokeyJoe added the hatnote (thanks!); that should be more than enough to handle the rare user who is seeking information about the defunct train.
Also, as Station1 has noted, none of these moves affect Google searching. We could move every article to a randomly generated nonsense title and within days Google will be sending people to the right articles. That's why even dab pages at basenames rarely rise to the top in Google results. Consider the Google search for Mercury, a quintessential ambiguous name without a primary topic, limited to Wikipedia: site:en.wikipedia.org mercury. What I get, in this order, is the planet, the element, the mythological figure and then the dab page, which tracks page view stats perfectly. Google adjusts no matter how we name our titles; trying to affect article order in Google results by changing titles is pointless. Google "knows" the order based on likelihood of being sought and presents them accordingly, regardless of their names. -В²C ☎ 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is in this section. I think the comment was true at the time I made it, but it's no longer true as you disagree. So let us cut to the chase and discuss why you disagree.
I think most of the rest of that paragraph misses the point. Agree that the hatnote is an improvement, and I would have done it eventually (and eventually I'll fix the talk page redlink that the closer left hanging too if they don't). But nobody is suggesting sending all those people to a practically pointless dab page. Just the opposite, I'm suggesting sending them straight to the article they want, by having it at an unambiguous name that Google is sure to find all the time, rather than at an ambiguous name which Google's AI engine finds sometimes (and not others).
as Station1 has noted, none of these moves affect Google searching... I'm afraid that is quite simply wrong.
Google adjusts no matter how we name our titles; trying to affect article order in Google results by changing titles is pointless. Google "knows" the order based on likelihood of being sought and presents them accordingly, regardless of their names. Yes, it gets it right most of the time, and will get better and better... AI is awesome and you ain't seen nothing yet, I was part of a project that reduced a team from 200 to 20 bods and at the same time tripled their effectiveness, just by using a neural net to plan our work, many years ago now. But IMO using unambiguous names would help it to get it right even more of the time. But agree that trying to influence Google is in general a very bad idea. Big topic. See User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#How relevant is Google. Andrewa (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If you create a new article about topic FOO which is much more likely to be sought than any other topic named FOO but title that article XYZ1234 and link to it from the dab page at FOO then within days if not hours people searching for FOO at Google will be shown XYZ1234 at the top of the Google search results. I need to know if you agree with that or not, and if not, why, and if so then why do you think titles matter with respect to affecting Google search results. --В²C ☎ 19:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If you create a new article about topic FOO which is much more likely to be sought than any other topic named FOO but title that article XYZ1234 and link to it from the dab page at FOO then within days if not hours people searching for FOO at Google will be shown XYZ1234 at the top of the Google search results... This may be true, and probably is sometimes true, and is pure guesswork. I need to know if you agree with that or not... I don't see why, but does that answer you?
...why do you think titles matter with respect to affecting Google search results... (1) Evidence provided. (2) Commonsense. (3) Experience with AI. (4) A complete lack of any evidence or (valid) argument that suggests that they don't.
Even if Google did ignore both URLs and page titles (they're different things to Google but when we move a page we change both, and it is highly unlikely that the AI engine ignores either), people still wouldn't ignore page titles when looking at the search results list. What's at the top doesn't matter nearly as much as what's on the first page (but it does matter, particularly to mobile users). If they see a page that they know is the article they want, we win. If they don't, we lose. If they're not sure, we are in danger of losing. An unambiguous article title maximises our chance of a win.
But it's no big deal. The main problem with fixing it (as with the NYRM fiasco that started me thinking about this) is that people seem to think it's a really big deal... Wikipedia will be irreparably damaged is a famous quote from NYRM. It wasn't. It's not a big deal. But it's worth fixing. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Google ignores urls or page titles. Titles are just part of the article content and the url. But the url is largely a meaningless handle. Think of all the news articles it mines which have randomly generated urls. So Google works just fine without gleaning any meaning from urls. I agree any one case is not a big deal. It is a big deal if we're ultimately talking about putting a dab page at every ambiguous basename. --В²C ☎ 01:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You both make a good point to bear in mind at most RM discussions. Our article titles make little difference to the large majority of readers with regard to searching. Google finds the primary topic(s) no matter what we call them. The internal search engine is much improved, so searchers using that find what they are looking for more easily than years ago. Experiments with redirects show well over 95% of readers get directly to the article they want in most cases. However, even with small percentages, in can make a difference in cases of highly popular articles. For New York, although the percentage landing on the dab page is quite low, it has increased from roughly 40 hits per day when the state was at the primary topic to over 1100 per day since the dab page was moved there. Of course, even for those people the inconvenience is slight. Station1 (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
For some of those 1100 the inconvenience is slight... one extra mouse click. But for others, the inconvenience is negative... because, they were looking for the city, not the state, and previously would have loaded the large and perhaps astonishing article on the state, rather than the small and relevant DAB. Andrewa (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with B2C, I don't think Google ignores anything, and completely expect it to use url text and titles. How it uses them is what is complicated. Disagree that titles are *"just"* part of article content. Titles are the most important part of the content, and the second most important text is the lede sentence. Computationally, for google, yes the url is probably little more than a handle, but this is not true for the large subset of readers who look at urls, including readers who read the url-derived information known as hovertext. Mobile device behaviour is currently in flux. Currently, iPad tab titles all say "Wikipedia", which is terribly unhelpful, and I expect this behaviour will change again. Wikipedians should probably ignore small device behaviours in flux. Agree that google works fine. Google works fine regardless of what Wikipedia does, google learns far faster than Wikipedians change things things. Wikipedians should give up trying to match how they think Google works.
Wikipedians should stop up worrying so much about a connection between titles and readers getting to the page they want. Readers using google to navigate will do just fine regardless. Readers using the internal search engine will do almost as fine, regardless. Readers using the Go box autocomplete suggestions would benefit from PRECISE titling, with DAB pages PRECISEly titled with "(disambiguation)" suffixing. An important thing forgotten by some is that the title is the big text at the top of the page that is read first in any reading and is important to serve as a document title. The thing forgotten in an excessive of enthusiasm for assigning PTs and title minimization is the criterion of PRECISE. Reviewing that again, I see an unwanted wordy self-reference: PRECISE: "Titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the scope of the article". There is room for PRECISE to be relaxed for clear-cut PTs, like "Paris", although I don't see the need for PT to have ever overridden PRECISE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we have very nearly no chance of telling how an AI engine will use URLs and/or page titles now, and less chance of telling how it will do so in the future. But what we can be sure of is, in both this and other ways of finding articles, the more logical our page titles are the easier the articles are to find. And that means, recognisable. And that means, unambiguous.
There is no proposal to move Paris, and in my view there will never be a case for doing so. Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a case to move Paris. Paris, France would be a better title. However, Paris would be a PRIMARYREDIRECT to Paris, France. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the only issue is the destination. Whether the base name is the article title or a redirect to the article at an unambiguous name makes no significant difference to anybody, provided in each case the redirect exists from the other name. So IMO such a move is completely harmless but a waste of time and effort. (Fascinating page history just BTW.)
But I concede that your comment make mine now obsolete. There is now a proposal to move Paris. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You could insert "strong". There is no strong case. If it were formally proposed, I would oppose per TITLECHANGES. Fiddling titles is worse than living with less-than-ideal titles. However, I do support the large upheaval that would follow Talk:Victoria_(Australia)#Requested_move_9_October_2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
At first frankly I thought this was playing with words, but I think I see your point and I think it's a subtle but valid and important one. As I see it, you think that there is a better title for Paris but that it's still better to leave it where it is, rather than moving it.
That's not quite the same as my logic but I think it ends up at the same place. I'm not even interested in whether Paris, France or Paris is the better title. It's pointless to even try to decide, because as long as the appropriate redirect is in place, there's no damage either way. But there is a little damage in every article move, so the onus of proof is always on the move proponents to justify a move. Andrewa (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a big deal if we're ultimately talking about putting a dab page at every ambiguous basename. Even if it were, why is that such a big deal? I think it's at least partly just because people are being asked to step outside their comfort zones. And that's not a trivial ask. In the case of Primary Topic, it means facing the horrible prospect that much discussion over the years was a complete waste of time. And that makes it a potential WOF issue for those who have invested a great deal of effort in those discussions.
But I can only assume that you haven't read my proposal, or thought out the consequences of the more recent and rather more vague one that I think is functionally equivalent. That is exactly what is explicitly not proposed. Andrewa (talk) 05:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A long road

We have covered a lot of ground above. Thank you to all who have contributed, and particularly to the contributor who raised the question. And we may not be finished here yet.

But I again invite all to contribute at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC. Particularly, of course, if you feel as I do that the question What is the purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? hasn't been answered here! And it's not for lack of trying, is it?

But any input is welcome (subject to talk page guidelines, AGF and NPA etc of course). There's a sense in which opponents of the proposal have a lot more to contribute than supporters, at this stage. Both are welcome.

What is the purpose... Personally I feel it's not quite the right question... Primary Topic was once very useful, and still has a role to play. But it should not now be used as a reason for creating a new article at an ambiguous name, or for moving an existing article to an ambiguous name. That's what I mean when I propose to deprecate but not abolish Primary Topic. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking a step back

For some context, please consider:

  1. PRECISION is needed only because uniqueness is required. If it wasn't for the use of urls derived from titles, our titles would not have to be unique. For example, the articles currently at Mercury (planet), Mercury (element) and Mercury (mythology) and Mercury (automobile), etc., could all be titled Mercury. It's only because of the title uniqueness requirement stemming from the use of titles in urls that we have to consider the possibility of giving only one topic "primary" status for each title. But if it wasn't for that requirement, then there would be no need for the disambiguation; no need to add any extra information beyond Mercury in the title of each article. There would be no need for PRECISION in titles if not for the title uniqueness requirement. So let's not pretend there is one.
  2. For people searching with Google, presumably how the vast majority get to our articles, titles are completely irrelevant with respect to article finding. Google will find them no matter how we title them.
  3. For people searching with WP search and who have javascript descriptive titles are helpful in the pop-up search list.
  4. For people not using the pop-up search list primary topic remains especially important, even with new articles.
  5. The purpose of primary topic is two-fold. First, it's to improve the chance of readers using old-fashioned search without the popup-search box finding the article they want, and to reduce the number of mouse clicks, without hindering the search prospects of others. Second, it's to establish a predictable and relatively objective way to title our articles while still achieving the first purpose.

