Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If a disambiguation page is created with several red links, they are there to offer article creation. They may also help to prevent the creation of an article under an ambiguous title. E.g. Calbuco (disambiguation) contained two entries for Calbuco Department. Additionally a DAB page was created at the latter title. One of the departments got an article. The other not. It was a red link. But instead of creating an article for that one, an admin deleted Calbuco Department with violation of deletion policy and then moved the article for the created instance of Calbuco Department to the former DAB page.

Calbuco Department is only a binary case, but you can imagine several entries on a DAB page. Before deleting, wouldn't it be better to put a tag on the page, like "This page contains red links to page titles that are not linked to from articles. For details see

The situation where there are two meanings (regardless of whether red links are involved) is a bit different from that where there are more, because when there are two meanings (provided one of them can be identified as a primary topic) we don't need to have a dab page at all - just a hatnote on the primary article. If there were more entries then I don't think the dab page would be deleted, though it might be moved to "X (disambiguation)" so that the primary topic article could be moved to "X".--Kotniski (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your talk does not address the topic very much. The admin deleted ANY reference to the other department. He also did not ask for judgement whether one of the two is primary or not, he also made no statement regarding this. The topic is very obscure to most WP readers so WP:PT does not apply, it reads "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term" Even if one of the two is little bit more important then the other, the DAB would be at Calbuco Department. Furthermore, not at all addressed is the red link deletion by MOS:DABRL. So at first, one, per MOS:DABRL deletes the red link, and then deletes the DAB. This can also happen with multiple entries. "I don't think the dab page would be deleted" - could then faster than you and me whish, be proven to be a erroneous thinking. There should be some mechanism to avoid red link deletion, in cases when they link to valid future WP articles. This avoids future DAB work and increases likelihood of article creation. TheCalbuco (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Calbuco, did you previously edit under another name? I see you only created your account a day before posting the above message, a couple of days after another editor was blocked for edit warring on this very point - it all seems a bit strange.

"A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." - this was implemented only by JHunterJ. No prior talk. And the people did not only delete red links, but also blue ones. TrueColour was ADDING content, see the history, the others deleted. And he was the one who created stubs so the page did not violate the JHunterJ selfmade policy. To block him, while improving on the page and not the other reverters seems strange. Especially since JHunterJ violated WP deletion policy and TrueColour reported him on ANI. And then JHunterJ initiates 3RR block. This is no good behavior. TrueColour really tried to improve. The 3RR block was complete nonsense. At least Calbuco (disambiguation) has a not so bad form now and it is close to what TrueColour was working on.

"I see you only created your account a day before posting the above message, a couple of days after another editor was blocked for edit warring on this very point - it all seems a bit strange." - see

I am a veteran editor and have no problem with the policy as written and do implement it (it can be done as a non-admin). Also, the purpose of the 3 revert policy is to slow people down, let them think and see if they have support from other editors. If, given time, others don't come in to revert as you do, it can be an indication you do not have the support of the community. It is rare that a non-vandal three revert is not blocked. On dab pages, there are several forces being balanced (navigation vs. information being key) and some contention for the right balance is required - and therefore some contention is to be expected. Tearing into others when they are working for this balance is not productive. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm forming a proposal for a bot. The intention of this bot is to immediately bring to the page author's attention that the article is linking somewhere other than they thought it would be linking.

The bot would inspect all new main-space articles except for redirects and dab-pages. Redirects are valid to point at dab pages, as are other dab pages. Any new page that has any links to disambiguation pages will have {{dn}} added after each link.

Is this a bad idea? Why? Josh Parris 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidate discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#New Page Patrol - Disambiguation bot Josh Parris 00:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After an extensive discussion, the proposal now reads:

The bot will place a message on the talk page of any new namespace 0, 6, 10 or 14 article with ambiguous links.

(the namespaces are: 0 (mainspace), 6 (file), 10 (template) and 14 (category)). Current proposed message template:

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, Channel 83, Gothic, Hebron massacre, Hebron massacres, Skating, Term, Witta, Wittan For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by Report a problem

If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is nearing completion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this proposal is going to fail. If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think {{Redirect5}} ought to have "redirect here", rather than "redirects here" as it's text. It appears the first free form argument is intended to be a list of multiple items, like {{Redirect7}}, so the "s" is incorrect grammar. I've already been drawn too far from the article I'm trying to work on right now, so can't do a thorough check up on "real world" uses myself before fixing. So am leaving this note here. --J Clear (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how it's used in actual articles, but if it's used similarly to the example, where it's listing multiple terms that redirect to the page, absolutely it should say "redirect" instead of "redirects." Propaniac (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed moving

* 
C-37 Gulfstream
, the designation used ... family of business jets

My general methodology in these cases is:

• If there's no article that mentions this song at all, it shouldn't be on a disambiguation page.
• If the entry mentions what album the song is on, and there's an article for the album, link to that.
• Otherwise, try to find an article that mentions the song by doing a Wikipedia search (e.g. "fogerty nexus", without quotes). If an album article comes up, link to that. If some other relevant article comes up, link to that. If the artist's article mentions the specific song, link to that.
• If I still can't find any article to link to, either because there is no article mentioning the song or because it's impossible to discern that with a search for whatever reason, and I've checked there's no mention in the artist's article, I take the song off the disambiguation page.

That's just my own strategy; I'm sure others have their own approaches. But I do think it's fair to provide some mention of the song on the dab page, as long as there's some at-least-vaguely relevant article to link to. Propaniac (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I follow that or something trivially different. Song article if it exists, album article next, then artist, unless some other article makes better sense. Whichever article is linked needs to mention the song. And the song needs to be disambiguated to serve the reader who is looking for it, even if it doesn't have an article of its own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In these cases I'm in favour of creating a redirect Nexus (Bethlehem song) (because of the propensity for albums to be named after songs) which can then be directed at the album or artist, and when there's suddenly an article created for the album the song is on, it's a simple matter of re-targeting the redirect from the artist to the new album article. Automated tools work cleaner with something like Nexus (Bethlehem song) instead of (for example) Bethlehem (band)#Just one hit: Nexus. And when the song finally gets its own article, every article on the matter is sated. Josh Parris 08:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, forgot about this, sorry and thanks for the replies. The question I have now though is how does this reconcile with the guideline's "partial title matches" section which states that DAB pages are not a search index. If pages whose titles are partial matches are not to be included for this reason, why would entries that don't have their own article at all be appropriate? Thanks,

Because the topics are ambiguous, even though it hasn't (yet) got an article of its own. Partial title matches are not ambiguous, even though they (may) have articles of the own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, "not a search index" is the bit I'm really thinking of here. Isn't the purpose of DAB pages simply to disambiguate article titles? If song X doesn't have an article, listing it on the DAB page with a link to its parent album or artist would seem to fall foul of "not a search index".

Miremare

02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation is about navigating between topics, not articles. When a user searches for "turtle", he may be referring to

the breakdancing move "turtle", a topic that does not have its own article but is discussed in another article. The fact that one topic has its own article and one doesn't has no relevance to whether the user may be looking for either topic. But there's very little possibility that the user searching for "turtle" may be referring to the book Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, which is what the Partial Title Match section is about. Yertle the Turtle would come up (somewhere) in the search results for "turtle," but it's not ambiguous with "turtle", whereas a character called Turtle and a breakdancing move called turtle (or a song called "Turtle") are ambiguous. Propaniac (talk

) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Interested editors should note that the discussion mentioned above does not appear to have reached a natural conclusion as yet. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

First let me say there are at least two distinctly different views of what is a "primary topic". There is the view that a primary topic usually exists, and there is the view that a primary topic usually does not exist.

• Editors who favor "exists" have several views about that, sometimes opposing views. Some editors think some measure of simple majority of "usage" (whatever that is) determines a primary topic. Some editors in Britain (particularly in England) think historical priority determines a primary topic.
• Editors who favor "does not exist" tend to think disambiguation pages are important in themselves and should not be pushed off the ambiguous base name, and that a primary topic does need to be clearly primary.

Regarding Lincoln, my view is that Abraham Lincoln is not the primary topic. But my reason for this is more complex than I have explained. So let me explain. In my view, Lincoln does have a primary topic, but the primary topic is not the article Abraham Lincoln. That article is one of many relating to President Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln is the clear primary topic here, but that topic is a whole set of articles. Similarly in the case of Cocoa, there is a clear primary topic ("cocoa") but it is distributed among a series of articles, from this to this. I am in the middle of repairing many hundreds of incoming links to Cocoa, and I feel the urge to create a sort of primary topic index. What do I mean by that? Here is an example: Poppy. The article Poppy is a problem child, with many inappropriate incoming links and a very large cluster of related articles. Rather than move Poppy (disambiguation) to the ambiguous base name I am considering this.

Back to Lincoln. This is a brief discussion I had with User:Insorak about looking for an article relating to Abraham Lincoln, not necessarily the article Abraham Lincoln. At present, Lincoln does not provide navigation among articles related to Abraham Lincoln. But I think it should.

So, add to the above views of what is a primary topic, a third view: that a primary topic is not necessarily embodied in a single topical article. Consider the concept of

--Una Smith (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, to keep the discussion sane, we should define the primary topic as the (non-dab page) article that shows up if you enter a ambiguous term. The discussion is "when should we have a primary topic and if so, how do we choose it." Defining primary topic otherwise and then saying "because primary topic is this, we should treat it this way" is backwards. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That said, I don't want to discount what Una is saying. We may have a new "general topic" page - like her suggested Poppy page that could selected as the primary topic. It makes some sense and should be assessed. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The draft page is a compromise between myself and another editor. My preference is to have a purely navigational page, similar to a dab page, but in the form of an index rather than a plain list. --Una Smith (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, while it remains a disambiguation page, should not list articles just related Abraham Lincoln. There's Category:Abraham Lincoln for that, or a list article or set index article could be created if there's a need for additional exploratory help. If a "general topic page" article becomes the primary topic for "lincoln", there would still be the need for a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with Una. If (for the sake of argument) President Lincoln is the primary topic for "Lincoln", then the article Abraham Lincoln is the ideal place for "Lincoln" to lead, as that article (by design) is the perfect place for readers to find both direct information and links to other articles relating to that president. We don't need a separate Abraham Lincoln portal to help people around - the article itself does that job (assisted by its various extra features like categories, navboxes, see alsos, "what links here").--Kotniski (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that a single article is necessarily the "ideal" target. That comes from experience fixing incoming links to dab pages, and also dealing with content "cruft" that accumulates in the target article. Poppy is a case in point. Clearly readers are not finding the content about poppies as symbols of fallen soldiers (addressed in several articles); they keep adding it to Poppy. Content about poppy seeds and drug testing for heroin use also keeps getting added to Poppy. Another example is Weymouth; most incoming links intend something to do with Weymouth, Dorset, but often there is a more appropriate article, one of those listed under Weymouth, Dorset on the dab page. I keep referring to incoming links, although I am aware many readers do not come to the dab by an incoming link. We know almost nothing about those readers, though. I think the Lincoln experiment was a good idea, but it is very incomplete. For one, I would want to try adding some related links to the dab page under Abraham Lincoln, such as these:

• Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War
• Abraham Lincoln on slavery
• Abraham Lincoln assassination

Perhaps even:

• Category:Abraham Lincoln

I would want to use redirects to see if links to those other articles get traffic from the dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed moving the disambiguation page at