--В²C ☎ 22:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • (1) PRECISION is not only needed for technical uniqueness. Precision is needed to prevent misrecognition. Precision is needed for the title to be the best title for the document below. We understand that you only consider one aspect important, but it is not the only aspect to titling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (5) The two purposes of primary topic that you articulate both fail. Improving the chances of a majority of dumb searches to go straight to the page they wanted, in a process that bypasses the search engine, is illogical and stupid, and opens a gaping door for astonishing the minority. It is only justified when the several PT criteria, the two listed plus the several unlisted (eg derivative use, readers for all other topics knowing about the PT topic). In contrast, a PRECISEly titled borderline PT topic will help everyone find it and go to or not go to it as they want. Ambiguous titles only hurt readers. Second, PT does not establish an easily predictable or objective titling algorithm, as demonstrated by the frequently contentious discussions involving PT decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting, and I continue to be encouraged that there is so much interest in this.

But as SmokeyJoe points out, there's more to (1) than technical uniqueness. I'm not even sure what B2C is getting at here. Assuming we're to have more than one article covering the various meanings of Mercury, it's good to have different names for them for several reasons apart from the desire to have unique URLs, which the software could easily generate for us if that were the only reason. One is ease of Wikilinking... how would we tell MediaWiki which article we wanted, if article names weren't unique? OK, it could give us a choice, a drop-down menu with the first few words of each, and the visual editor already does something rather similar to that, but even it currently uses article titles to identify the choices. But having a fairly intuitive, unique identifier for each article is still the only obvious way to go for the source editor. And there are other uses of these unique titles as well.

I think we have already dealt with (2). Yes, Google will do its best to find the right match, and it's already very good and will get better. But one of the things it uses to find this match is the article title, which it sees in two ways: As part of the URL, and as the page title. The more that title is human-recognisable, the better AI is going to be at matching it. And that means, unique and logical.

(3) seems a Pythonesque understatement. If the article titles on topics called Mercury were all just Mercury, the popup list would be pretty pointless. Am I missing something?

(4) just seems to state that Primary Topic is (somehow) helpful in this scenario. How and why? Wouldn't a unique and recognisable article name be even more helpful?

SmokeyJoe has already answered (5), and so have I, quite similarly, but some time ago, see User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC#Some of this is highly counter intuitive. When we consider actual scenarios, Primary Topic leads to more mouse clicks, not fewer. So it's not a very good way of disambiguating at all. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

PT is not about disambiguating, it is contrary to disambiguation. PT is a dubious guideline used to justify ignoring the policy WP:PRECISE to give a topic an ambiguous title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of playing with words, I disagree. P T is a method of disambiguation, it's just a very bad method. Note that the policy is at Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation and that Wikipedia:Primary topic redirects to the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation.
I know what you're getting at, but let me put it this way. When we decide that something is the Primary Topic of a term, we mean that for Wikipedia's purposes it's the normal meaning. So, we give the article on that topic the base name, and this distinguishes that article from the others. This is disambiguation. It's just not very helpful disambiguation.
And it's worse than it looks. Until recently I assumed, as do I think most, that this was helpful for those seeking the Primary Topic. But I think the evidence is, they are actually the ones most disadvantaged. Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:PT is asserted as a concept at the policy WP:AT, but all details are in the guideline. Structurally, the write up is convoluted.
"Primary Topic is the normal meaning", if there is one normal meaning. Sure.
I agree, readers looking for a topic that is a primary topic over other topics of the same name are at a disadvantage if they do not know that their topic is a Wikipedia-PrimaryTopic. Imagine a Greek student of his own national mythology, well educated on the topic of Helen's boyfriend, and this student has a reason to look up the capital of France. He doesn't know Paris, France, is a Primary Topic, and when searching (using the Go box autocomplete suggestions) for "Paris", there is no "Paris" article with "France" in its title, and so he could be confused. In the alternative situation of Paris redirecting to the article at Paris, France, "Paris, France" will be very prominently suggested, and anyone going straight to Paris will find themselves downloading Paris, France. So how has PT helped anyone? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. See #Unambiguous redirects above. Good example.
There is another problem with P T that is nothing to do with navigation and I think is probably more distraction than benefit, but here goes... When we, with the Voice of Wikipedia, determine a primary topic, we're taking a POV. Generally we have (rightly) erred on the side of no P T for, say, Macedonia. But even here, we are taking a POV against those who consider they have a right to the name. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
When we use objective-relative-to-our-POV measures like Google results and page view counts to determine PT, we are not taking a POV; to the contrary. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Google pushes the majority POV. It is at odds with the desire for Wikipedia to be comprehensive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Guys, please look at Mercury (planet). Yes, up in the title it says "(planet)" but does that really serve any significant purpose? The lead, which is the first thing I, for one, look at when I land on an article, is: Mercury is the smallest and innermost planet in the Solar System. The "(planet)" in the title display is totally redundant and quite deficient relative to the information in the lead anyway. This is the same on every article with a disambiguated title. The only purpose of the extra precision in the title is for disambiguation of the url. If not for the requirement of url disambiguation, the extra precision which is redundant on the article page would serve no purpose whatsoever. This is important to the topic of PT because PT titles are ambiguous by definition and yet don't have the extra precision. And that is no problem whatsoever. Furthermore, if extra precision did serve a significant purpose, we have countless unique titles that arguably could and would she be "improved" with extra precision. Without clicking, consider Piet Plantinga. What is that? A mountain? Lake? Village? Yoga position? A Flemish legal maneuver? No! A Dutch water polo player! If extra precision truly served a useful purpose, then we would augment this title accordingly. But. We. Don't. And for very good reason. And even if there were other topics on WP with that name and the water polo player was the PT, the lack of extra precision would make it no less useful than it is today. So, again, I say the only significant purpose of extra precision is the disambiguation of urls. To claim otherwise is to justify an upheaval of WP naming conventions that have been in place and stable since the beginning. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, “planet” serves an important purpose. I know 3 mercury topics, and when I see one listed in a category or revealed by hover text, I want to know which one. Titles get separated from lede sentences. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I'm not following. You provided an example of a hypothetical Greek student unfamiliar with the relative prominence of Paris the city in worldwide English-speaking culture and inexplicably doing research in the English WP to show how he is hindered by PT because he lands on the article about the city instead of his sought topic (the mythological figure) when searching with "Paris". But this makes the point. Yes, he's slightly hindered, but the vast majority who are looking for the city when searching with "Paris" are taken directly to the article they are seeking. The WP:CONSENSUS of the community is that this is a worth tradeoff. That it's not worth hindering the majority by sending them all to a dab page when they search with "Paris" instead of taking them directly to the article about the city. --В²C ☎ 20:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
If Paris were at Paris, France, and Paris were a redirect to Paris, France, the majority would never be hindered, and they hypothetical Greek boy would not either. PT is not helping anyone. PrimaryRedirect is fine, PT is dubious, even in the most strong PT example of Paris. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
If the basename is a PrimaryRedirect to the article, then the article's topic is still the PT for that basename, by definition, and being the PT would still be helping. What you're talking about is disambiguating titles of PTs, rather than leaving PT articles at the basenames, and that's a related but separate issue from putting dab pages at the basenames, which is what I understand Andrewa to mean in terms of "deprecating PT" (at least for new articles). --В²C ☎ 22:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I am talking about PRECISE titling for PTs, especially for borderline PTs. PRIMARYREDIRECTs have a lower threshold, and lower risk of harm to anyone. DAB pages do not belong at basenames, if no PT, redirect the basename to the primary topic at the best title, which is not necessarily the basename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had skimmed it before, but subsequently I read that Andrewa had retracted/weakened his proposal. See his undated post above stating "exactly how far the bar should be raised (and which does not mean repealing it entirely, I gave up that idea some time ago)." Andrewa, is User:Andrewa/Primary_Topic_RfC#Proposal out of date and no longer your position? The first two dot points are worthy for debate, the third I oppose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Some good points made above. In time I will analyse them at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Paris and User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Mercury, or I invite Born2cycle and SmokeyJoe to do so themselves.


And this is exactly what we need IMO, but perhaps premature to do it on this talk page. Let us consider the practical impact of the many examples we have, and see where that leads. That's where my foreshadowed RfC has come from. But it has come from a lot of work, and there is much more to do before it's ready to move formally. Andrewa (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Paris is the posterboy for a clear cut PrimaryTopic. On my analysis, the PT decision does nothing to help anyone, compared to PrimaryRedirect decision to redirect Paris to the PRECISE-compliant title Paris, France. Under the PT title minimisation decision, I can conceive of a Greek mythology student unaware of the global impact of the French city being confounded by the absence of a Paris, France, and conclude that even in this best case PT, it helps none and can hurt some. The hurt is not much in this clear cut PT case, but will be more in less clear cut cases.
Mercury is the posterboy for not PrimaryTopic. Planet vs god vs element. I'm not sure what the question is. I think Mercury should be moved to Mercury (disambiguation), for the sake of PRECISE titling of the disambiguation page, with Mercury redirecting to it. Someone thinking they are going to a PrimaryTopic should be warned by the title that it is a disambiguation page. Somebody wanting the disambiguation page should be advised by the title that it is the disambiguation page.
These are extreme cases. Neither presents sufficient reason to start changing things, but neither presents reason to not change things generally if it can be agreed that PT affirmative decisions hurt some in borderline cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
First, obviously the interest is very low here. Mainly only three of us. And the three of us can't agree on much, not even on the purpose of PT. You continue to use PT in a manner that suggests PT's at disambiguated titles with a PrimaryRedirect at the basename are not PTs ("the PT decision does nothing to help anyone"), ignoring the fact that Paris is the PT whether the article is at the base name or a primary redirects to it at a dabbed title. The "PT decision" is that the city is the PT. Whether it's at the base name or at Paris, France is not a PT decision, but a title decision; either way the city IS the PT. THAT is the PT decision. --В²C ☎ 00:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
It's always a good idea to agree on terms and definitions. You appear to be trying to be quite reasonable, so I'll try back. You did very well to propose clarifying the purpose of PT, and it has raised this miscommunication of concepts.
Checking:
(1) Paris, France is the PrimaryTopic of "Paris"
(2) A PrimaryRedirect from X is used when the PrimaryTopic of "X" is not titled "X".
Here's my trouble. I might have said: "A PT decision is a decision to to move a PT from a PRECISE title to an ambiguous basename title" I see that that is not a clear statement properly using agreed terms. How would you prefer it to be worded?
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I'm interested but am struggling to make a useful contribution. I think we all agree that Paris should take the reader to the city article and Mercury should take the reader to the dab. If we were starting Wikipedia from scratch then making the base name a redirect either to a precise article title or to "Foo (disambiguation)" would have some advantages, especially if "disambiguation" were replaced by a more familiar word but, as B2C says, that's a discussion about titles rather than primary topics. Certes (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I think we got here with the notion that the purpose of PT is to help someone looking for Paris get straight to the city article. If the "purpose of PT" includes the "purpose of PrimaryRedirect" OK. This means, to me, that PT is not a reason per se to put an article at the basename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I really, really, really appreciate your efforts to come to terms here. THANK YOU. With that in mind, okay, we can say that PT is a reason to put a PT article for a given basename, or a PrimaryRedirect to it, at that basename. As far as I can tell, that's consistent with what is said at WP:AT and WP:D. The idea that the PrimaryRedirect at the basename should be preferred, so the actual title of the article is not ambiguous, is a separate issue that probably belongs at WT:AT, not here. --В²C ☎ 17:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

..and so rather than do either, you'll do something else that neither likes at all. - Enry Iggins.

I can't see us ever moving Paris, and as long as a redirect exists from Paris, France I still can't see why we'd want to.

And I can see a great danger in my proposal getting sidetracked into this issue. Many have already accused me of wanting to abolish Primary Topic in this way, and it's true that I once did exactly that. But this is no longer my view. I'm still interested in anyone who wants it adopted of course.

It sounds like a simpler approach. Read that obsolete essay before you get too confident of that. That's one reason I keep it!

Two main problems with moving Paris. First, it breaks an enormous number of incoming external links. Second, I can't see any prospect of consensus to do it. Any proposal that involves moving mathematics, London or Paris is IMO a waste of our time. We risk making perfect the enemy of good.

The first might be overcome if there were some benefit to the move, but again, as long as an unambiguous redirect such as Paris, France is there, I can't see what that might be.

And the second might be just a matter of patience. A while ago the chance of ever getting an RM closer to ever assess consensus to move New York State away from the base name New York looked minimal. And the chief reason for this was, we couldn't make up our minds whether or not New York City was the Primary Topic. (And it's still not decided.) But we got there.

And I'm also skeptical that there is any extra benefit obtained by the no-prisoners approach that would move Paris. In the absence of any such benefit, why try? Especially as it might be easier to move Paris. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • My point about Paris is that there is no benefit to having it at the basename. However, I do not support moving it, for the reason I gave above, 06:20, 17 October 2018.
What I think we have established here is that PT is not, per se, a reason to put a topic at an ambiguous basename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
All we've established is that that is your opinion. The conventional wisdom is that the PT for a given basename is in general a reason to put that PT at that basename, unless the article is at a more common name. By the way,the widely accepted reason to not put the article at your preferred more precise title is WP:COMMONNAME. Like I keep saying, this is an issue for AT, not D/PT. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
В²C, until this, I thought we were making surprising progress. “Conventional wisdom”? Do you that tha that term is often code for an unfounded process, for a long term fallacy?
Are you disagreeing that a PrimaryRedirect has a lower threshold, and a lower cost when in error, than a PrimaryTopic at an ambiguous basename? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, no, I was not making a statement about that at all. What I meant by “conventional wisdom” is the WP:CONSENSUS view as reflected in the majority of WP discussions regarding any given issue. As far as I can tell, in RMs where a decision has to be made between putting a primary topic article at a basename or disambiguating the article’s title and making the basename a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to it, the former usually prevails. Not just in the past, but in current RMs too. Are you disagreeing with that?
That said, I don’t know what you mean by PRIMARYREDIRECT having a lower threshold, but I do think I disagree with PRIMARYREDIRECT having a lower cost when in error. Say, for example, someone unilaterally moved the dab page at Mercury to Mercury (disambiguation) to make the planet the primary topic. I think the cost of the error is the same whether he puts the article about the planet at Mercury, or makes Mercury a PRIMARYREDIRECT to the article about the planet. That is, the impact on users would be the same. Either way, all those searching with “Mercury” but not wanting the planet would be taken wrongly to the article about the planet in identical numbers, and that would be the cost of the error. Why do you think the cost would even be different? Well, actually, whenever we put an article at a disambiguated title when we could put it a5 the basename, we’re arguably violating COMMONNAME and CONCISE, and some might say that’s a cost.
That reminds me, like WP:CONSENSUS does not mean ‘’consensus ‘’ per the dictionary, CONCISE on WP was never intended to be taken literally. The point of primary topic is to consider the context of all the uses of the title in question. If one of those is the primary topic then that means most (not all!) searching with that title would expect (or at least would not be surprised) to find an article about that primary topic at that title. So in that sense, with that context in mind, the basename ‘’is’’ CONCISE. There is no conflict between primary topic and CONCISE. —В²C ☎ 11:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Two minor points of fact: 1. per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT the bar is explicitly exactly the same for a redirect or non-redirect (the title) The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary. . 2. The ease of retargeting a redirect vs a page move mean the redirect is less stable in practice. Widefox; talk 12:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The hurt of a bad PrimaryRedirect is different to a bad title because the title is what appears on the document, in the url as, as the wikilink hovertext, and in lists like category listings. Mercury is not a good example because it is not borderline.
Do you have evidence of original intentions to use words to mean something different to their dictionary meanings? Such a thing is really bad. I don’t think it was true for “concise” and “consensus”. It happened, though not intentionally, with “notable”, due to a lack of better word.
The usual conflicts with CONCISE are PRECISE, CONSISTENCY and RECOGNIZABILITY. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If the title is "bad" then it's going to be bad whether it's just the name or the name disambiguated. If it's not bad disambiguated, then it's not bad undisambiguated. The two go hand in hand. If we move Paris to Washington adding (city in France) won't make it less bad. That applies to the title as displayed at the article, in the url in the wikilink hovertext and in category listings. Let's look at Cork which is currently a dab page. We could conceivably move it to Cork (disambiguation) to open up Cork to be the home of, say, Cork (material), Cork (plug), or Cork (city). Even though none of these are the primary topics, what would be so bad with any of these moves besides adding a click for those searching with "cork" and not for whatever cork article is at Cork? Consider moving Cork (material) to Cork, a topic which is listed in five categories, like in Category:Non-timber forest products. So it would be listed as Cork rather than Cork (material). So what? Where's the harm? Categories create a context that implies the information contained in the disambiguation (in this case "Non-timber forest products" implies this is the "material" meaning of cork, not the city, etc.) Same with all the other categories it is listed in. If you see Cork listed in Category:Populated coastal places in the Republic of Ireland, don't you think you could figure out which Cork it is? Does it really need to appear as Cork (city) for you to figure it out? Due to the nature of categories, it's very rare to have two uses of the same name listed in the same category. If not for the unique url restriction, the most common name of a topic would be more than adequate to be that title of that topic's article, even if the name is ambiguous. --В²C ☎ 17:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If the title is "bad" then it's going to be bad whether it's just the name or the name disambiguated. If it's not bad disambiguated, then it's not bad undisambiguated. The two go hand in hand. If we move Paris to Washington adding (city in France) won't make it less bad. That applies to the title as displayed at the article, in the url in the wikilink hovertext and in category listings. This completely misses the point. What we're talking about here is the difference between the disambiguated and base forms of the title. One of these can be significantly better than the other. That's the whole point of this discussion.
Cork is another good example. Discuss at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Cork. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I missed the point; I think you missed mine. I'm pointing out how the disambiguated title is NOT better than the undisambiguated title, not in any of the contexts listed by Smokey, including in category listings. The only reason to disambiguate any title is the unique url requirement. It has nothing to do with improving the user experience. That's why we don't disambiguate titles unless it's necessary due to a url conflict. If disambiguated titles were significantly better (beyond resolving the url conflict), then we would use them even when there was no url conflict. --В²C ☎ 22:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your pointing out is entirely unconvincing. A unique url is absolutely not the only reason to disambiguate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Where are these supposed other reasons to disambiguate titles documented? I'll just point out that the internet is replete with web pages with identical titles, but since they are on different websites, there is no url conflict, so having the same title is not an issue. If we devised a way to create a unique identifier for every article, and used the unique id rather than the title in the url, we could use undisambiguated titles on all of our articles. The linking would be a pain, but it would not be a hindrance for our users at all. I'm not suggesting we do this, just pointing out the only reason we need disambiguated titles is for unique urls and editor convenience, not for our users. --В²C ☎ 22:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I wish I could put this more gently. You do not seem to know what URL means. The URL of a web page identifies the page name, the directory path, the website... everything that is needed to uniquely identify the page. (And many URLs contain a lot more too.) Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you identify what I said specifically that caused you to think I don't know what a URL is. I've known what a URL is for over 20 years. The URL, by the way, does not necessarily identify a web page's title. The final name component could be an arbitrary random string; there is no requirement for the name of the URL to be the title of the page. Ultimately, the URL a just a string that can be processed any way a given web server chooses to process it. --В²C ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Mea culpa, I've re-read your comment and you're right. Striking that. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
"Where are these supposed other reasons to disambiguate titles documented?" Umm, you say "disambiguate" like it is a bad word, I prefer "choose a good title", and the documentation is at WP:Criteria. Granted, these are criteria directed at helping to choose a good title, not reasons to choose a good title. I think I have already told you hundreds of times, but you have blinkers blinding you from things you don't value. Maybe I can try throwing the question back at you: On a document, such as an article covering a topic, what is the value of a good title? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Most WP articles are distinctly different from arbitrarily chosen documents in that the topic is notable and usually has a name. That name is an excellent choice for the title of any such article; there no benefit to any reader if we augment such a title (there are technical benefits to augmenting titles beyond reflecting merely the name of the topic in such articles). --В²C ☎ 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the problems is, you're assuming that all readers think the way you do. Some of us do, some of us don't, most of us do sometimes but not others. That name is an excellent choice for the title of any such article; there no benefit to any reader if we augment such a title (my emphasis) shows this clearly I think. The problem is simply that not all of us agree on what that name is! And that is part of the challenge of disambiguation. Redirects deal with it well if all the names are unambiguous, but as soon as there are two names for a topic, there's the horrible likelihood that some readers will then use some of these names to refer to other topics... that is, those names become ambiguous. And ambiguity can similarly arise because if some topics are relatively obscure, some readers will not even know they exist, and will then similarly assume that the name refers to a topic that they do know exists.
That's what Primary Topic was devised to address I guess. And when most of the new disambiguation concerned topics such as mathematics where the Primary Topic is uncontroversial, it worked well most of the time. But even then, there were some quite remarkable blunders such as New York, and some challenging titles such as Macedonia and Dana Meadows.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm still working this out myself, and I'm grateful for discussions such as this one. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
If I'm assuming all readers think the way I do, I'm not aware of it. That's something I explicitly try to avoid. And man, you sure like to muddy the waters. Let's see if we can agree on some basics, and then move on to more complex cases. The typical case with primary topic at issue involves a number of topics which all the share the same name, like the quintessential Paris and Mercury. While disagreements about what the name of a given topic is can certainly occur, that can happen to topics with unique names as well as ambiguous ones, so I see that as a separate issue from what we're discussing here. Even with New York nobody denies that is the name commonly used to refer to each of the state and the city. With Dana Meadows the page view counts heavily favor the person over the places but how often is she searched as "Dana Meadows" rather than "Donella Meadows". I think that's the main issue there. --В²C ☎ 19:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Concur with the observation the B2C assumes others think the same as him, or more pointedly, does not acknowledge easily others’ perspectives. Interestingly, when challenged uncomfortably, he characteristicly introduces a red herring statement about mercury, one of his intellectual anchors, red herring because no one disagrees there and there is no substantive point. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Logically, I think that should have gone after the outdent below. But just note the timestamps. Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to clear the waters, just as both of us are trying to escape our natural assumptions about how people think, but perhaps not succeeding (see my off-this-wiki essay).