I'd like to propose that the phrase other topic be changed to other topics in the phrase When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer. The reason for this change is to make it clear that a primary topic is truly the primary topic. With the current wording, it is possible to 'declare' a primary topic when it does not even have the majority of links. Take the case where we have 11 items on the dab page. If one of them gets 10% of the links or usage, the current wording suggests that it is the primary use. I'm far from convinced that this was the intended outcome of the current wording. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If the biggest one was 10%, the others must average 9% - which would not give us "much more used than any other topic." (John User:Jwy talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if the biggest one was 20%, I wouldn't be happy with that being the primary topic. I support the addition on a letter S. Josh Parris 00:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But the S doesn't change anything percentage wise: I read "any other topic" as meaning "all the other topics." If that's not clear to everyone, then maybe change it to "much more used than all other topics." (John User:Jwy talk) 00:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, yes Josh Parris 01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually - I have to back up. To keep the same meaning as I read before, it would be "much more used than other topics." The subtle difference being "much more used than all other topics" could be interpreted to mean "much more used than all others combined" (which is what I would like it to be) but there has been push back on that in the past. Removing the "all" makes the bar a little lower. In any event, there is still a lot of consensus required as "much more used" is difficult to quantify. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the change to topics, but the whole section seems a bit messy at the moment (I think it used to be clearer). Do we really mean to say that topics are "used"? Don't we mean that they are searched for by readers under that term? Also can we move the stuff about hatnotes and back links to the end of the section, since it logically comes after the decision on whether there's a primary topic? And eliminate the duplication - we don't need to say the same thing about redirects twice (one with a such-and-such example, then with the Danzig example)?--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If we make it "more than all the other topics combined", I'd recommend dropping the "much" -- if there are 50 uses, and 49 of them are each what 1% of the readership is looking for, and the 50th is what 51% of the readership is looking for, then there is still a primary topic. It is much more used than any of the others and more used (but not much more used) than all of them combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of comparing the putative primary topic to the other topics combined. A long discussion of this developed today on Talk:Lincoln. --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, shortening it considerably (the other information is covered elsewhere on the page), and taking account of the wish to say all topics combined, but dropping the "much" as suggested by JHJ. What do people think? Without the "much" it presumably implies that with only two topics, it's only necessary to agree which is of greater interest, not that it needs to be of much greater interest, which is a change, though in previous discussion it's been generally agreed that we should be more inclined to select a primary topic when there are only two (since it doesn't cost any reader any clicks), so maybe this change fits with that in fact.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with deciding primarity by the number of links or usages. In may cases there is truly and logically primary meaning from which completely all other meanings are derived. For example, it may happen that Deicide (band) enormously spings in pupolarity, while the term deicide is mostly used in specialised text. I would disagree that pop-culture will force us to mave page moves "deicide"->"disambig", "band"-> "deicide". (I am sure there are actual examples already, but I am lazy to look for). Mukadderat (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand - my edit didn't add anything about deciding by the number of links or usages (only what was already there), yet you reverted it (including removing the tag that directed people to this discussion). Why? Did you have some other objection to it?--Kotniski (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to your edit. My objection was in the edit summary. You cannot significantly change the text of the policy/guideline without consensus. You deleted big pieces with insufficient edit summary. In particular, you deleted the "danzig" example. Why? Please explain other changes one by one, in detail. Mukadderat (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think everything I deleted is covered elsewhere on the page (mainly about hatnotes). Maybe the Danzig situation (a primary topic as a redirect) needs to be mentioned specifically, so that example could be retained (though it should probably be moved to one of the sections about page naming). --Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The current wording doesn't seem too bad. If one topic gets 40% of pageviews and six other topics get 10% each, the one that gets 40% should still be eligible to be the primary topic (notice "eligible to be", not "automatically"). This can be especially relevant regarding personal names and place names. There's also the question of defining "all other topics combined". Is it only articles taking precisely the same name? Or anything on a dab page? With all the weird stuff that gets on dab pages, I'm not even certain that London would be the primary topic when measured against every topic on London (disambiguation) combined. Station1 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should include everything on the dab page combined, but not in terms of total page views, but in terms of final views by readers entering that specific term in the Go box. So while someone looking for Jack London might enter just "London" in the box, they're more likely to type "Jack London", and those cases don't concern us when we're determining the primary topic for London. The basic maths is that having a primary topic saves a click for readers looking for that topic, but costs a click for readers looking for any other topic, so there's a net gain if more than 50% of readers are looking for the main topic. But that means readers using Go on the specific term in question.--Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. This is similar to the explanation I've been giving on

WP:NC. A given topic might be the primary topic for more than one name (via redirects). It might even be the primary topic for a name (redirect) and not be the primary topic for its correct name (through the naming conventions) -- so the redirect has no qualifier, the article title does, and the article has a hatnote directing readers using the redirect to its disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does one obtain these figures? Josh Parris 13:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no tool to determine how many users click on a specific topic listed on a disambig page. Estimates as to which topic is the most likely target can be made using common sense, Googling the term to see which topics are most prominent in the results, looking at the number and context of incoming links to the dab pages and topic pages in question, and discussion among users. At

Lincoln (president) was used on the dab page, and the tool at [1] was used to compare how many hits there were to the redirect vs. the number of hits to the dab page, to get a rough estimate that about 60% of the viewers of the dab page probably clicked on that redirect. But mostly it's guesswork. Propaniac (talk

) 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I just chopped out 2/3 of the London disambig page. I agree with Kotniski that for purposes of determing the primary topic for "London," it's not relevant if the

London Gazette article gets 5000 views; what's relevant is that I'd bet 0 of those views came from people searching for "London." Propaniac (talk

) 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like we all agree here on the basic concepts (e.g., someone hitting "Go" with London in the search box might be looking for London, Ontario, but is unlikely to be looking for the London Gazette). I guess my point is that by saying "all other topics combined" we'll be opening a can of worms engendering endless arguments over whether an article does or doesn't qualify as one of the "all other" topics to measure against. After all, at some point some editor thought someone might confuse London with the London Gazette and added it to the dab page. There's also the fact that we can measure only total pageviews, not views from the Search box or internal links. So although someone might type or link to London expecting London, Ontario, that is far less likely than someone typing Springfield expecting Springfield, Illinois rather than Springfeld, Massachusetts or Missouri or Kentucky, etc., just because everyone already knows there is a primary topic for London. In other words, London Ontario has less 'weight' as an alternative for London than Springfield Illinois has as an alternative for Springfield. There's no way to measure what needs measuring with large numbers of possible topics. If we need to measure only against one secondary topic (usually), there will normally be much less question as to what that topic is and whether one topic truly is primary. Station1 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Been away for awhile -- some thoughts perhaps only tangentially related to the proposed changes. While I agree that page view statistics can be a useful indicator of primary topic, it is not the sole determinant and I suggest we should be a little more careful in how we bandy about wikistats in relation to determining primary topic. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and disambiguation is not merely a matter of optimizing page traffic. Such numerical data has a simplisitic appeal in arguments, but can be given too much weight and lend itself to both systemic bias and recentism. older ≠ wiser 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also tangental here: What do you see as the most important use of dab pages outside a matter of optimizing page traffic? (John User:Jwy talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation (not only dab pages) is about helping readers find encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is more than just a web site. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:systemic bias and WP:recentism are problems to avoid in article content. I see no similar problem with putting the most likely topic in front of the reader when there's a primary topic along with a navigational path to reach the less likely paths (thereby avoiding systemic bias or recentism, since the encyclopedic information is there). I see those get bandied about often enough in dab discussions, and they don't need to be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think recentism might be an issue (we shouldn't pay too much attention to recent page view stats when a particular topic has been in the news recently, since we're writing for the long term, and we don't want to keep moving pages around depending on fluctuating interest). But systemic bias - not really; if Wikipedia's readers are more likely to be looking for a city in the US than for a city in China with the same name but twice the size, then I see no problem with taking them to the place they want to be. (I.e. we shouldn't be telling people what they ought to be interested in, just reflecting - based on common sense as much as statistics - what they are interested in.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think both should be taken into consideration with primary topic discussions, especially in light of the tendency to over-weight traffic stats. Over-reliance on traffic stats to determine page naming risks a self-reinforcing a cycle of decline. While I agree that we should not attempt to dictate what people should be interested in, complementary to that we also don't need to pander to the whims of the moment. In that regard, I favor a strong default of having a disambiguation page at the base name and having a relatively high bar for primary topic. That is, if wikistats indicate one topic among many has orders of magnitude more traffic than other candidates for a title, then there is a good case for primary topic based on navigational ease. But when we're looking at fluctuating stats for relatively obscure topics that differ by only several hundreds of visits each month, there is little basis for primary topic, even if one topic has 51% of the total volume. Or, as in the case with Lincoln, where the name is very common and there are several high-profile candidates, I think it is better to leave the disambiguation page as the default rather than try to accommodate lazy typists by speculative interpretations of wikistats. older ≠ wiser 11:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What tendency to "over-weight" traffic stats? I haven't seen any over-weighting of them, although there is often a normal weighting of them, and a use of them without an over-reliance on them. And serving the readership without pandering. Orders (plural) of magnitude? At least 100x? That is a very high bar indeed, and I disagree that the bar needs to be that high. I'm skeptical of a need to set the bar at 10x. "Much more than any other topic" or "more than all other topics combined" would seem to be adequate. And please, don't disparage the readers looking for "Lincoln" as lazy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been quite a few discussions where editors have suggested using statistics is an almost mechanistic manner, based on some simplistic algorithm. Thankfully, those have not typically gone very far. But the "overweighting" is still apparent in many discussions (some going on currently). The intent of my suggested orders of magnitude suggestion is that simple proportions don't scale very well. If you have a set of obscure pages where the total page views is in the hundreds or low thousands, a simple 10x order of magnitude might not be that significant. Primary topic should be overwhelmingly more prominent than the other topics. Otherwise the default should be a disambiguation page. I stand by my remark that disambiguation pages and primary topics should not prioritize the tendencies of lazy typists. older ≠ wiser 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The problems of scale are part of the reason why I don't favor putting numeric boundaries in the guidelines -- the "right" formula would be hard to nail down. But I disagree with "overwhelmingly" -- it's just the "primary topic", not the "overwhelmingly primary topic". And I stand by my feeling that blaming the audience (by categorizing them as lazy) is not a good way to improve the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia needs to meet the needs of its readers, lazy or no. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "overwhelmingly" is not unreasonable for primary topic. Otherwise you are endorsing the bias of a small majority regarding an ambiguous term at the expense of a significant minority, and for the marginal benefit of saving a click or two. older ≠ wiser 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? What is the cost you're setting against this benefit? (Given that we're not going to change what subjects our readers are interested in, nor - I think - should we be trying to).--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, assuming that a title is ambiguous, disambiguation is necessary. There are a number of methods for disambiguation, one of which includes identifying a primary topic. Secondarily, and I think this is where things get more problematic, a redirect for a distinct ambiguous title can also be a primary topic. But in either case, using page views alone to determine primary topic can be misleading. Where a title is overwhelmingly more prominent, few readers are "surprised" to see the title being the primary topic. Where the title is not overwhelmingly more prominent, then there will be a significant number of readers who would have very different expectations for what to find at the title and would likely be surprised, and perhaps also irritated or dismayed, to see something other than what they expected as the primary topic. In such cases, most readers would be less surprised (dismayed/irritated) by a disambiguation page identifying a number of similarly titled topics, of which at least a few are of comparable prominence. I think that attempting to place primary topics solely to optimize navigation based on marginal majorities (i.e., no overwhelmingly prominent topic) is a mistake. In my opinion, the default should be a disambiguation page, with exceptions when there is a sound basis for having a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd basically agree with that, but I wouldn't use such a strong adverb as "overwhelmingly". You seem to be implying that the additional irritation/dismay caused by finding an undesired article as opposed to a disambiguation page is greater than that caused by finding a disambiguation page as opposed to the desired article. (That somehow having to make two extra clicks instead of one carries a greater emotional cost than having to make one instead of none.) If you are arguing that, then I would possibly agree, but only to a small extent - not so much as to justify your "overwhelmingly". If you're not arguing that, then I don't see how you reach that conclusion. --Kotniski (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is very roughly what I'm arguing, although it is less about what you term the "emotional cost" of an extra click than it is about Wikipedia taking a position that one article is so much more significantly prominent than others to warrant placing it as the primary topic rather than having a disambiguation page. I know many editors (myself included) often repeat some canard about how primary topic does not indicate a value judgment regarding the similarly named topics, yet that is an inescapable implication. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is what I was looking for when asking about "if not navigation..." We don't need numbers to plug into a formula, but we need some words that describe what we are aiming for. The stats are easy to make decisions about so I (and others) get drawn to them just for that reason, but I understand there are other matters involved - I would just like to see these other reasons spelled out more so we can discuss them in a more direct way. There have been long discussions going over the same ground because we don't have an institutional history of these other criteria. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bkonrad, the two possibilities are not "overwhelming majority" and "small majority". Opting to set the bar lower than "100x" or "overwhelmingly" is not the same as setting the bar at "small majority". In fact, "much more used than any other" is in between these two. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I guess I'd prefer to see the guidance more explicitly lean towards a default of disambiguation and set the bar for primary topic more clearly towards overwhelmingly. "Much more used than any other" is weaselly and leaves room for much interpretation. older ≠ wiser 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But whatever adverb we choose, including "overwhelmingly", there's always going to be a lot of room for interpretation (given that it would be impractical to give precise numbers). I still don't see the case for insisting that the difference be overwhelming. When we choose a primary topic, we're not making any kind of statement about the prominence of that topic, except that we judge that this topic is the one most readers are going to be looking for if they type in that term. In fact, the "implication" is somehow a consequence of our practice - readers will interpret each primary topic decision as meaning "this topic is (is not) as relatively prominent as topics on Wikipedia generally have to be to become primary topics" - and so there will always be controversy, regardless of where we set the bar. I say we should generally ignore the sort of whine of the form "I think this topic is just as important as that one", just as we (try to ) ignore arguments about what things ought to be called and consider what they are called (in

Duke of Wellington, which he clearly is, but the proposal failed because people wanted to maintain consistency with other Duke of... articles. And having 1 lead to the year AD 1 is another example.)--Kotniski (talk

) 10:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is precisely where systemic bias and recentism need to be taken into account. Traffic stats should not be evaluated in isolation. Preponderance of usage in reliable sources (as evidenced by google search or google books results or the common sense of editors as evidenced by discussion and consensus. My concern is that the guidance should not promote an over-reliance on traffic statistics as the determining factor. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with that (particularly since, like with all statistics, people often don't know how to use them appropriately). Like I've argued somewhere above, I think recentism is a legitimate concern in this area, but systemic bias is not really (we don't say our readers are "biased" for being interested in certain topics more than others).--Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Systemic bias is relevant since the traffic statistics reflect only a limited portion of the totality of Wikipedia's potential readership. Wikipedia is not only a website. BTW, I agree about titles reflecting what things are called rather than what they ought to be called. The main thrust of my concerns is that traffic statistics are not a completely reliable indicator of what things are called, and in cases where there is ambiguity between titles with relatively similar prominence, the default should favor a disambiguation page rather than selecting one title on the basis of making navigation easier for a marginal majority of readers. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Traffic stats reflect some usage. Incoming Wikilinks reflect some other usage. Google scholar, etc., searches reflect some other usage. Those are all listed in

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and are useful and used in discussions about primary topics. How else are we to gauge what things are called? When those criteria indicate the prominence of one topic, shouldn't the claim that they're wrong, that two or more topic have similar prominence, be based on more than the editor's feelings? I agree that if there is no primary topic, that the disambiguation page should go to the base name, but only if there's no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 13:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I think traffic stats, taken in isolation, are perhaps the weakest of the indicators and that the bar for primary topic should be set relatively high. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd claim that the weakest of the indicators is stronger than no indicator (and too many editors are !voting with no indicator other than their own assumptions), and the bar for primary topic should be left as relatively high as it is: much more than any other topic and more than all other topics combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The informed judgment of editors is far more valuable than any simplistic metric. Consensus is the ultimate basis for determining primary topic. Posing a weak numerical crutch as definitive that runs counter to consensus is worse than having no indicator at all. I'd be happier if the emphasis were switched to very much more than any other topic and much more than all other topics combined. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when the judgments, informed or uninformed, simplistic or complex, have consensus, then the metrics, simplistic or complex, aren't needed. The metrics, let's call them "elegant" instead of "simplistic", are useful when the editors' judgments don't form a consensus or when editors' opinions are of indeterminate informedness. Tools that disagree with your goals are not necessarily crutches. I'd be happier leaving off the "very" and the second "much"; primary topics don't have to be overwhelming primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll stick with simplistic over elegant in regards to traffic statistics. Regardless of what such a tool might indicate, the guidance wisely suggests If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Establishing a topic as primary should have a higher bar over having a disambiguation page at the base name because once a primary topic is in place it becomes significantly more difficult to displace it (i.e., editors will dutifully go about fixing links to the page) and since the term is by definition ambiguous, having a primary topic makes repairing incorrect links more difficult. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a point, but a fairly minor one, since we should be putting readers before editors. I think I'd agree with JHJ on "much more than any other topic" and "more than all the other topics combined". The first clause ought to ensure that editors don't wrongly assume the wrong primary topic and that no reader (looking for any particular topic) will have any justification for being upset on finding another topic at the place. The second clause ensures that there is a utilitarian gain in terms of saved clicks. And I still think we need to rework the whole section for clarity and focus, like I tried to do before. "Used" should be replaced by "sought by readers using the "Go" button on the term in question" or words to that effect.--Kotniski (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Although thus far I haven't contributed to this discussion, I've been following it for a few days and I thought it worthwhile just to note that I concur absolutely with Kotniski's sensible comments directly above. Cheers. --MegaSloth (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is a minor point. I'm becoming more convinced that the dab page should be at the main name space in many more cases. The games we play to decide on the primary use, are simply that, games. In most cases with discussion, we really have no good way to determine primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Desired wording

Let's try to sort out the wording for the "Is there a primary topic?" section them. This is the wording from my previous attempt, altered to reflect the conclusions of the foregoing discussion:

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) a disambiguation page.

There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a

requested move

. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic.

Tools that may help determine a primary topic, but are not determining factors, include:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Wikipedia article traffic statistics
• Google web, news, scholar, or book searches

It was suggested previously that we should also retain the existing example of a primary redirect (it's

I'd like to change 'that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic' to more strongly indicate that a discussion probably means that there is no primary topic. We seem to be saying this in the discussion here so why not make it clearer? Also should we change 'Tools that may help determine a primary topic' to 'Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion.' This makes the point that these are an aid in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but on the first point, there's a danger that it will be wikilawyered - people who (often for emotional reasons) don't want a particular topic to be primary may artificially raise the possibility of some other topic's being primary, and then point here to show that the fact that there's disagreement means there's no primary topic. --Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add "Ongoing discussion" as a fourth bullet (in whatever order) to the list of things that may help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already the sentence about "...no absolute rules...discussion between editors..." (which would be new; it isn't in the current version). Isn't that enough? The bullet points are subsidiary: suggestions as to what might be considered during such discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to treat silence as grudging agreement here, and make the change (with Vegaswikian's second suggested amendment). Please raise any remaining issues anyone may have with this text.--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kotniski. I appreciate your talent and patience at finding suitable phrasing for this and other policy and guideline pages. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with it as a summary of the intent of primary topic and appropriate for the dab guidelines for now. There are also unmentioned issues that we might want to consider including here or maybe in an essay explaining the concept in more detail: the pluses (quick navigation, lack-of-surprise, etc.) of having a primary topic and the minuses (the internal link issue that some have brought up IS a problem until we have a more efficient way to clean up wikilinks mis-directed to a primary topic, for example). I have started such an essay, but it is not near the top of my life to-do list. It would be useful to have a neutral essay to point people to get them on the same page on what the issues are - maybe not how important the issues are in relation to each other - but at least getting everyone to know them. The discussions at Lincoln and earlier at Jimmy Stewart needed to happen, but might have been less contentious and clearer if people unfamiliar with dab and primary topic could be pointed to an essay that described the issues that contribute to finding the "best" solution for primary topic. When it percolates up enough on my list to get a clean enough version to post here, I'll do so. But I encourage anyone interested to contact me or go ahead themselves. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea (or possibly we should just expand the section of this page to include more detailed information - it is pretty fundamental). In fact, perhaps it would make sense for the primary topic principle to be set out on the naming conventions policy page

WT:NCROY, for example), so it really ought to be on that page together with those criteria.--Kotniski (talk

) 11:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dab pages list ambiguous topics that are covered by Wikipedia articles. Each topic needs to have a blue link, but the actual title of the article doesn't have to be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why does every DAB page state differently? ("This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title") There's no mention of topics? Looking at the template's talk page, it seems a change of wording was rejected a while back with one of the reasons given being that "Disambiguation pages list articles associated with the same title, not the topic or subject" (emphasis not mine). I apoligise for going on about this, but given what's currently in this guideline as well as the DAB page template, it's confusing at best.

Miremare

00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think people can see what the dab page does, without our having to spell it out in full theoretical detail ("this page lists and briefly identifies topics associated with the same or similar terms, and links to Wikipedia's most relevant article (or article section) for each of those topics"). But we could perhaps change "title" to "term" or "name", to increase clarity slightly without increasing length.--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. I have no problem with the template text as it stands now -- it gives up some nuances of meaning for simpler language. But if there's a better way to say it (more correct without being less readable), that's fine too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the "primary topic" section of this guideline page to my userspace for the purpose of refining it and presenting a clearer description of the concept. Come brainstorm with me and help me to craft something that we can present here and gain consensus. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some users want to remove most or all of the text from the {{

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Now there's a discussion as to the wording of the linked help page: Help talk:Disambiguation Josh Parris

Users here may be interested in the Requested Move discussion currently taking place at

I think the separate dabs are fine here. Islip (New York place) would be an incomplete disambiguation -- there's a disambiguating qualifier in the title that fails to fully disambiguate the title. Islip, New York on the other hand is an ambiguous title and has no disambiguating qualifier that is somehow incomplete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because those are proper names, you're absolutely correct that they can remain separate. In this case, "Perfect Strangers" is not really a pluralization of "Perfect Stranger", because both are being used exclusively as titles (i.e., "Perfect Strangers" does not refer to multiple instances of a work titled "Perfect Stranger"). Powers ^T 17:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

JHunterJ's description is how I would interpret the current guidelines, and makes eminent sense. If the text needs changing to clarify and amplify that, that's fine by me. --MegaSloth (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those of you interested in the utility and/or over-emphasis of

Forbidden external link and too much exposition at the top. I didn't want to delete that material outright, as there may be a proto-article there, or perhaps we may merge that part into Julie (given name). Any ideas? bd2412 T 23:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's an anthroponymy stub, and needs to be separated from the disambiguation page. Whether it can stand on its own or should be merged with Julie I leave up to the anthroponymists... -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been using {{

Is there a problem about using {{

EdJogg (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There's an anon editor who has a problem with this template period, in hatnotes or no. The edits can be reverted per

WP:BRD unless there's consensus for them. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, we are talking about the same editor. Pity really, as some of his/her work is actually rather useful. I need to revisit the links in question and check the wording, but I don't think there's an alternative template that will do the job quite as well. I could go back to a non-template version, but that would seem a backward step.

I take it from the fact you didn't comment that there is no real problem about using {{

for2

}} as a section hatnote. If that is the case, then my task is somewhat easier, as this seems to be the editor's main gripe. (Oh, that and 'over-linking'.)

EdJogg (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, there's no problem with {{

for2}}; see also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 18#Template:For2 -- JHunterJ (talk

) 12:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started re-applying the template, and have added my support at the discussion. I hate to think how much damage has been caused as a result of this editor's well-meaning actions.