Agree re Dana Meadows. IMO examples like this are exactly the best way to proceed, at this stage. There is a lot going on. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Another step back

What I think we have established here is that PT is not, per se, a reason to put a topic at an ambiguous basename. [4] Maybe. I'm convinced that it's not a good reason. But according to our current policy, as interpreted in many RMs, it is an overriding reason. And while there's not a lot of participation above, there's enough concern expressed with the current policy, and little enough support for it, that I'm encouraged.

It will not be a quick process, but please continue to wrangle with it. For my part, I think the way forward is to collect and analyse examples. It's not a quick or easy process. It's been a long road for me and I don't think I'm halfway yet. I've had two epiphanies along the way, firstly questioning the assumption that having an article at the base name made that article easier to find, and secondly questioning the assumption that the simplest way to fix this was to abandon Primary Topic completely. The first in particular was an assumption I didn't even recognise as one, it just seems self-evident until you ask the question, and then suddenly... As I said, for me it was an epiphany.

I suspect that many others are still under one or both of these two assumptions, and that their thought processes will be as hard to shift as mine were! And perhaps someone can show me a third epiphany.

In fact I must thank SmokeyJoe for pointing out that Primary Topic is logically inconsistent with the policy on precision. Of course it is!

Or is it? Note the second bullet point: Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (see Energy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (see Primary topic, and the conciseness and recognizability criteria). [5]

I'm still digesting that, it doesn't seem to contradict anything that I've decided for other reasons, it seems rather to be another route to the same conclusions. Andrewa (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I’ve always had trouble with those bullet points. Passive tense assertion of opinion with self-inconsistent language. Is “precise enough” oxymoronic? What’s with the obsession for concise. Concise is good, but why should concise override precise? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Agree. At the risk of playing with words, an ambiguous title is not by definition concise (wiktionary:brief, yet including all important information). In other words, for concise to override precise is nonsense. But as you suggest, that's exactly what the policy currently seems to say. Andrewa (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Andrewa, okay, let's put this to rest. I apologize if you've already answered this and I missed it. Feel free to copy/paste or even link to where you've already explained this if you have. But... please explain why you think having an article at the term most likely to be used in searching for it (or a redirect to the article at that term) does not make the article easier (fewer clicks) to find. I'll start by explaining why I think it does.
    1. First, we ignore users using Google to search as Google is title agnostic (as explained above). Granted that eliminates many searchers, but once someone is on WP they are likely to use the search within WP. It is those users I'm concerned with, not with how well Google search works (that's Google's problem).
    2. Next, within WP search, there is the pop-up search term completion box, but it's not there if you have javascript turned off in your browser, or if in Preferences/Search you select "Classic prefix search". If you do get the box, it doesn't matter. For example, whether Paris is at Paris (and Paris, France redirects to it) or at Paris, France (and Paris is a dab page), you'll see the precise Paris, France in the box, and clicking on it will get you there either way.
    3. But in the Classic search, you don't have the box, and you just enter Paris and Go. That's the search context that needs help and is helped by putting articles at the term that is most likely to be used in searching for it. Otherwise these users end up at the dab page instead of the primary topic they are most likely seeking; that doesn't help, and so that's why putting a primary topic article at the term most likely to be used in searching for it (or a redirect to the article at that term) does make the article easier (fewer clicks) to find.
    Why do you believe that's not the case? --В²C ☎ 18:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    please explain why you think having an article at the term most likely to be used in searching for it (or a redirect to the article at that term) does not make the article easier (fewer clicks) to find... I've already done that several times, but happy to do it again, as it's possibly the most important point of all. It was, as I said, my first epiphany. Watch this space.
    1. Google search is not IMO title agnostic, and I fail to see any evidence above that it is, just many bald statements of that opinion. It's an AI engine, it swallows all the relevant data that Google can give it (assuming they're competent at using AI and I think that's a fair assumption) and the article title appears to it in both the URL and the page title. But you then seem concerned only with WP search anyway, so what's the point you are making here?
    2. Agree that whether Paris is at Paris (and Paris, France redirects to it) or at Paris, France (and Paris is a dab page), you'll see the precise Paris, France in the box, and clicking on it will get you there either way. Exactly. So, doesn't that mean that if Paris is a dab page, there's little disadvantage to these readers? Only those who choose the less precise title will have one extra mouse click. And these will quickly learn, in Wikipedia (and in life), when you are confronted with a choice of exactly what you want and something less precise, it's best to choose exactly what you want. PS but for other reasons I don't want to move Paris.
    3. Agree that those who just enter Paris and Go should be taken straight to the article on Paris, France. And that's exactly what happens now if you enter Paris Wikipedia, I'm feeling lucky into Google, and always will assuming again that their AI engine works as it should, and what happens if you use our classic search too, and I'm not proposing to change any of that. So, do you have a better example? By which I mean of course, one that would be affected by my proposal? Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Well, avoiding that "one extra mouse click" which you concede but largely dismiss the significance of in (2) is and has always been exactly what PT is about, especially for the case covered in (3). Just because you personally would give Paris a pass for extraneous reasons does not mean I can't use it as an example of what would happen if we didn't treat it as primary topic for "Paris" (by putting the dab page at the basename). Of course we could use some other example, but the idea is the same for any term which, when used in a search, is most likely used to search for one particular topic, but we take users searching with that term to a dab page instead. By definition, all of those users will have to scan the dab page and click before getting to their desired article; whereas if we kept the PT article at the search term in question (or, for Smokey's sake, the term was a redirect to the article at an unambiguous title for that PT), most users would be helped, while a minority would have an extra click. The idea of PT is that overall (not for all, but for more than less), recognizing PTs makes sought articles easier to find (fewer clicks; fewer DAB landings). More importantly to me, it's a reasonable basis for deciding relatively objectively how to arrange the articles and titles. If we weaken (deprecate) PT, but don't eliminate it all together, that just makes the guidelines even more vague, making conflict about titles even more likely. I for one, do not favor any change that takes us in that direction, especially for no discernible significant benefit. --В²C ☎ 20:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Let me be sure I understand... You're dismissing the proposal on the grounds that some readers would choose the less specific title from the list, and would then need one extra mouse click, in the hypothetical situation that we changed the proposal to include articles that are now explicitly excluded. Is that the only problem you see?
    But I think it's really important to talk this through. See User:Andrewa/my first epiphany. Andrewa (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    Partially, yes, because "some readers would choose the less specific title" (and expect it to take them to what we call the primary topic for that title), but, more importantly, it's because users using the Classic search, or using a browser without javascript, who would not even have the list to choose from, so they would just enter the plain term and hit Go. We can't use a system that assumes the list is there for everyone using WP search; that's a false assumption. --В²C ☎ 21:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    But nobody is proposing that we use a system that assumes the list is there for everyone using WP search. That anyone is proposing this is also a false (and rather common) assumption. See User:Andrewa/The third draft regarding avoiding primary topic#How readers find articles. But nor should we, of course, assume that they'll all simply go to the base name. That's an even worse assumption. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    You claim having an article at the base name does not make that article easier to find. How can that be true if you're not assuming "the list is there for everyone using WP search"? If the list is not there, a user searching for a topic named Foo will type in "foo" and click on Go. If the article they are most likely seeking is at the basename (or the basename redirects to the article) then that makes the article easier to find (not for everyone but for most). If instead it takes them to a dab page that they have to peruse before they find the right link and click on that, that makes it less easier to find (not for everyone, but for most). Am I missing something? --В²C ☎ 22:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, I think I see the problem here. Yes, you can invent scenarios in which a reader will get to the wrong page, and need to click on a hatnote or a link from a DAB, and we can I think invent those regardless of the policies and procedures here. As you said yourself The idea of PT is that overall (not for all, but for more than less), recognizing PTs makes sought articles easier to find (fewer clicks; fewer DAB landings). [6] (all in bold in the original, in a longish post but this was the bolded section. The word I've bolded has extra emphasis in the original.) Note also not for all, but for more than less. Well said.
    And that's why I need to work many examples before the RfC will be worth proposing. I'm not sure that Foo is a useful one... it's half-way between a real example and a principle, and we can probably invent many such each supporting a particular view. I'd like to either speak theory, or practice. Andrewa (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    Examples? Invent scenarios? I’m talking about each and every primary topic that is primary due to the usage criteria. Pick any; pick all. Paris. Einstein, Imperial County. Or any current or future article with an ambiguous title and a primary topic. Whatever. If the dab page for any of these is moved to the base name (or the basename is made to redirect to the dab page), so that the topic is no longer treated like a primary topic, then we’re making it ‘’less’’ easy ‘’overall’’ for those searching with that basename to find the article they’re seeking. That’s why we have primary topics; to make it easier overall to find articles. —В²C ☎ 07:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    I respect your opinion on the matter. But I'm afraid that your citing Paris, Einstein and Imperial County as examples when none of them are affected by the proposal is not IMO terribly convincing, they even seem to be straw man arguments. (The last two are primary redirects, so see User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC#Primary redirects.) There are many examples at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios, some of which are affected and all of which could do with discussion. But these three seem irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Why are you fixated on the few specific examples? Focus on this: any current or future article with an ambiguous title and a primary topic. So let's take one from your list, Digitalism. Looking at the page view counts there is an argument for PT to be made here, especially if you dismiss or discount searches for Digitality using "digitalism". The effect of putting the dab page at the base name is that all those using WP search to search with "digitalism" will be taken to the dab page even though 75 to 90% are looking for the band, adding a dab page perusal and an extra click to their searching effort. That clearly does not make that article easier to find for the majority of those affected by whether the article or the dab page is at the base name. How can you argue otherwise? --В²C ☎ 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Why are you fixated on the few specific examples? Good question. Two reasons.

(1) In the long run, what happens in specific cases is all that matters. Theory is only relevant in that it has practical outcomes.

(2) Theory can have us going around in circles, and making bad guesses when the real situation is counter-intuitive, and both seem to me to have happened in previous Primary Topic related discussions, possibly going back to the very start of usage of the term in Wikipedia.

The effect of putting the dab page at the base name is that all those using WP search to search with "digitalism" will be taken to the dab page even though 75 to 90% are looking for the band, adding a dab page perusal and an extra click to their searching effort. That clearly does not make that article easier to find for the majority of those affected by whether the article or the dab page is at the base name. How can you argue otherwise? Good point. I'll discuss further at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Digitalism where I do currently claim the move is not in any reader's interest. I may well need to revisit that! And this is exactly the sort of discussion I'm after there. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The situation is the same - hindering the search process for the majority of those WP searching with the ambiguous term in question - for any article with a primary topic (as determined by the usage method) that is disambiguated and the dab page rather than the article is at (or redirected from) the basename. Note that it's also true when an article determined to be primary by the dubious "historical significance" criterion is at (or redirected from) the basename and an article that is primary per the usage method is at a disambiguated title. I thought this was obvious - the primary purpose of primary topic is to improve the search process (reduce need for dab page perusal and additional clicks) for the majority of those WP searching with the ambiguous term in question. The second purpose is to establish a consistent naming guideline for ambiguous names based on consistently choosing titles based on the primary purpose. --В²C ☎ 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you may be making the same mistake that you sometimes accuse me of making, that of assuming that everyone arrives at the page by the same method. See User:Andrewa/how. For those, for example, who want the band and use Google search, and pick the page from the results list, it's a lot easier to find the page on the band if one of the hits is Digitalism (band). So what you're saying above is overgeneralised. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
When I say "those using WP search" I'm restricting my comments to users who are "using WP search" (either without javascript on in Classic search mode - no search results pop-up box), and that's intentional. As a frequent user of Google search, I'm not concerned about how our titles affect Google searchers. If I search for "Mercury" I do see the disambiguated titles specifying planet, element etc. in the Google search results. But if I search for "apple" the undisambiguated Apple in the results is immediately followed by the lead: "An apple is a sweet, edible fruit..."; I see no distinction of significance in my ability to be able to choose the hit I want from the Google search results whether the title is disambiguated or not. I disagree it's a lot easier to find the page based on whether it's disambiguated or not. The argument can be made with users who use the WP search box with javascript and get the pop-up box, but as long as the article at the base name is truly the primary topic (by usage) - the topic users are most likely seeking - then it shouldn't be an issue. That's the point of primary topic. In fact, the current "Apple" setup is problematic because the topic of the article at the basename (the fruit) is not the primary topic by usage, so anyone using WP search (with or w/o popup search box) and selecting Apple is most likely seeking the company but getting taken to the fruit. That's the problem introduced by the historical significance criteria. --В²C ☎ 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. But see my reply above regarding escaping our own assumptions as to how others might use Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, as this is most likely not the spot for my comment, but I got lost with the amount of text and sub-headers so I just placed it at the last relevant-ish header. I'm not a fan of any use of Primary Topics. My main editing subjects are TV, film and media related and it always amazes me how hard people fight to get one item a primary over others. This even goes one step ahead and some editors even argue that an article which itself has a qualifier can be a primary of that qualifier - so "<name of TV series> (TV series)" can be a primary, over other TV series with the same name. As a current example of this, see Talk:Wheel of Fortune (1952 game show)#Requested move 19 October 2018 where Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) is the "primary" for any US game show, even though Wheel of Fortune (1952 game show) is also a US game show. I'd be content even with disambiguation pages always being the primary. Yes, even Paris. If a user is searching the search bar, then Paris, France should be either the first or second results (in any adequate search engine). I've also never been moved by the argument of a user needing to click one more page in order to reach where they want to. So what? Will that kill that user? We click thousand of times each day during a normal web experience, why does Wikipedia have to be very "simple" one-click experience? If this ever gets a RfC, please ping me if you remember. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Consensus and commonsense

The current policies and guidelines do reflect both the historic and the current consensus IMO. But the question for me is: Is this a good consensus for Wikipedia now? I don't question that Primary Topic (I'm avoiding saying P T or PT) was supported by valid consensus. But both circumstances and consensus can change and while it will not be easy, I'm still working on building consensus to change this.

The letter of current policy at WP:PRECISE is consistent with our primary topic policy and guideline, but only because a specific bullet point has been added to resolve the glaring inconsistency between the two principles. This doesn't seem a good thing to me, and again consensus could be sought to simplify it. But if Primary Topic were to be deprecated (and this is still my thinking, although the discussion in this overall section has been very helpful in challenging that thinking), this of course becomes a moot point. Andrewa (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading

For any who missed it, there's a fascinating discussion at Talk:Reading (process)#Requested move 17 October 2018 with discussion touching many if not most of the points made more theoretically above. Discuss there if still open (it's ellapsed, I was tempted to relist and decided against but feel free) or at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios#Reading. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

How many more page views constitute "more likely" and "much more likely"?

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion

The criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes the phrase, "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined". One of the common ways this is determined is by looking at page views. I have three questions:

  1. Given two topics, A and B, about how many more page views does A have to get than B to qualify as "much more likely" to be sought than B? I know there is resistance to specifying exact numbers (not sure why, exact though somewhat-arbitrary numbers are used successfully for much more serious issues in the real world, like speed limits, ages to drive, consent, drink, etc. - can you imagine how many more disputes there would be in the real world if real world rules were as wishy-washy as WP rules are?), but how about at least some ranges? Getting 1.1 time as many page views, for example, I think clearly does not qualify as "much more likely". But what about 1.5 times as many? Twice as many? Three times as many? At what point is it clearly "much more likely" to be sought?
  2. Given a number of topics, how many more page views does one have to get than all the others combined to qualify as "more likely than all the other topics combined"? Isn't merely getting more page views (technically even just one more) than the total number of page views all the other uses get combined, sufficient to qualify as "more likely than all the other topics combined"?
  3. If we can get consensus on these two questions, should we provide guidance at PT accordingly?