EdJogg (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That discussion has nothing to do with the guidelines published by the community.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A Wiki search for "The well" does not lead to that disabig page, not sure how to fix this maybe someone here can do it with a few keystrokes? Thx RomaC (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is so much disambiguation that is required relating to the New York City Subway. There have been attempts, but they look rather inconsistent. Rather than give specific examples, I will point you to the section List of New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name, and look at the column "Name of station." Those entries are links to disambiguation pages, many of which either have the suffix (New York City Subway) or redirect to another general disambiguation page. There are about 100 pages that I am asking to review. Also, there is a separate but related issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Two mergers to consider. Tinlinkin (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages of the form "Ambiguous title (disambiguating phrase)" are incomplete disambiguations. They should redirect to "Ambiguous title" or "Ambiguous title (disambiguation)" as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. For example, Third Avenue (New York City Subway) should be renamed Third Avenue (disambiguation) and Atlantic Avenue (New York City Subway) should be merged with and redirect to Atlantic Avenue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Another question: for example, there is both

18th) and how? And should 18th Avenue and 18th Street be merged into one? Tinlinkin (talk

) 09:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would convert

18th from a redirect into a disambiguation page, if there are ambiguous articles. Are 18th Street and 18th Avenue ambiguous with 18th though? -- JHunterJ (talk

) 11:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doing it this way means that readers can see that the page being linked to is a disambiguation page (which might not actually be necessary information, but it makes navigation more transparent, and doesn't cost).--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So just do a piped link in this one case. Sending them through a redirect is pointless instruction creep and actually obfuscates the navigation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The best reason is that linking through the redirect makes it easier to distinguish between intentional and mistaken links to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it just plain stupid, completely irrelevant, process for the sake of process, or instruction creep, nor does linking to a (disambiguation) redirect obfuscate navigation. To expand on what Bkonrad said, all intentional links to disambiguation pages (in hatnotes, other disambiguation pages, or even in the body of an article, if that is useful somewhere) should use the (disambiguation) title, redirect or no, because that makes repairing links to disambiguation pages easier -- "What links here" will show the pages that link through the redirect, so the editors who are using their time to fix the unintentional links to disambiguation pages don't have to waste their time checking them. Links to redirects are

intentional links to disambiguation redirects are even more useful than that. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 13:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this absolutely clear. According to the latest daily report, we have 1,101,672 disambiguation links in article space. Most of those need to be cleaned up, which is practically a full-time job for the dozens of Wikipedians who work on them. We rely on the "what links here" page to see what actually needs to be fixed, but are helped enormously when links that don't need to be fixed are taken out of the equation. An intentional link to a disambig page should not be made to occupy our time, so where those exist (which is predominately in the see also sections of other disambig pages), they should go through the (disambiguation) link so that we can ignore the hundred-thousand or so intentional disambig links and concentrate on the million or so incorrect disambig links. bd2412 T 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While looking for information on the programming language, I came across Java (which should have a hatnote redirect linking to the article on the programming language, BTW) and got interested in disambiguation. A quick look through discussion archives turns up the Georgia case quite prominently, as well as a slew of biography articles. Something that strikes me in all these cases is that a lot of the disagreements could be kept off the individual article discussion pages and collected in a single location (and in some cases, flat-out settled!) if the "bare name" was always a redirect in these cases. For example, Georgia would (currently) be a redirect to Georgia (disambiguation) and similarly for ambiguous person names, etc. That way, discussion about where Georgia should point could be kept on a single discussion page rather than being spread across the discussion pages for a number of different articles. It would also minimize the disruption caused by people changing the redirect (and reverting it back) since it wouldn't involve renaming any of the actual articles. It wouldn't cause any problems for readers, since the redirect is automatic. Links would continue to work just fine — and in fact there'd be the added benefit of easily identifying which links go to an ambiguous name. It seems like a win-win-win all around. Why isn't this the policy? --Lewis (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Java has a hatnote. I'm not sure what a hatnote redirect is. I don't understand how having the base name always be a redirect will minimize disruptions of people changing the redirect -- if the primary topic is at the base name, there's no redirect to change. I don't think it would necessarily cause any additional problems, but I don't think it would reduce them either, just change their process. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified my point about the hatnote (which is just a personal opinion, unrelated to my other point here so I'll not mention it again) and my point about minimizing disruption is that when a base name is given directly to an article (the "primary usage") and there's dispute over whether that article really is the primary usage, then when bold editors rearrange things to their liking, actual articles get renamed, their associated talk pages get renamed, and there's generally a big mess to clean up afterwards. If the base name is simply a redirect to a particular article (or to a disambiguation page identified with "(disambiguation)" in the title) then when people disagree about the primary usage and boldly make changes, only the content of the redirect changes, and nothing actually moves around. It's easier to revert because it's just a content page, there's no chance that talk pages will get moved improperly, nobody will accidentally do the move incorrectly because they cut-and-paste content, etc.

My point about keeping the discussion in one place is that, using the case of Georgia as an example, the discussion over where Georgia should point is spread across multiple discussion pages, depending on which article was named "Georgia" at the time the discussion was taking place. If Georgia had always just been a redirect to one of the other article pages (or the disambiguation page) then the discussion could've been kept in one place and wouldn't irritate people working on the actual articles. --Lewis (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In line with the above suggestion, I propose the following change to the wording of the page:

Naming the disambiguation page

The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself followed by the tag "(disambiguation)", as in Term ABC (disambiguation). If there is no primary topic, then a page should be created at "Term ABC" that redirects to the disambiguation page at "Term ABC (disambiguation)".

When a disambiguation page combines several similar terms, one of them must be selected as the title for the page (with the "(disambiguation)" tag added); the choice should be made in line with the following principles:

• A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example Arm (disambiguation) over ARM (disambiguation).
• When no word can be formed all capitals is preferred. For example, the disambiguation page for "ddb" is DDB (disambiguation) not "Ddb (disambiguation)".
• English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.
• Singulars are preferred to plurals.
• The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation, diacritics and articles; for example SA (disambiguation) is preferred to S.A. (disambiguation), and Shadow (disambiguation) is preferred to The Shadow (disambiguation).
• The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

What do you think? --Lewis (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this would turn current practice on its head and I'm not sure I understand what problem this is supposed to solve. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It solves several problems:

1) Collateral damage caused by improper moves (and reverts) associated with disputes over which article is the primary topic. For example, instead of moving

2) It would give a clear location to hold discussions as to what the primary topic is. This has been a problem for Georgia, as evidenced by the fact that all of the various talk pages for the related articles have a big notice that informs editors where they should hold such discussions.

2b) It would keep such discussions off the talk pages for the articles themselves, which would remove a source of irritation for many editors of those articles.

3) It would take away at least some of the "prestige factor" of having an article at the base name, which would remove some of the tension in these disputes. If none of the articles get to be named with the non-qualified bare name, and it's just a matter of which one the bare name redirects to (for the ease of the readers) then there's less to argue over.

4) It makes it easier to protect against unauthorized changes of the primary topic. Currently this would require protecting an article itself (whichever one has the base name) whereas if the base name were always a redirect, the base name itself could be protected (and thus prevent unauthorized changes) without having to lock down any actual articles. Per JHunterJ's point below, pages can simply be protected against moves without protecting the content, so this is a non-issue. --Lewis (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

None of these may be enormously important considerations, but since I can't come up with a single reason in favor of the status quo, I'd ask why not turn the current practice on its head. It doesn't seem to make much sense to keep it the way it is, at least to me. --Lewis (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not think making this change will reduce the collateral damage any; the damage will be relocated to clean ups of the target of the base name redirect, instead of clean ups of the position of the primary topic. Splintered discussions is a problem outside of the realm of disambiguations as well, and won't be cured by this either. The prestige factor will remain, just in which article is the target of the base name. Articles can be protected against moves without having to lock down the actual article. So I still see no reason to turn this on its head and require redirect usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that pages could be protected against moves without having to protect their content; thanks for clarifying that. So that makes point 4 above a non-issue. I still think it's easier to change the target of a redirect (either for legitimate or cleanup purposes) than to move multiple articles, so I stand by points 1 and 1b. I also think organization of the discussion will be helped by this change (points 2 and 2b) because the natural place to discuss a change of redirect target is on the page containing the redirect, whereas there's no clear place to discuss a potential change of primary topic (on the current base name? on the ones that people would like to make the new primary topic?) As for the "prestige factor" I think it's more an issue for biographies, and I'll look for some examples of people arguing over just this point (I came across some in my original research on this issue but I don't recall which articles I looked at.) --Lewis (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What reason is there to keep things the way they are, other than avoiding change? I realize that unnecessary change is bad, and that a case needs to be made to institute this kind of change, but I'm genuinely at a loss as to what the benefits of the current setup are. I've outlined a number of positive benefits to the way I'm suggesting, and you can dispute the merits of them, but I'd genuinely appreciate somebody listing some positive benefits of the current setup as well. --Lewis (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There's the information implicit in the current arrangement (if the dab page ends in (disambiguation), there's a primary topic; if it doesn't, there isn't) and, I suspect, a reduction in the amount of cleaning needed, since only confirmed users can move a page but any editor can retarget a redirect, so when there's no primary target, unconfirmed users can't introduce one (without making a move request) in the current arrangement but could in the new arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That second point is particularly interesting, since you're basically saying that my original point 4 should be reversed rather than just struck out. Since (I'm assuming) the move protection is automatic for unconfirmed users, this provides some default level of protection against unauthorized changes of primary topic, without even having to explicitly set stricter protections. I'm not yet convinced that your first point is all that important, since if there's a primary topic I'm figuring it should be indicated as such on the disambiguation page anyway. What's more, readers would only lose this implicit information if they arrive at the disambiguation page via a link, since if they go to the base name (under the proposed new setup) they would either be immediately redirected to the primary topic or to the disambiguation page, which would inform them of the (non-)existence of a primary topic even more directly. So I'll grant you the revised point 4 as an argument for keeping the status quo, and raise you one additional point in favor of change:

5) Consistent naming is simpler. Disambiguation pages would always be at Term ABC (disambiguation), and individual articles would always be at the most specific disambiguated name. The naming conventions would no longer need to take into account whether there was a primary topic; that would be a matter solely for consideration with respect to the target of the redirect.

I was going to make an additional point about the names of articles being more stable over time — which is true — but that's not particularly useful, since people can just link to Georgia (disambiguation) under the current setup anyway if they want to immunize their links from the possibility of Georgia getting a different primary topic, and it doesn't matter whether it's the actual disambiguation page at that name (as I'm proposing) or a redirect to it (as it is currently) so it's not an important point. --Lewis (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see the advantages you claim for the proposal. #1 presumes that editors would simply change the target of the redirect, however if history is any indication, it is far more likely that pages would be moved. Editors with a vested POV tend to want their preferred article at the base name -- having Georgia be a redirect to either the country or the state would likely be just as unacceptable since the title of the articles do not reflect their preference. #1b, I'm not sure I understand -- are you suggesting that a primary topic would not have the base name and would only be indicated by a redirect? That is a much bigger change than only this guideline -- it would affect several other naming conventions, for instance,

WP:UCN as well as other aspects of WP:Article titles. I'm sure there are other guidelines this would impact as well. #2 As with the mistaken assumptions about #1, this assumes that editors would bother to pay attention to such details. For example, editors wanting either the country or the state to be at the base name would still be just as likely to propose and discuss moves on the respective talk pages. #2b, see response to #2. #3, see response to #1 -- not allowing the article title for a primary topic to have the undisambiguated title is a much bigger change than only this one guideline. #5, the current convention is consistent. Primary topics are at the undisambiguated title. Disambiguation pages are at the disambiguated title except when there is a primary topic. That the rule includes an qualification does not mean it is inconsistent. older ≠ wiser

18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding moves vs. changes of redirect target (#1), history isn't a good indicator here because historically, the only way to change the primary topic has been to move/rename articles. I'm proposing a new way that wouldn't involve moves at all, and while some editors would presumably use the old methods, this would hopefully diminish over time. Regarding #1b, I am indeed suggesting that the primary topic not be given the base name, and if you think it would be helpful to raise the topic on those other pages, I'd be happy to do so and bring in more input. Regarding #2 I think history is again not helpful here, since there historically hasn't been a single place where such discussions could be held, except by explicit convention. If (in situations where disambiguation is needed) the base name is always a redirect, then it is the obvious place to hold discussions over where its target should be. It's the only page that would need to change when the primary topic changed, and so there'd be no reason to discuss it anywhere else (except perhaps to make people aware of the proposal.) Anyone who was mistaken about where the discussion should be held (perhaps because they were accustomed to the old way) could easily be pointed at the correct location, and I believe they would find the reasoning acceptable ("You're talking about changing the redirect target on page Term ABC.. go discuss it there.") As for #3, you actually seem to be agreeing with the point, since you acknowledge that there's some significance to the primary topic having the base name. If that significance goes away, so does at least some of the reason for argument between parties to a dispute as to what topic is primary. As for #5, it clearly is inconsistent, but I don't mean to say it's logically inconsistent or incoherent or anything like that. I just mean that sometimes it's one way, and sometimes it's another way. Always being the same way is more consistent. --Lewis (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

History is a good indication of the issues involved and the types of editors who get passionate about such things -- and I respectfully suggest that your proposal would likely have little or no bearing on the actions of such editors. Editors who think that the country named Georgia is the primary topic would very likely not be satisfied only with having Georgia be a redirect to the country. I think the proposal is well-intentioned, but perhaps naive. I see no compelling reason to change the status quo, which actually functions quite well with the exception of a handful emotionally charged topics (such as

use the most familiar name. Your proposal stands this on end and suggests that primary topics would NOT be located at the common name, but at a disambiguated title. I would not support this and I very much doubt this would garner very much support from other editors. By your proposal, the article on the prime minister of the UK could not be at Gordon Brown because there are other articles about people with that name. Similarly, the article on the largest city in England could not be at London because there are many other ambiguous article titles. And so on. Do you really think such a proposal is going to have widespread support? Your approach to #5 would merely introduce a different variety of what you see as inconsistency -- sometime the base name would redirect to an article (which most everyone would expect to be located at the title of the redirect) and sometimes would redirect to a disambiguation page. I don't see any clear advantage. older ≠ wiser

20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

My point about history not helping here is that there's nothing to compare to. It's like arguing that electric cars will never sell very well, because historically most people have bought ones powered by internal combustion. The only way (adhering to policy, at least) to change the primary topic, historically, has been to move pages around — so of course history will show that people have done it by moving pages around. Most of the rest of your position seems (to me) to amount to "that's the way it has always been done, so that's the way we should keep doing it." With the exception of the revised #4 (default prohibition against unconfirmed editors moving pages makes protecting primary topics simpler, under the current setup) I haven't seen any other reasonable (IMHO) arguments in favor of the status quo. However, I also clearly haven't managed to convince anyone that my reasons are worth the trouble of changing policy, either — and that's really the important point here. So I'll drop the issue until I can come up with a better line of argument, or unless somebody else chimes in to say they support the kind of change I'm proposing.

I do want to make one last point about #3 though, which I see as the heart of the whole issue. You've made it pretty clear that you agree with my point about the base name granting some measure of importance to the primary topic — although you seem to be of the opinion that the relationship is a good one that should be preserved, whereas it's precisely what I wanted to eliminate. I don't think the PM of the UK should have an article named "Gordon Brown" nor do I think the capital should have an article named "London" — precisely because there are other (noteworthy) uses of those names. Making it such that all articles with ambiguous names (even the primary topic) require disambiguation would put them all on more equal footing. Looking at Georgia it's clear that this "prestige factor" is the primary cause of all the argument over what article should be named what. I think my proposal would go a good way toward eliminating much of that tension.. but you seem to think that it's a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (because the "prestige factor" is — according to you(?) — appropriate in the uncontentious cases, and might be better thought of as the "common-sense factor" in those situations) and in any event isn't feasible because people won't change their behavior. Does that summary seem about right to you? Thanks for all your thought and discussion on this; I regret that I seem to have been unable to sway your opinion, but I'm glad you heard me out. --Lewis (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your summary uses biased terms such as prestige factor and measure of importance as well as some use of scare quotes. The point is that from the very earliest stages of Wikipedia, naming of articles has followed the principle of using the common name. Your proposal appears to discard that principle whenever there is the least indication of ambiguity. I think such an approach (assuming that there could ever be consensus for it) would involve far more disruption and inconvenience for readers than the supposed problem it proposes to solve. Regarding history, your analogy is not really apt. Your hope is that the logic of your proposal will somehow compel editors to stop behaving badly about issues that for whatever reasons seem to arouse inordinate passions. One can always hope, but the track record is really not very promising. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to irritate or insult you, though unless I'm reading your tone incorrectly it seems that's what I am in fact doing. I'm sorry. I was aware of the biased nature of "prestige factor" and that's why I offered "common-sense factor" as an alternative that I thought you'd find more appropriate to your own position. I meant the quotes to indicate that I'm referring to the phrases themselves, not as scare quotes. I think my analogy to history is apt, because your argument was (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding it) that editors have historically dealt with disputes over primary topics by moving pages, and so they would continue to do so. My rebuttal is that there hasn't really ever been an alternative to moving pages, so the fact that people have behaved that way in the past doesn't tell us much. Your point about disruption and inconvenience is well-taken, and that's why I'm not going to push the issue. I think perhaps if I had been around here years ago before the current policy had become entrenched, I might have stood more of a chance of making a difference, but as it stands now I not only need to show that the way I'm suggesting is better (which I am still absolutely convinced it is) but that it is so much better that it justifies changing thousands upon thousands of pages and redirects (which I certainly have not shown.) --Lewis (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. I was only trying to be clear that your summary was not exactly how I would summarize things. Regarding history, it is not only about moving pages, but about where the discussions take place. Granted, IF (and that's one humongous hypothetical if) it were accepted that every ambiguous title would require that the undisambiguated title be a redirect to either the primary topic (with a fully disambiguated title) or a disambiguation page named with suffix of "(disambiguation)", then it is possible that might relieve some contentions. But because the expectation of using the common name is in many ways a fundamental principle for naming conventions on Wikipedia, it is difficult to imagine how Wikipedia would operate were such a fundamental principle of naming articles modified. Any beneficial effect from the proposal seems at best a hopeful optimism. older ≠ wiser 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

have released an album called "for the birds", however I'm unsure how to use disambiguation with For the birds as The Frames have already brought out an album called For the Birds. How should i go about naming The Mess Hall's, "For the birds" album article? Wiki ian 06:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Birds (The Mess Hall album). Cheers! --ShelfSkewed Talk 06:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there any discussion about listing in the given name pages?

For some time I remember the following practice: to list only persons which are commonly known solely by a given name. For example, the page John includes Pope John I, but not John Lennon. Was there formalized somewhere? If not I would like to start a discussion, because this is so in well-watched pages, such as John or Igor, but not so in many other pages.

The same problem is with pages about given names. They are not disambig pages, but many of them contain a section, like, "List of famous people with given name Nnnnn".

An additional issue to consider is that the name is really rare, then listing such people may have some sense.

I am inviting Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy to join this discussion, to set a common style. There are thousands given names, and we better have them in order. - Altenmann >t 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a related question in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anthroponymy#First_names, but got no response. I guess it must be decided here. Mukadderat (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a separate given name article (or list) and disambig page, then the name-holders are not listed on the disambig page. If there isn't a separate disambig page, then name-holders can be listed on the disambig page at the bottom (after the ambiguous articles but before a "See also" section) -- until that list gets long enough and an editor decides to split it off to a name (list) article. Once there is a separate article, the name holders may or may not be listed there; it depends on the consensus at the individual name article talk. But at that point it's separate from the disambiguation project. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Background reading -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but this does not answer my question. The major issue: there are thousands of given name pages, disambig or not, and it is reasonable to have a common policy. If there is an exception, then it may be handled in the article talk page. I would dread to start thousand similar talks in thousand talk pages. - Altenmann >t 22:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It provides as best an answer as can be given from the disambiguation project. Since the name-list articles are not disambiguation pages, if an anthroponymy-wide guideline is needed, the anthroponymy project consensus can determine it. Even then, of course, the consensus at any given page might still disagree if the consensus is that disagreeing is useful to the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you haven't read my question carefully. It is equally related to both projects, and you didn't andser it. Do you want me to cut and paste it here or oyou care to re-read from the top yourself? I an not asking where to list first names. - Altenmann >t 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement isn't illiteracy. I read your question, disagreed with your assumption, and explained why. And still answered your question. You can re-read it yourself if you like, but I'll take another pass at it:

1. Name articles aren't disambiguation pages, so the anthroponymy project is the proper place to try to form a new consensus (and not here). Dab editors who are also interested in the anthroponymy sister project (not sub-project) can be expected to see it there.
2. Forcing consistency on the thousands of pages isn't necessarily reasonable. It might be useful, but it might also be a waste of time, and the decision left where it is today: with each article.
3. Be civil.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a search for an article to help me understand how Jews came to be referred to as "The Chosen", only to be directed to a disambiguation page containg decent sized list on several films and other disambiguations of the term (most actually related to Jews as being considered "The Chosen", yet no actual article on the central question: Why are Jews referred to as "The Chosen"?

Has no article yet been created adressing that central definition? 70.49.69.185 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Search for "jews chosen" in WP and you get the following pages:

Jews as a chosen people, Chosen people (disambiguation), Chosen people

These might help (and might indicate that The Chosen DAB page might benefit from a see also link to one of the above).

Incidentally, Chosen people is currently being considered for deletion.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I linked Chosen people (disambiguation) from The Chosen. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In many cases there is an ordinary English usage for a term. The specific example that leads me to make this comment is the damages disambiguation page. When I first looked at the page it started with a "Film and television" section; buried lower down was section "Law" with "Property damage", and "Other" with "Water damage". The article did have a link to the Wiktionary article.

In the case of a word like "damage" with a clear and common meaning in everyday English, that meaning should dominate a 2009 film and a band called "Damage"; a routine link to Wiktionary is not enough to inform a reader not familiar with the term of the meaning (a fortiori, it should not be assumed that readers use English as their main language, or that they live in a typical Western culture). A definition of the word (even if this is really a dictionary definition; an exception to the guideline discouraging such definitions should apply to disambiguation) should head the article, and meanings which are just variants of normal English should appear here; in the case of damage, "Water damage", "Property damage", "Fire damage" are applications of the normal meaning, not truly independent terms, and should be grouped with the main definition.

The article as I found it is at [2]; I left it as at [3], though I don't claim my version to be perfect or definitive. [In the particular case of damage I added a brief clarification of the distinction between damage and damages which isn't directly relevant to my point here, though it does clearly belong where it is (there are many cases of misuse like "the earthquake caused damages to a building and a bridge", presumably mainly by non-native speakers of English).]

I suggest that the guidelines on disambiguation pages be modified to cover this, very common, situation. Pol098 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points. I can tell you now that you will get some resistance from other editors who insist that the layout of a disambiguation page or the determination of a primary topic is nothing but a popularity contest, and that whatever the largest number of readers are looking for should take priority. I don't subscribe to that view. Disambiguation pages may not be articles, but they are part of the content of the encyclopedia and they should serve to inform readers, not just send them on their way elsewhere as quickly as possible.

In most cases, I would think that if we have an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should be featured before uses of the same title as a proper noun, which are usually derivatives of the common meaning.

On the other hand, Wikipedia is not (as you note) a dictionary, and I don't think disambiguation pages should be filled up with dictionary definitions. Many disambig pages do contain a brief definition of the most common use of a term along with a Wiktionary link, and I have no problem with that, but we should resist the temptation to start adding extensive lexicographic content to these pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Russ. Re your popularity contest point: I don't see that as a problem at all. In, I think, the overwhelming majority of cases the normal English use is by far the commonest; in an exceptional case where this is not so, then I don't see any problem with leading with the commonest, not the usual English, usage. My point is not to disagree with the popularity contest; rather, quite a lot of disambiguation pages don't make any mention at all of the common use, although it should be there, and at the top. In my example of damage, there was mention of "Property damage" and "Water damage" (rightly not at the top), but no mention of the bare word damage itself, which does belong, and at the top.