Thanks, --В²C ☎ 21:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop obsessing about page views and start considering the other criteria. Page views are a useful way to help determine the significance of a topic, but nothing more. Apple is so obviously an apple that it doesn't matter how many page views the corporation gets. The page views are irrelevant.--Ykraps (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
In past move discussions I've used "ten times more visits" as the minimum threshold to start considering page views as a significant factor with respect to usage, and I was not the only one. The defining factor though is not the relative amount of page views with respect other pages, but the relative strength of usage with respect to the historical significance of the other articles. I.e. it's not enough that one page gets much more visits (see Madonna), it's also needed that the others don't have a competing claim of primacy by other parameters. Diego (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Possibly unhelpful, but this is my observation: Page views don't necessarily indicate the reader found what they were looking for, there could be a multitude of people visiting the wrong page in some scenarios. If is a dab, what they click next is more significant. —cygnis insignis 08:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I would usually assume "much more" would mean something like 90-95%. This came from Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 September 2018 where it has been argued that the TN city doesn't clearly meet either criteria. I would point out B2C's post here saying that where Birmingham, Alabama has been viewed 32601 times and Birmingham has been viewed 79197 times, that not being enough. But Birmingham in the West Midlands is the original and the usual "City, State" format probably deals with that and people interested in the Alabama city surely know that its named after the UK one. Thises views [[7]] show a larger margin but for Memphis being less relevant as the TN city is English speaking, unlike the city in Egypt. I would personally recommend that we change it to something like this:
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is the subject sought 90% or more when a reader searches for that term.
  • A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than all the other topics associated with that term.

However we should take into account in situations where hatnotes would be enough, such as when there are only 2 or 3 subjects or when there are only 2 "main" topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A broad consensus is not possible. It has to be judged on a case-by-case basis, via WP:RM, WP:RFD or a talk page. Every ambiguous term has a unique set of articles with a unique set of characteristics that need to be considered. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes it might be assessed up to a point on a case by case basis but a clearer guideline would reduce disputes and make assessment easier and reduce outcomes being based on who happens to be making the assessment. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
If you think clearer titling guidelines are needed, read busywork and find something more productive to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Google search results are not WP:RS. Nor are page views.
"One of the common ways this is determined is by looking at page views." That statement is WP:OR, and is disqualified.
Never lose sight of why we are here! It's not about us, it's about the readers. Solutions do not need problems – especially solutions founded on over-literal over-rigid readings of the guidelines which overlook WP:IAR.
Which is worse? (1) A reader clicks and lands on a disambiguation page, and has to click again to find what they were looking for. (2) A reader clicks and lands on an ill-chosen WP:PTOPIC which confuses or misleads them.
I have an informal test for PTOPIC, which has nothing to do with ephemera like page views and search hits. How likely is it that a reader who knows of topic A also knows of topic B? If the answer is 'overwhelmingly', then B is PTOPIC; otherwise, it is not.
If you would prefer to sort out a disaster area rather than to count the angels dancing on head of a pin, I suggest that you look at the incoming links to Esplanade. Narky Blert (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Very well put. Which is worse? (1) A reader clicks and lands on a disambiguation page, and has to click again to find what they were looking for. (2) A reader clicks and lands on an ill-chosen WP:PTOPIC which confuses or misleads them. I might cite that elsewhere.
And I also like your informal test for PTOPIC, always have, I think it's far more useful than page views, see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. But shouldn't it be symmetrical? What if it's also overwhelmingly likely that a reader who knows of topic B also knows of topic A? But if it's true one way but not the other, then agree. Which would make New York City clear P T of New York for example. Andrewa (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The informal test fails when A and B are both known. (and what happens if both are generally unknown?), e.g. Apple vs Apple Inc. A no primary topic example Orange (colour) vs Orange (fruit) the test doesn't help as they're both commonly known. It may be difficult to estimate what readers know anyhow - for example in Birmingham vs Birmingham, Alabama with US vs UK readers. It's not easy for a UK writer to estimate the awareness of Birmingham UK with US readers, and vice versa. Widefox; talk 14:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion
 

Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic? currently has a LINKBOX advertizing two shortcuts:

Per Wikipedia:Shortcut#Link_boxes

The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:WhatLinksHere is for); instead, they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.

Comparing the two, one is head, shoulders, knees and ankles above the other. The lesser use one should go. It is not particularly intuitive, it is page clutter, and it is bad advice to recommend it, alongside the other, as the recommended shortcut for this section.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the recommended shortcut for this section. It is not helpful to conflate this recommendation with another.

NB. Removing a shortcut from the linkbox does not stop it from working. It is merely about telling readers what shortcuts are recommended for using in future.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, as the guidiline says, we only list the most common redirects (notice the plural), and as far as I know these two are the most common. WP:PTOPIC has almost 800 incoming links, has been listed in the box for at least as long as I remember, and is the only shortcut that is actually short and not so short as to be opaque. And frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about: have we really run out of things to do on wikipedia? – Uanfala (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Competing recommended shortcuts adds to obfuscation. Especially for newcomers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And PTOPIC is not intuitive. So, what is all the fuss about listing just PRIMARYTOPIC? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I've only recently seen PTOPIC being used, I don't think I've ever used it, but I'm already getting used to it. I see no harm in advertising both. I actually see two advantages to using PTOPIC. First, it's shorter, of course. But more importantly it avoids the word "primary" which I think is problematic in that people misinterpret it to mean "most important". For example, at the recent RM discussion at Talk:Puma many felt that the Cougar meaning was the most important meaning of "Puma", the one the other meanings are derived one, and therefore thought it was the primary topic and so Puma should redirect to Cougar. On the other hand, The Genus to which the species belongs and the show brand are often used by "puma" searchers. In the end, leaving Puma a dab page won out, and, I think rightfully so. That might have been more obvious if we had talked about whether "Puma" had a PTOPIC rather than which is the "most important" use of "Puma" and thus is the PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 18:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
So, we want intuitive shortcuts except when we want obfuscating shortcuts? Shall we rename the section "Is there a primary topic?" to "Is there a P topic?" to avoid this confusion? (IMO, no.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a new idea, but I think it's worth exploring completely replacing all references to "primary topic" and PRIMARYTOPIC with PTOPIC. Actually, it's not totally new because I've thought about what term would be better than primary topic in the past. PTOPIC is pretty simple - a totally made up term that allows us to define it clearly without all the "primary" baggage. The P can hint at "popular" as well as "primary". "Formerly known as PRIMARYTOPIC, the PTOPIC for a term is the most popular use of that term that has an article on WP", or something to that effect. --В²C ☎ 19:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
14 June 2012 is not new.[8]. Made up terms are not a good idea, they are jargon, jargon is a barrier. I anchored PTOPIC to unbreak the shortcut. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:PTOPIC is a resonable shortcut, in that it is shorter than PRIMARYTOPIC. I don't see the problem with listing them both, especially since they are both used. -- Tavix (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If you like it, use it, but clearly it hasn’t caught on more than a blip next to what is mostly used. The problem is obfuscation of what is mostly used. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Anyone who clicks on WP:PTOPIC is redirected to a section that says "Is there a primary topic?" There is no obfuscation at play there. Also, as Uanfala has pointed out, over 800 incoming links demonstrates clear historical use. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The obfuscation is not in the shortcut and its use. There’s nothing wrong with useing the shortcut. What’s wrong is suggesting that PTOPIC is commonly used when it is linked less than 10% as often as PRIMARYTOPIC, and of those links they are less likely to be followed. It is not intuitive to the unencultured, and neither are short anyway. LINKBOXES are not for listing everybody’s favourite shortcut. Everyone uses PRIMARYTOPIC and using something else makes it seem like it might be something else. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
          • On an absolute basis, 800 links and hundreds of page views is demonstrable use. PTOPIC is much shorter than the alternative and intuitive for anyone who has context. In the rare time there isn't enough context, a quick click of the link would show what it means. Nobody is suggesting that linkboxes are for listing everyone's favorite shortcuts. In fact, I don't think I have ever used the shortcut. Personally, my favorite shortcut to that section would probably be WP:PTOP since it's the shortest shortcut that makes sense to me, but it has no links outside this discussion, proving that it is not well used and should not be added to the linkbox. On the other hand, WP:PTOPIC is well used and the linkbox should reflect that. -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Almost 800 is small compared to over 8000. The over six year experiment with PTOPIC has failed. A very small minority used it, and when used, it is less likely to be followed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've always used WP:PTOPIC as the most straightforward and obvious shortcut. I didn't know until just now that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC also exists.
Have we really got nothing more important to discuss? Wikipedia:Notability (films), for example, has five listed shortcuts, all perfectly good, all worth listing. The current proposal is pure nitpickery, which wastes other editors' time, which proposes making their lives more difficult, and which does nothing at all to improve the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Every so often, the bloat has to be cut. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
If by "bloat" you mean discussions like this one, then absolutely! – Uanfala (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Talk page bloat will be auto-archived. If every small good idea is added to the documentation, the document becomes bloated. See alto WP:TL;DR. This PTOPIC case is an edge case, two is not extreme, the third one just put back is definitely too much. The PTOPIC/PRIMARYTOPIC is a quite strong ratio. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Send the wordy rambling Not_"what_first_comes_to_(your)_mind" to an essay

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I propose to send nearly all of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Not_"what_first_comes_to_(your)_mind" to an essay, under that title. It is very wordy, quite unclear as guidance, it really is just opinion in the style of pontification.