If there is an encyclopedia article about a topic as a common noun, that should simply be a link on a disambiguation page, and the first link in almost all cases (i.e., if it is the commonest use). However, in many cases there is not a separate article; in such cases my suggestion is not to write a comprehensive dictionary article on the word, but to have a briefish definition which will usually be a single sentence. In my damage example I said "In ordinary English usage, damage is physical harm or breakage to something", which I think is enough; the mention of ordinary English usage might prompt someone who wants to go further to a d(W)ictionary. In the very particular case of damage(s), the frequent misuse and misunderstanding of damage/damages prompted me to add another 3 lines, but this should not normally be necessary.

My "before" and "after" versions of the "damages" page illustrate quite well what I mean, I think. Pol098 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To expand a bit: by and large, any word that's in a dictionary (without starting with a capital letter) is an ordinary English word. Where a word, which is a normal but not all that common English word, is more commonly used in a different context, the English use should not come first. For example, Voyager is arguably more commonly used to refer to a variety of other things rather than just an ordinary traveller; so these definitions should come first, but there should be a section which I think should be "Ordinary English usage" rather than "Other" or "Travel" with a brief dictionary-type definition. Indeed, looking at the Voyager entry, I find no mention at all of the ordinary meaning (which I will add, so it will be there if you look and nobody reverts) ; it should be there, even though it's not very commonly used. The ordinary word Voyager is arguably more frequent than USS Voyager (SP-361), a US Navy motorboat. Pol098 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And that "ordinary English dictionary definition" (or usage, as you call it) should not be added. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and your new entry does not disambiguate an ambiguous Wikipedia article. To R'n'B's comment, and spinning it back the other way, determination of primary topic is indeed nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily -- I'm not sure why you cast this as a "popularity contest". Disambiguation pages are not articles and there is no reason to try and dilute their navigational function by forcing them to also repeat the information that is in articles. If the information is not in articles, then it should be added to an article or it should remain outside of the encyclopedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I picked the "popularity contest" word from R'n'B's contribution; it means nothing but seeing which topic is used primarily, and seems fine to me; entries should be in order of frequency of use, whether or not the usual use is the commonest. Taking, say, damage: the purpose of a disambiguation page should be to briefly list as many uses as possible. The page will be accessed by someone who needs to know which of several possible articles (s)he should go to to find the information required. If there were no disambiguation page there would be no need for an entry for the word damage, it is a dictionary definition. However if we have a page with title Damage, it seems perverse to exclude the most common use of the word because of a rigid no-dictionary-definition guideline; the word damage has ambiguity, but we are listing as many uses we can find except the commonest (and most likely) one. [If the dictionary use is not the most common, it shouldn't be at the top, but should still be listed.] In most cases a brief dictionary definition is comparable in length to a typical disambiguation entry; it absolutely shouldn't be a full dictionary discussion. I do get the impression that you (JHunterJ) are trying to enforce rules as rules, rather than consider the merits of the case.

To use the same example as I've been using, if you tell me that you've got "damage" at your house, the Damage disambiguation page would offer me (before I edited it) Damage (2009 film), Damage (novel), Damage (band) ... you get the idea. So you might have a DVD, a book, a visit from a band, .... There is genuine ambiguity, but not all possible cases have been included: you might also have been visited by a marauding elephant (and this sort of damage is the most likely one). I maintain that the disambiguation page should give me, as far as possible, all possible resolutions of the ambiguity, without having to write an encyclopaedia page for the usual meaning of damage, which doesn't merit it. Pol098 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain the merits of the rules, rather than trying to enforce edits that contradict them without consensus. In this case, the guidelines are clear, which makes them appear rigid to editors who disagree with them. An ambiguous Wikipedia article about the most common usage of "damage" should be listed first on the dab page. A dictionary definition should be available through a link to a dictionary -- Wiktionary, in this case. Damages might be listed high on the damage dab page; the current version with its clunky "ordinary dictionary defintion" section though is less useful and unnecessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am firmly of the position that an encyclopedia is not a dictionary, and a user should not expect to be able to find information in an encyclopedia about every single definition that is in a dictionary. Which seems to be what you are arguing for: that wherever there exists information in Wiktionary that is not in Wikipedia because it is not itself an encyclopedic topic, we should provide a link to Wiktionary to save the user from some immense imagined burden that comes from realizing Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this or that. You can say, "Oh, it should only be for 'common' definitions that aren't covered in Wikipedia," but to set a standard for which definitions are common and which aren't would be really arbitrary. Propaniac (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you don't know the definition of a word in common English usage, such as "damage," aren't you likely to know you should be looking it up in a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia anyway? By "common English usage," aren't you implying "a word that everybody knows the meaning of"? Propaniac (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Following my comments on the need to include ordinary English use in the previous section, an alternative might be to modify the Wiktionary link, which at the moment is not very prominent, instead of adding a definition. There is a smallish and not very prominent box reading "Look up <word> in Wiktionary, the free dictionary" on the right-hand side. Maybe, instead of the approach I described in the previous section, the {{wiktionary}} template should be modified, perhaps to add prominent text at the beginning of the article "<word> is used in normal English usage; click here to see definitions and notes on usage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary". If this interferes with existing use of the template, a new, more prominent, template could be written for disambiguation pages. Pol098 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Converting to use of see-colon suggests using a colon (:) after "see" in cases like this.

I suggest changing all dab templates to add the 'see-colon'. I will make a preliminary proposal for this in the proper place if there is consensus here. David Spector 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need or advantage to the change. The essay has had only one editor, so it can hardly claim any substantial following among editors. If you;'re serious, you might want to run the invented punctuation style past the regulars at

WT:MOS. older ≠ wiser

15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose appending the following to the end of WP:PT regarding unique, initial-use proper nouns:

Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favor by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. For example, if there is a novel, followed by a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film — all bearing the same title and with none much more sought — the novel shall be the primary topic. In the case of non-derivative works —

derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures

) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic when the creative initial use of the term is crystal clear.

₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial discussion

I decided to "

I don't think I agree with your premise - the primary topic (if any) should be the one readers are most likely to be looking for, not the one that historically took that name first.--Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski, and, CelticWonder, please do not mark additions to the guidelines or to the talk pages as minor edits. See

WP:MINOR. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 11:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. FYI: it wasn't intentional, as my default user preference is to mark edits minor as 98% of mine are. I won't make that mistake this time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very much sure you're missing my point. There's a difference with why

the novel

.

I am determined to set a precedence here, so I will replace it back on the project page as a non-minor update this time, as I am certain it indeed caters to a specific as-yet unaddressed scenario. If you feel so strongly that it should NOT be there, I suggest you open an Admin discussion about whether it should or should not be officially amended to policy. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 05:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works - if you want to substantially change the guidance, it's up to you to show there's support for your change. For the moment it's 2:1 against, so please wait for support to crystallize before trying to add it again.--Kotniski (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also do not support the addition. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to assume that primary topic status is a badge of honor that is be conferred on the deserving article. It is mainly a navigational construct that should follow the evolution of the language, not by following every twist and turn, but tracing reasonably significant changes. That is independent of the origin, trademarked or not. I do not support the addition either. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

...not in the least actually, and I have posed very valid, detailed reasons for my assertions. I'm addressing an issue regarding precisely what I described, leading to the following discussion. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, then. Sometimes these Primary Topic discussions seem to go that way and I get a bit exhausted. I'll join the discussion below. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Derivative names

CelticWonder appears to be getting to the issue of derivative uses. This has come up before in

Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If some of those titles are derived from an original use, the original use might be the primary topic. For example, if there is a novel, a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film -- all bearing the same title and with none much more sought -- the novel might be the primary topic. Station1 (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, as the circumstance for which I am currently fighting for has clear evidence that this is the case regarding the name itself (despite the genre difference). I'm not looking to "overturn" anything regarding policy, only to clarify what to do in this more unique circumstance. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying something "might be" doesn't help us much - it equally might not be. Perhaps we want to say that if it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favour by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. But I suspect that even that might be controversial (for example, it implies that British towns take some kind of precedence over the American towns that are named after them).--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kotniski's suggestion, but I'll attempt to address your example: the article for

Danzig

are there? Yet there are notable topics with the EXACT same name that are on a secondary dab page.

Even still, names of towns would fall under a different category of proper noun, just as the proper or surname of a person would. This is why technically if someone with the exact name William Shakespeare later became "more popular/notable" than the author, the original article could be replaced with a dab reflecting both persons. However, the more concise category I was attempting to cater to is once again "unique, initial-use words". A new example I found so far is Dumbo, which also refers to Dumbo (air-sea rescue), but it's clear again where the new word itself came from originally, so the Disney movie is the primary topic. Obviously one may argue that ALL words & proper nouns were unique at one time, hence my further explanation "[as a result of] blending, portmanteau...", etc. as my final version had previously reflected.

A revised proposal: Occasionally there may be cases where two or more articles would bear precisely the same title but none are the primary topic using the above criteria. If it's not otherwise clear whether X is a primary topic for T, then the decision is sometimes swung in X's favor by the fact that X is the original use of the name T. For example, if there is a novel, followed by a play derived from that novel, a film derived from that play, and a musical derived from that film — all bearing the same title and with none much more sought — the novel shall be the primary topic. In the case of non-derivative works —

derivative works or an amalgamation of other proper nouns (Goldwyn Pictures

) — the initial creative use and popularization of the title shall be the primary topic.

I welcome any further suggestions or revisions, and I'm glad to see we're finally addressing this issue. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 19:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest appending something to the effect of: If it is provable beyond all doubt the source of such unique title belongs to a specific entity, it should have the primary topic. — not exactly those words, but something like that? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see the "original-ness" of the usage to be pertinent. It MIGHT make sense for articles about works derived from a single source - like a book, its movies and stage derivations - but even then, the "best" to me is to direct them to the article that gives them the most information about the general topic. Take Star Trek and Star Wars for example. If the articles are related only in name (I didn't read the whole articles, but Clannad seems to be an example) and there is no clear primary topic between them using the criteria without the new "original-ness" test, the readers are best served by a dab page. Going to the "original" doesn't improve the situation. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although (as has kind of been agreed before, but I don't think ever recorded in the guidance) in the situation where there are exactly two (main) uses of a term, readers are actually served by making one the primary topic, even if it doesn't have the predominance we would normally expect (because the hatnote can take readers directly to the other topic anyway, so 50+x% of readers are benefited while very few are inconvenienced). Perhaps in that situation in particular, considerations like original use might come into the equation.--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(responding to original proposal) If none of the topic are the primary topic by the existing criteria, then there is no primary topic. A "tie-breaker" based on derivation (or any other criterion) isn't needed -- no topic is primary use, so the disambiguation page should go to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But if there are only two usages, then (the theory is that) making either one of them the primary topic will save the users who are looking for that usage the inconvenience of going through an extra page to get there. And the users who are looking for another usage will be no more inconvenienced by going through a hatnote, than they would be by going through a disambiguation page (either way, it's one extra page and one extra click). Even if only 10% of users are looking for the usage at the base name, and 90% are looking for the other usage, you're still inconveniencing only 90% of users instead of inconveniencing 100% of them, although of course it makes more sense to put the 90%-popularity usage at the base name. But if you're following that theory, and trying to decide which usage to put at the base name, and you're unable to find any criteria to suggest that one usage is more popular than the other, it could make sense in that case to use the derivation as a "tie-breaker."

(And I concur with the majority that the derivation is not necessarily relevant when determining a primary topic in other cases. It's as certain as certain can be that the playwright Shakespeare will always be a more popular target than a band or movie named after him, but if someone starts a band and names it after the 17th-century mayor of Ljubljana Jurij Wertatsch, for example, and goes on to sell ten million albums under that name, I'm comfortable with naming the band as the primary topic even though the mayor came first.) Propaniac (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If we're struggling to identify which is more popular and the criteria in place aren't resolving it, a "better" tiebreaker for reducing inconvenience would be outright reliance on the page traffic stats. I don't advocate outright reliance on it in general (although I do advocate usage of the stats in general, which detractors view as the same thing when the other criteria are unknown), but if we need a tiebreak for pages with only two options, then the option that gets greater than 50% of the recent hits should "win". We can now debate the mathematical definition of "recent". :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please believe me, I've already addressed multiple times why your tie-breaker suggestion hasn't worked in practice so far. In February 2010:

• Danzig had 12,358
  hits
• Danzig (band) had 31,181 hits
• Glenn Danzig had 39,671 hits

Danzig is a Polish city. Glenn Danzig's surname is clearly a namesake of that German name of the Polish city, and then his band name was changed to match to avoid tm infringement with his old name. Currently the link Danzig (avg daily hits = 430) points directly to Gdańsk (the city in Poland, with avg daily direct hits = ~600). By your interpretation, clearly Danzig (band) (avg daily hits = 1,100) is more popular, so the article Danzig should be replaced by either Danzig (disambiguation) or Danzig (band) because the band's article is "the option that gets greater than 50% of the recent hits".

My other example:

Dracula (1992 film) is the post popular iteration of the franchise, as the IMDB page has the most votes, and simply Googling "Dracula 1897" = 258,000 GHits, "Dracula 1992" = 1,190,000 GHits. Due to it's relative newness and popularity at large, should the '92 film of same name now demote the "primary topic" of Dracula and relegate ALL of it to a DAB simply because when people search "Dracula" they might theoretically be more likely looking for the 1992 film instead of the novel? Well, read for yourself who created the name [ref # 1, 2

].

...and then my reason for drawing attention to this lack of policy in the first place: "Clannad" as it stands is not a "

ref], which it is not. "Clannad" actually comes from blending the Irish Gaeilge words Clann As Dobhar, meaning "the family from [Gwee]Dore", which as a result of the act of blending words, makes it a Proper noun not a word just simply "shared" by the anime stuff, but created by the band = SOURCE = Primary Topic

.

If it the original creator of the unique, initial-use proper noun is OBVIOUS, the primary topic should belong to that subject. That's how requested moves and such have been decided I would say more than 98% of the time in the past. Put the rule in there to SAY that for a change! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The tie breaker would only apply (if at all) when the existing criteria fail to yield a primary topic. I am happy enough without a tie breaker, but in response to Propaniac, I suggested the hit count tie breaker would only apply when there were only two ambiguous articles. But to your examples that don't fall under those umbrellas: editors who do not understand

EA are other possible examples. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My initial response holds here: there's no need for separate guidelines for derivative works from the guidelines for non-derivative works. The primary topic (if any) would be the primary topic whether or not the title in question was one used by a derivative work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, use one of my examples then. Let's replace

Dracula (1992 film) or Dracula (disambiguation), as both of these actions would be okay under WP:PT as it is currently written. Explain to me using WP policy why this is not okay (not counting "consensus", please, as consensus *mysteriously* always leans in the direction as I described it, in such cases). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C

) " 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dracula (1992 film), so that's not a good example. But you may be right that Dracula does not get more views than all the other uses combined as shown on the dab page. That's the main reason I oppose the recent change that requires a primary topic to be more sought than all other uses combined (it used to read more sought than any other topic). Station1 (talk

) 23:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What comes up when you type "Dracula" in the search box? You have to click *through* to the disambiguation page, so naturally the main page gets "3 times more pageviews" merely as a result of simple type->search->click first result. So then we look at the GHits which reflects the opposite "popularity". My point remains that the novel, being less "popular" or "sought after" is the primary topic for a reason. That reason is detailed in my proposal. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 23:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(It's true one must discount slightly for click-thrus, but they are fewer than 6%, so even accounting for them it's still about triple. But let's not get sidetracked.) Station1 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(changing my note after reading the page's Talk pages) I !voted to move the disambiguation page to the base name because the character and the novel appeared to prevent there being a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

While you were totally entitled to your view/opinion on the matter, what

current proposal), I could have avoided months of arguing this point home about the Clannad page being replaced. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C

) " 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hmmm" indeed: editors then disregarded the guidelines, so you're proposed solution is to change the guidelines, because apparently you assume that future editors will not disregard the guidelines? No matter what the guidelines say, discussions at individual pages will happen. No matter what the guidelines say, the discussion at some pages will yield results contrary to them, either because the editors are unaware of the guidelines, or they misunderstand the guidelines, or they misapply the guidelines, or they

choose to ignore the guidelines for a particular page. Given that, I (still) see no reason to change the guidelines since they work and work well for the pages that they are applied too, and those pages remain the majority. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 17:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Example:

"as a result of blending, portmanteau", blah blah. I see ultimate reason for why this addition should be implemented. Does any one else based off all factors I mentioned? ...or is anyone ELSE not seeing the logic? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C

) " 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be blind, but I haven't seen anyone jumping in to say they SEE the logic. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jwy: Snideness aside, *I* am jumping in to say I see the logic. And another on the current MC for Clannad has (as well as the sole opposition who almost "get's it", but still has a lingering illogical hang-up of how WP works). As I didn't imply that everyone else "saw" my logic other than JHunterJ (whom I was directly responding to after his comment "I (still) see no reason to change the guidelines since they work and work well for the pages that they are applied to"), I mostly just fear that so far I somehow haven't been clear enough (which I'm doubting) about the nearly-unanimous minority of articles I'm addressing, or more likely some of the rest of you might not be "getting it" yet, and my question was if someone other than him needed me to provide more clarity. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How many of the hits on Apple Inc. are from readers who tried "apple"? We'd have to set up that arrangement to support your claim that the guidelines were disregarded here -- it's not determinable from the counts available now. See also the Talk:Lincoln discussion where an analogous arrangement was set up and the stats used to inform the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, respectfully, that's another bad example. For all intents,

Danzig), however there are SO MANY (just like my explanation about Lancaster

above) related derivations that it's a dab list instead (as Abraham wasn't the first to use that name). The AMOUNT of articles would be a factor also — but in cases of, you know, "names" (people, places). As it stands right now, typical results in decisions made regarding the following:

...am I wrong? In fact, another valid proposed move:

Johnson (surname) && Johnson (disambiguation) → Johnson, with the name article being the first on the list ( Done ✗ Undone why, exactly?). Yet the first three rows of my grid are backed by written guidelines, and the fourth is merely the "typical outcome" but therefore should now be declared as such. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C

) " 21:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you add another column to the table for the first three rows with links to the corresponding policies? Its news to me that there are policies as such. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help with that. Here's a start. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good example, illustrating (again) that determining which topic was "first" is unrelated to determining which topic is most used. The most common use use of "Lincoln" on Wikipedia is the U.S. president, although not by a sufficient margin (apparently) to gain the base name (not all subscribe to my 60/40 belief). See also Boston and Georgia, neither of which go to the first topic. You have some nicely selected data points that happen to support one view. I believ a full selection or even a scientific sampling of the ambiguous WP titles would be less supportive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Tru dat — except Boston goes to a major metropolis (just as Melbourne, London, etc.), which is outside the scope of my point again, and Georgia has multiple conflicting uses (ambiguous origin?) as a place name, not a unique, initial-use creation as I've described. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 03:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

50/50 split, or replacement "popularity"?

CelticWonder, no disrespect intended, it seems pretty clear that your goal in all of this is to get a "ruling" that the article about the band called Clannad should be considered the primary topic, regardless of how many users are looking for that topic vs. another unrelated meaning of the term (such as the visual novel), because the band was the first to coin the word. I don't think (certainly could be wrong) you're ever going to convince many people here of that argument. If 75% of users are looking for the novel and 25% of users are looking for the band, it doesn't make sense to send everyone to the band article first, simply because the band originated the name. That does not, in any way at all, mean that the novel is better than the band (personally, I'm sure if I sampled each, I'd like the band way more). It just means that there are a ton of manga fans among Wikipedia's user base. Propaniac (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. But my question is what happens when 50% are looking for the novel and 50% are looking for the band? What happens when 50% are looking for Dracula the novel and 50% are looking for any one of the numerous other things named Dracula? My experience, WP-wide as well as here, is that some editors will argue that derivation is a consideration (I think it should be in the case of Dracula) and others will argue that it shouldn't be. There is no consensus either way in my opinion, so should we let it be argued on each talk page on a case by case basis with no guidance, or should we add something here to the effect that derivation could be a factor to consider in "tie-break" situations? Station1 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Or do we say that it's not a consideration, and that in the 50/50 case, there is no primary topic and the disambiguation page goes to the base name? This is what the guidelines currently say, as I read them. In practice, I doubt there are any 50/50 splits. 50.00000001/49.99999999 maybe, but 50/50 seems very unlikely, and if a tie-break is needed (and I don't think it is), then I think .00000001 is a better one than derivation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lacking the predominance of one over the other, the dab page is clearly always the best choice. If there are only two terms, then I'd still vote for the dab page. As I've said before, many editors seem to dislike a dab page, especially when it replaces 'their' page. We need to elevate the dab page so that editors are no longer opposed just because it is a dab page. 50-50 splits are the same as 60-40 ones. There is no primary topic. If anything throwing in the derivative argument, especially for place names, is a slap in the face for some countries and clearly biased in the favor of others. So we should avoid that at all costs. While the derivative argument could make sense in some areas, the problems that it causes in others says it is probably best to avoid unless we are going to make specific exceptions and then battle out each one. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside: I think there's a primary topic among two topics once one gets half again as much use as the other (which would be the 60/40 split). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

...except that the emerging popularity of a titular derivative article doesn't suddenly negate or demote the original creation, as is the case in all my examples in the above grid: 1st, 2nd, and 4th rows. My point again is to address the fourth row minority directly. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaniac: It seems clear to you (somehow) — unless you look at my tireless explanations, analogies, references, etc. There are very logical reasons for my argument for the policy ADDITION — as in clarification, not change — about a MINORITY of topics. There is clear PRECEDENCE for the decisions have led into one direction in the past (derivation of a term; see ALL my previous comparisons and examples). I'm sick of explaining this. And yes, with Clannad we're talking about something that is nearly 50/50 or 60/40, but using that factor as a "final decision" is not a valid comparison due to the contemporaneous nature of the two different subjects. Derivation of the name itself *should* be the deciding factor therefore, but there is NO policy I can refer to for this unique circumstance. Since it already happens IN PRACTICE, it should be reflected IN POLICY.

The Mummy was used as an example by someone else as a proponent of dab, but it doesn't fit within the confines of what I propose for a great reason (which once again I've already explained): Mummy wasn't INVENTED by ANYONE listed on The Mummy article. Dracula, on the other hand, just like Dumbo, Clannad, Jabberwocky, Frankenstein, were all NEW terms as described above. Original use leading to derivation should take place in WRITING in addition to precedented action. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have said in the past, there is an argument for deciding primary use based on usage in reliable sources. Even if 99% of searches on "Titanic" were for the film (as would likely have been the case if Wikipedia had been around in 1997), we would still consider the ship to be the primary use. Search popularity doesn't capture that; it is too caught up in zeitgeist. Usage in reliable sources does. All of the examples put forward by CelticWonder should be treated as evidence that editors take into account usage in reliable sources when choosing a primary use. "Precedence" is not necessary to explain those examples. Hesperian 03:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to make this change although there are plenty of precedences where an article will point to the originating term there are also plenty of articles where this isn't the case or where the articles simply don't fit within the table for example King Kong makes the character the primary article, Band of Brothers points to a DAB, Diablo points to a DAB and Forrest Gump points to the movie.

In the case of King Kong what article can be considered to have originated the term the 1933 film or the actual character?

In the case of

Nelson's Band of Brothers

.

In the case of Diablo why aren't we pointing to the Devil I mean it is clearly what it refers to in Spanish?

In the case of Forrest Gump it points to the movie shouldn't it point to the originating novel?

Proposed policy change/addition is to concise and doesn't take into account various other factors and the fact that it may not even be clear which article has the originating term or what happens if the term doesn't have an originator and separate entities came up with the name on their own then who becomes the originator the entity that came up with the name first, or the entity that came up with the name second but popularised the term, or the entity who has legal trademark over the name?