However, the bit about Partial Title Match (WP:PTM) should stay. No idea why it is under that subsection title? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It was added by User:Red Slash in 2014.[9] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Partial title match was introduced by User:Sgeureka in 2007.[10] —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it makes an important point, though could be worded better. The main point, I think, is that one's own personal notion of what the most prevalent meaning of a given term is is not how one should decide primary topic. Page view counts, ngrams and ghits are objective and far more reliable for this purpose. --В²C ☎ 23:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it is important, but it is more opinion than guideline, and it needs more words to explain itself. It will make a good essay. Page view counts, ngrams and ghits are not reliable, and their meanings are not objective. You in particular routinely blur objective and subjective. An essay is a much better place to thrash out debating advice than in a random place in this already poorly written and poorly understood guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I discussed the section here on this talk page with Red Slash at some point. I had an issue with the section, but it was tweaked. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is a link to the aforementioned discussion: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 43#Not "what first comes to (your) mind" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22 Reborn, I will read that later. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
In this context what I mean by objective is the results are not swayed by one's personal predilections. Page view counts, ngrams and ghits are objective in that sense. Two people get the same results for the same inquiry. That's the epitome of objective. Whether the data has some other cultural/national bias is a different issue. But at least such data is editor-opinion-independent, which is what I mean about it being objective. --В²C ☎ 01:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. Ghits in particular, I think should not be considered "reliable". I have seen the same search give very different results on different days. I think google has an unknowable AI algorithm, both in what it does and in what it tells you. I don't trust ghits as "data". Page view counts seem OK, if you exclude recent data, it has some lag. Google books ngram data is very attractive, but some skill is needed to use it objectively, clumsy ngram searches will pull table data, and that is very misleading if you think you are counting use in prose. All of this would go nicely in the essay, don't you think. "How to do a ngram search" does not belong in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you can get radically different results, including very divergent volume of results, simply be being in a different country or having different Google preferences settings.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no objection to the bulk of it being moved to an essay, but the core of the advice is quite solid and is guideline material. The ketypoy points need to be retained. It's just 5x too long in its present state to be a good guideline subsection. The principle doesn't need more than maybe two examples at most (e.g. Birmingham and Hathaway, for topical diversity, but I would swap Birmingham out and use Perth, because too much our guideline material is away US/UK stuff). Could use some minor tone tweaks, but that issue would likely get erased during compression. I think the entire gist could be encapsulated in 2-3 sentences and 2 examples; give it a {{Main}} that points to the full-text essay.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Is PRIMARYTOPIC completely ignored in certain article areas?

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

Over at Talk:Tout_le_monde_en_parle#Requested_move_23_October_2018 we have a situation where one use of a TV show name gets 60% of the views, while the other gets 40% (20/33 vs 13/33 average views per day), yet local consensus is not accepting that the 60% one is the primary topic. I did a little searching and I can't find a single example of an ambiguous TV show/series, film or book at its base name, no matter the page view counts. For example, the page view counts for the current 2010 Hawaii Five 0 series are five times that of the 1968, but it's still disambiguated at Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series). What's going on here? --В²C ☎ 16:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In the first case, it's debatable whether 60% of views constitutes much more likely than any other single topic. In the second, the 2010 series is more RECENT and may not yet have established substantially greater enduring notability. Neither decision is a clear-cut correct one, but each does have a case for it.
There are certainly ambiguous films at the base name, such as The Lion King, Ghostbusters and Miracle on 34th Street. Certes (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
...also TV (e.g. DuckTales, Villa Quintana, The Bob Newhart Show) and books (e.g. City of Night, The Sea Lady, The White Tiger). Certes (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
For books, stories and TV shows etc. at the base name, I offer e.g. David Copperfield, Oliver Twist, Romeo and Juliet, The Canterville Ghost and The Prisoner.
A 60-40 split is nowhere near enough to define a PTOPIC. It is not 'much more likely'. I look for 90:10 at an absolute minimum, and preferably more.
The idea of PTOPIC is to help readers get where they want to be as quickly as possible. If 40% of readers land on the wrong page, they are likely to be some combination of confused, misled, and annoyed. It is also guaranteed that a good proportion of new links to the PTOPIC will be plain wrong, and will be unlikely ever to get spotted and corrected. That is bad for the encyclopaedia.
The example I always trot out is Tetrahedron, where the Platonic solid is overwhelmingly PTOPIC. I look at the links in to that page from time to time, because it collects some links intended for Tetrahedron (journal). The bad links can be difficult to spot, even for an organic chemist – and every organic chemist is guaranteed to know both meanings, because tetrahedral structure is a fundamental idea, if not the fundamental idea, in carbon chemistry. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some primary topics can be a nuisance for readers and editors alike. For example, Billboard (magazine) has six times more views and 100 times more incoming links than Billboard (big ad), Knot (unit) three times more views and 25 times more incoming links than Knot (bent rope), etc. Such titles attract plenty of misdirected links. Certes (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
All excellent examples. Thank you! Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh lordy, is this more ammunition for your get-rid-of-primary-topics juggernaut, Andrew? 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
"Knot" is a good example of where there should be nothing at the basename, it should redirect to Knot (disambiguation), with the current Knot bent rope, the source for so many derived uses, treated at the DAB page like a PrimaryTopic, but people jumping straight to "knot" are probably not wanting the bent rope. If Knot is not a proper page, then no one should be redirecting to it, and bad redirects will be easier to find. Possibly, Knot is even best to be a redlink, salted, with the log pointing to Knot (disambiguation). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Surely we must provide some page at Knot: either an article, which attempts to give some readers what they were seeking, or a dab with signposts for everyone. I would support a dab but either the rope or the unit has to be better than a redlink. The problem here is that good titles are a scarce resource, and it's wasteful to "solve" that problem by giving the resource to no one. Certes (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course. It's actually a very good idea. It just mustn't happen. - Arnold Robinson, The National Education Service
I'm not convinced either, but I do like the lateral thinking. And there are lots of assumptions in that response, and I doubt that you're the only one making them. It's worth a closer look, even if it turns out not to be a good idea. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks that way to me. The evidence and interest both seem to be slowly mounting. But it took twelve years to fix New York, so the more general fix may even wait until a new generation of Wikipedians arrive. But I think it's worth doing the groundwork even so, and if and when we reach a tipping point it may be sudden and even unexpected.
My first proposal was certainly a juggernaught, but my current draft would IMO be very little trouble and immediate benefit if accepted. But getting consensus even for it is going to require a great deal of work.
I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover … I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it. Even Galileo didn't get it quite right, but he made some progress. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I hold that The Sun is a worthless non-WP:RS tabloid newspaper. Narky Blert (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I've never seen a copy, but when I was seven years old I used to secretly save the page 3 girl photos from The Sun (Sydney). Otherwise, tend to agree. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
To be quite honest I can't see Andrewa's get rid of primary topics entirely as being successful, however getting them better defined and stricter is reasonably likely. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Certes's analysis in the above, throughout.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The not juggernaut

To be quite honest I can't see Andrewa's get rid of primary topics entirely as being successful, however getting them better defined and stricter is reasonably likely. [11]

I invite both Crouch, Swale and Amakuru to re-read User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC. It's not the juggernaught that User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic definitely was, and a major part of that is that it doesn't propose to get rid of primary topics. Maybe also look at User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views, a still earlier and IMO still valid essay.

But for Crouch in particular, a challenge... how exactly should we try to get them better defined and stricter? One of the advantages of my current proposal is, it's simple.

We've tried to raise the bar before, and after all was said and done much was said and nothing done. But let's try again. The best tool we have is page views. Suppose we simply said, a primary topic is one that gets 80% or more of page views? But just to avoid oscillations (every move breaks incoming external links), we'll say that once an article is at a base name it stays there unless its page views drop below 60%.

This would be a great improvement IMO, and I'd support it. But not nearly as good as my proposed RfC, for several reasons.

Comments? Is there better way? Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'd say raising the bar (particularly for new PTs) is a good idea, sorry I (and I think also Amakuru) misunderstood into thinking that it was another visit to looking at abolishing PTs altogether. This problem was raised at #How many more page views constitute "more likely" and "much more likely"? back in September. See this suggestion that would make things simpler, obviously the long-term significance is less easy to judge but putting a percentage would reduce the likelihood of different outcomes based on who happens to be participating in the evaluation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I have created a lot of essay and user essay material on the subject, and don't expect it all to be read. I link to the my older attempts in these discussions mainly to try to make the point to those who have read them already (thank you!) that they are now flagged as obsoleted. They are useful for several reasons, one of which is to reduce the chance of someone else reinventing the same proposal. And they all link prominently to my current proposal.
There were some excellent points made in that discussion above. And perhaps just tweaking the current policy as proposed there would help, but I'm not convinced, and neither do I think there's any realistic chance of doing it. But I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
We can't judge on page views alone. Firstly, there are other considerations such as external coverage and incoming links. Secondly, page views are influenced by the current arrangement. I suspect that the situation with Knot is even worse than I suggested, because some readers will visit Knot hoping that it describes the unit (or the topological concept) or some other meaning). "80% of readers who seek any topic called Knot" might be reasonable, i.e. what the page views would be if everyone magically got the right page first time (or if everyone had to go via a dab). Of course, 80% is an arbitrary level, and estimates of how many readers seek each topic may vary. Certes (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should judge on page views alone, my view on that has not changed in a long time. But it's not a complete straw man. I am saying that this would be an improvement on the current chaos, but that we can do even better.
And this page-view-only standard that I'm sort of proposing should be kept simple and objective. We have a tool, and there's a case for just using it. Of course there will be appeals to wp:IAR, perhaps even some valid exceptions. But estimates of how many readers seek each topic have no place in the policy, and if such wiggle-room were proposed I would not support it. It just exchanges one problem for another equal problem. Andrewa (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Knot hadn't occurred to me before as a problem, but IMO the thing in a piece of string is a badly-chosen PTOPIC. The nautical unit of speed, and perhaps also the bird, is as significant. Mathematicians will know that their specialist meanings are just that. IMO, knot parallels classic no-PTOPIC examples like Mercury and Phoenix.
<cough>It's all about the readers.</cough> Narky Blert (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Knot is a much more complicate case to argue not-PrimaryTopic, because all the other meanings derive from the old meaning of a knot, intertwined threads, associated with a clump that sticks together. Except for the bird, which is uncertain, but possibly derives from Cnut. Original meanings tend to have a very good claim for PrimaryTopic, but not always. Windows, for example. It is hard to formulate objective rules, and I think people who deny that are short sighted, and the biggest rule should be “Its all about the readers”, including readers looking for a specific topic, and readerd browsing many topics. The two WP:CRITERIA undervalued with respect to valuing readers are RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY. PT is frequently in conflict with both. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Very well put re RECOGNISABILITY and CONSISTENCY. Also agree re readers. I deal with the derivative meaning issue in a new section below. Andrewa (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It's all about the readers. Agree but we can't even get consensus on that currently as I understand it. Or on wp:NPA. Perhaps I should refresh the neglected User:Andrewa/The senility of Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I looked over the newer essay and (aside from typos and other trivia), the edit I would suggest most is working on the "Some of this is highly counter intuitive" material. You've made some perhaps surprising claims, declared them surprising, and then not demonstrated or illustrated that they exist. That's a big weak-spot for a major change proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Derivative meanings

Knot is a much more complicate case to argue not-PrimaryTopic, because all the other meanings derive from the old meaning of a knot, intertwined threads, associated with a clump that sticks together. Except for the bird, which is uncertain, but possibly derives from Cnut. Original meanings tend to have a very good claim for PrimaryTopic, but not always. Windows, for example. [12]

This argument surfaces from time to time in RMs, and is a good one IMO, in that any Primary Topic criterion is any good, which I of course doubt. But AFAIK it has never had any support at all in policy and guidelines. Have I missed it?

It seems to me to be more a concern for Wiktionary than for Wikipedia. Readers do not generally know these etymologies, or possibly even care about them, and if they think they do they are quite often wrong anyway.

And that Wikilink brings up another current Primary Topic example. The common meaning of folk etymology is false etymology, and it's a bit strange that we currently have the esoteric linguistics term at folk etymology. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how primary topic really works; it's not about origin. Otherwise every US, Australian, etc., city named after a European one would have to be disambiguated, even if the original namesake was a tiny village. It is true that sometimes at RM an "all this other stuff is derived from this one" argument is made, but to the extent it has any suasion, it's only when that's really incidentally and it really is true that in the grand scheme of things the original whatever-it-is has more lasting encyclopedic significance. The main problem with PRIMARYTOPIC that I'm aware of this very frequent misunderstand that whatever is popular in pop-culture media this week must be the primary topic. If Lada Gaga puts out a mega-hit song titled "Shakespeare", some nimrod will argue to move the the Bard to a disambiguated name, and a few other nimrods will "vote" to support that idea. While this is an exaggerated example, in reality we really do have a lot of improper page moves based on failure to understand the interplay of RECENT and the rest of our concerns like NOTABLE, PRIMARYTOPIC, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have proposed that The Firm be merged into Firm (disambiguation); the discussion is here. I realized, belatedly, that The Firm was converted from a redirect into a separate disambiguation page quite recently. I have pinged the editor who made this edit, in case he wants to participate. Leschnei (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

A new editor, not willing to communicate in English in edit summaries or on their talk page, made a unilateral decision to split a long-standing dab page. ClueBot decided that the removal of "The Firm" items was a mistake and reverted it: I agree and have reverted the other changes back to the longstanding situation of a single dab page covering "The Firm" and "Firm". PamD 15:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that "The Firm" was merged into Firm (disambiguation) in 2006 and the joint dab page does not seem to have been queried since then. PamD 15:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Big

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Is there anything wrong with having what the common meaning of a word at the top if there is an article that describes it? Since 2013, until last month Big said that it refers to being large in size, even before we had an article at Size. DAB pages like Insel and The Queen list a definition and common meaning. Since big is covered in the article size, isn't it acceptable to have it formatted with that being what it mainly refers to? See discussion with User:Widefox at Talk:Big#Dictionary definition. Unlike this version of Nosedive, big has a specific enough article here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm just going to say the obvious per MOS - it's a dab with no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and there's nothing in MOS about a "primary meaning" [13]. It was styled as having a primary topic when it was only a valid DABMENTION, and there's a wikt link too, so don't see a pressing reason to emphasis the dict def when the wikt and DABMENTION cover it.
  • WP:DABDIC is A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary,...
  • It would be interesting to get other's input on whether it's useful to have a dict def right at the top when my reading is that MOSDAB nowadays leans towards deprecating it and relying on wikt and DABMENTION or synonym type entries, which to me serves readers and writers better (my underlying principle being that any content should be verifiable, so we want to keep dabs free/easier due to the constraint of no references).
  • The current styling [14] with an entry (the dict definition) as the first entry before the first section is OK (as long as the TOC is after, which it currently isn't) is OK to me, but I know other dab editors don't like entries like that. Widefox; talk 20:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that there was Talk:Large#Requested move 4 June 2015, although that failed to gain consensus. I'm not claiming that it should be treated as a WP:PTOPIC, but per MOS:DABCOMMON, can be spelled out as the main meaning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have moved the TOC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
"Main meaning" means what? DABDIC is clear "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions." . I think it would be useful if we made MOSDAB more clear about whether we put dictionary entries at the top if we already have a wiktionary link (and in this case a DABMENTION entry). There's many examples of dict defs at the top but I personally consider them deprecated (per above). Take example Insel ... that clearly fails WP:DABDIC It is also not an interlanguage dictionary IMHO. Widefox; talk 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
"Main meaning" means a topic that is considered to be one that is most likely to be primary (or at least one that people would expect the word to refer to), but is not currently treated as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term (that is to say that the title doesn't host, or redirect to it). In the case of Elgin for example, the one in Scotland is treated as a "main meaning" (due to being the original) but not a "primary topic". Per WP:FORRED I agree we could just remove the German term. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I've cleaned the dab Insel (removing the German dict def, which is covered by the wikt link). Let's be clear - there's either a primary topic or not. Widefox; talk 20:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
To take the Elgin example, the etymology info on that first entry is dictionary information going against DABDIC, how does it assist readers selecting their topic? I can understand having the entry outside the others, or at least the first in the dab (which does assist, despite no primary topic - I normally leave a html comment behind to justify such entries), but the etymology info doesn't assist, just goes against concise per WP:MOSDAB. The issue comes from WP:V too, what happens when/if an entry is added with no derivation, and do we expect dab editors to verify that all entries derive from it every time it gets cleaned? That entry Elgin, Moray is listed twice - I'd just put the UK section at the top with a html comment justifying it, removing the duplicate entry. Widefox; talk 21:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say that there is excess detain on what the Scottish town is, but for a DAB page, WP:DABDIC "A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context" I'd argue is useful and helpful here (or at least for big). Also this helps readers and editors realize that putting it above others was intentional, rather than someone merely thinking the Scottish one is the most relevant/important. Like the other content on the DAB (for example it being a town) it is verified at the target article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a reach for DABDIC - it isn't a dictionary def word, but a proper noun Elgin, Moray. There's no justification for listing that entry twice in the dab anyhow. I've marked for cleanup, pending other's views here. There's no consensus I know for generally putting the proper noun that most/all the other entries derive from at the top, as shown by primary topics which aren't the original proper nouns. The red flag is that etymology is for dictionaries, and many of our topics don't have that info in them to verify for the dab (bottom line...WP:NOT#DICT = Wiktionary is the right place, although minimal info yes may help users select the original).Widefox; talk 00:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
By coincidence, Elgin turned up yesterday during my routine trawl through Disambiguation pages with links (I did E-Fi) before I read its mention in this discussion.
I found the double entry for Elgin, Moray ugly and confusing, and the (WP:OR?) statement that other Elgins (may have) got their name from it unDABlike, and edited the page accordingly.
That was therefore the reaction of an experienced DABlink fixer with no WP:POINT to make. Narky Blert (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

DAB advice sought please

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The story of Rolls-Royce is complex, and there are many articles covering it all. For now, I'm interested just in Rolls-Royce cars, and as far as I can tell there are three companies which produced them - Rolls-Royce Limited (1906 to 1972), Rolls-Royce Motors (1972 to 1998) and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars (1998 to present). I would like to be able to provide a single link to a page with that simple list in it that can be linked to when referring to the RR car marque in general (rather than to a specific era of it). To that end I tried to create a DAB page like this, but that apparently isn't allowed. Can anyone please advise how this could more correctly be done? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering why didn't you start by talking to Bkonrad? ~ GB fan 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I've done that now too. In the meantime, any ideas? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I found this article, which is similar to what I intended, so I've redirected to that for now. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of people sharing a common name

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see and comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#Lists_of_people_sharing_a_common_name. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Overkill at a "Major" disambiguation?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I recently became aware of the disambiguation article Major (disambiguation) and it seems like some of the items on the list are way too general and might actually hamper our readers looking for things that are called "major" or "majors." A recent entry Klaus Heuser seems quite strange to me so I started a topic at the Major (disambiguation) talk page to figure things out, or have it better explained to me. Please join in the conversation. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 285

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move discussion taking place at Talk:Interstate 285#Requested move 2 December 2018 that people here may be interested in following. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_49&oldid=881189014"