Note: I am currently in mediation with User:CelticWonder on the topic Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-21/Clannad and may be considered slightly biased (I don't think so but I'm just trying to be open about it). --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My best guesses (since this is kinda the whole point of this proposition):

• King Kong was originally a character in a movie (or comic books in later examples) as opposed to a novel? I mean, the distinction seems kinda silly, but in the cases of Dracula and Frankenstein, there was a novel that included the titular char, so the novel is PT in practice here on WP. Primary topics about characters who originally appeared in something NOT a novel are Batman/Superman/Iron Man/likely any comic book char, Godzilla, King Kong.
• Band of Brothers would fall under a category of "inevitable coupling of dictionary words", so since there were multiple "unique uses" of just the name/phrase, it's a dab. If it was something like Band of Bernoulli Brothers, it'd be entirely different.
• WP:NAD
  principle. I'm still hoping for a logical response about other common dictionary words like "apple", "mummy", and "one" being primary topics in an encyclopedia instead of a dab. There seems to be no uniform reasoning yet.
• Forrest Gump was created as a novel first, so I believe it should most definitely be the PT as all other same-name works were derivatives of that novel.

...so my proposition for amendment to WP:PT is to give a guideline reference to a *mostly* uniform practice already in place on WP — and while I've requested suggestions on the wording, it also would only apply to a minority of existing articles as detailed at top (which DOES take into account whether there was an "originator" or not in specific contexts). ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 02:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comment by proponent

...as I'm officially declaring that I now

• In the case of an original artistic work with unique historic precedence, I feel it's a disservice to be replaced/overshadowed by a derivative solely because an alternate medium made it more accessible at large later in time.
• In the case of an unique, initial-use name alone: reusing the original name in a different context, or in some cases especially in a related field, unjustly diminishes the uniqueness of the name. In the nearly inevitable case that such a thing may happen as time passes, either due to ignorant arrogance or un/intentional misunderstanding, to detract from the originator is a disservice to their influential creativity. Refs: Trademark distinctiveness, particularly the sections on acquired and maintaining distinctiveness (example, should Band Aid (band) = 21,274 hits displace Band-Aid = 6,206 hits?); and Trademark dilution, considerably when the historical and documented origin of a unique name is obvious and verifiable — or most certainly pointed out in an encyclopedic manner.

As common practice that I've detailed numerous times above dictates the contrary to what is being done in the case of this article (Talk) for example, I've asserted a logical uniformity of this minority of articles falling under the specific criteria expressed here. The addition would have been useful to avoid showing a systemically-biased favoritism in some cases like that one and few others for a-derivative-as-pt over the more suitable unique-original-work-as-pt, regardless of "hit totals" as is being used on such topics instead.

I'm sick of tirelessly laboring this point home with research, facts, and examples/comparisons — and mostly just that I've been doing it all myself with no help from anyone here, even when requested. I don't feel that detractors have expressed any valid reasons why this natural way of doing things shouldn't be clarified — and only in this very concise regard — other than that "consensus rules" or "WP hits/GHits rules". If the typical

CelticWonder has spuriously accused me of conflict of interest here. Other input requested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Users here may be interested in participating in discussion of the move request (to move the dab page to Ebert (disambiguation) and redirect Ebert to Roger Ebert) at Talk:Ebert#Requested move. (There's rather an underrepresentation at the moment of users who have any interest in Wikipedia guidelines, and an overrepresentation of users who wish to make navigation decisions based on which names are most commonly recognized in Europe.) Propaniac (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In the last weeks I created lots of disambiguation pages. And I noticed something: an editor can improve his good maners and create the disambiguation pages after creating an article. For example, the second or the third person who created a page with „Dragutin” in the title (let's say that the page was Dragutin Dimitrijević), after creating the page, he/she should look if there exists or it's needed the disambiguation page for Dragutin and Dimitrijević. If the pages exists, he only has to add one or two lines to those disambiguation pages. If not, he will have to create one or two disambiguation pages, that requires 2 or 3 lines each. In either case, it can't take so long. But, if the editors do not behave like that, one day, somebody comes and creates the Dragutin (disambiguation) page, and because it has 20 lines or so, it's very likely he/she will skip adding details to each line. It's exactly my case: I created the Dragutin (disambiguation) page and it looks not so great, because there were too many lines in it, and I created Dragutinović page, and it looks better, because there were only three entries so I had the time to add details to each of them.

Therefore, being a nice editor and creating one or two small disambiguation pages, or at least adding one-two lines to the already existing disambiguation pages can increase the number of needed disambiguation pages and their appearance and usefulness. Of course there should not be any obligation - we are doing voluntary work here - but maybe some "ranking" can be invented for those who prove their advanced good manners - Ark25 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but don't overdo it on creating dab pages for single names. The two you mention are really more name pages than dab pages, because the entries have only one name in common rather than full names (as on John Smith). Very few present-day people would qualify to be on a single-name dab page; only people like Madonna, Pelé, etc. who don't use full names. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there is a distinction between disambiguation pages and name pages. Can't find a guide for name pages also. Seems there are lots of name pages anyways, containing titles that have only one name in common. I think they are useful though, for example when you forget the full name of a person you want to read about. So, in order for me to learn something today, what should I improve for the

Dragutin (name) and I should add {{surname}} to both pages ? Thanks - Ark25 (talk

) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

One example of the way it should be done is

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Given names or surnames. You might also be interested in the information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Let me know if I can be of further help. --Auntof6 (talk

) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! I'll read those pages with attention and I'll come back if I'll have questions Ark25 (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm back. The questions: What would be the best arguments for deleting pages like

I wouldn't delete Dražen. I would group the entries, though -- list the people together, list the places together, etc. The disambig and given name tags can be on the same page, but if there are more than a few people with the given name then a separate page should probably be created. Dražen should not have hndis, though, because that is for pages where an entire name is shared (like John Smith or Mary).

I think Dragutinović looks fine as it is, because it's now marked as a surname page and not a dab page. It doesn't have to have "(name)" in the title.

I would move

Stephen Dragutin of Serbia, the redirect template can take parameters to change what it displays. The documentation for that is here: Template:Redirect#Redirect

.

Hope that helps! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. At

Dragutin (name), what template should I use? {{disamb}} should be replaced but Dragutin represents both surname (for Dragutin) and given name for the rest. Shall I add both {{surname}} and {{given name}} ? Ark25 (talk

) 00:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good! Yes, you can have both surname and given name on the same page on

Dragutin (name). When you can, it would also help to add short descriptions of each person in the lists of all these pages. --Auntof6 (talk

) 01:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

True, not everything looks good. I don't think I'd bother, but you're free to pursue that if you want—you might want to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy since these come under their purview. Whatever you come up with should put the page into both categories (Given names and Surnames).

I checked the Mary page and it doesnt have {{hndis}} as you said it should.

The purpose of "hndis" is to put the page into the category "Human name disambiguation pages". That can also be done by coding "{{disambig|hn}}, or by explicitly adding the category to the page as was done on Mary. {{hndis}} is used for pages that are strictly name disambiguation; Mary also has places, movies, etc. For more info on this, see Template:Disambig.

Also, it looks like the content of John Smith (name) should be moved at John Smith, because John Smith is a name page.

Maybe so. I don't think name pages necessarily have to have the "(name)" qualifier, but I may not be up to date on the current policy on that.

Now, talking about the descriptions, I have to come back to the original discussion - editors with advanced good manners have to create the disambiguation or name pages when there are 2-4 items that make those pages needed. A club of "elite" editors should be created (without any privileges, ofc), and membership must be based on continuously proving the advanced good manners. I am quite sure, there can be identified more criteria to be elite, other than creating dab pages at the right moment. But it's just a suggestion of course. Ark25 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First, there is a preference for using hatnotes (rather than dab pages) when there are only two items (see here). Using hatnotes is simpler, and I've even seen them used instead of dab pages when there are more than two options.

Second, no Wikipedia editor is required to create things like this, even if it's good manners: we're all volunteers here. (I've even heard rumors that some of us have lives outside of Wikipedia!) If you're interested in pursuing creation of dab pages, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation—that might be as close as you'd get to a club such as you describe. You can add your name to the list of participants and discuss these things with other interested editors. I'm sure you'd be a welcome addition.

Last, policy changes on Wikipedia are done by consensus. For these and any other changes you'd like to see enforced, propose them in a related forum and make your case. Of course, you're free to do those things on your own without making them policy.

Any other questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your patience ! No more questions, that's more than enough and thanks again. Sure, it's volunteer work and things doesn't have to be enforced. I's just an idea about requiring a certain behavior in order to be in an inoffensive group — for those who enjoy useless titles and honors. And no, whoever says there is life outside Wikipedia is a Liar and don't believe them !! :D — Ark25 (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, {{

65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We've got a move discussion going as to whether Wild Horses (Rolling Stones song) should be at Wild Horses (song) when there are other songs with that title (at least one of which, Wild Horses (Garth Brooks song), has an article). What's the deal here? Are we allowed to have "Article name (qualifier)" and "Article name (more specific qualifier)"? It just seems stupid to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you can have a qualifier and then a more specific qualifier if one entry meets the criteria of

WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The logic of the primary usage concept holds even if one topic is already disambiguated. In the case of "Wild Horses", the famous Rolling Stones song gets 30 times the pageviews of the Garth Brooks song, so it makes sense to send most people searching for "Wild Horses song" to where they are overwhelmingly likely to want to be. See a similar discussion at Talk:Independence Day (film)#Requested move 1 and 2. Station1 (talk

) 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that discussion out. I disagree. The guidance about primary topic does not apply to the disambiguating phrase used to distinguish topics. older ≠ wiser 00:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that incomplete disambiguation is silly (see arguments @ Independence Day discussion; in particular, who appends "(song)" or "(film)" to a search query?). Perhaps a discussion could be started here to decide which way is right once and for all? --Cybercobra (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer who appends "(film)" to a query: In the case of Avatar (film), tens of thousands of readers (there's virtually no other way to get there). And I'm not counting Avatar film, which gets even more searchers. At least 97% of them want the famous film, but they all are redirected to a dab page. Doesn't make sense imo. Station1 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would bet they're only entering the exact page title because they'd been there previously and thus knew what it was; so the exact page title doesn't actually matter in that case because they're just regurgitating it. The argument is whether virgin visitors would be likely to enter it or find it discoverable. IMO, No, they'd likely click the hatnote on Avatar or enter "Avatar film" (which I've conceded should redirect to the recent film), but few would use a parenthetical suffix. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow that logic. If someone typed in "Avatar (film)" previously they would know it leads to a dab page, not to the film. So wouldn't they be less likely to repeat their mistake, not more likely? Station1 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We are "allowed" to have "Article name (qualifier)" and "Article name (more specific qualifier)". I disagree with Station1 (and agree with Bkonrad), though -- this is unrelated to the primary topic guidelines. If there's a primary topic, it goes to the base name (with no qualifier). If a qualifier is needed, the disambiguation project specifies that a unique qualifier be added (which is fortunate, because that's the only way it'll work). It would be up to the project of the article topic(s) to further specify or restrict the selection of qualifiers. In this case, for instance, I believe that

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Disambiguation does not explicitly state that (song) and (Garth Brooks song) should not co-exist, while Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Standard disambiguation does more clearly indicate (but not unassailably) that if further disambiguation is needed for two novels, both should then have the author's surname added. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 00:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we agree it's allowed (at least in the case of songs), it seems to me it must be related to primary topic guidelines. Otherwise, how would we decide which article gets titled "Article name (qualifier)" and which gets "Article name (more specific qualifier)"? Station1 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as making ambiguous article unambiguous, it doesn't matter which one (or if neither) gets the "qualifier" and which (or if both) gets the "more specific qualifier". So from the disambiguation project perspective (including primary topic), mu. The project that covers the topic(s) of the ambiguous articles, though, may or may not provide guidelines for formulating their qualifiers, and those (if any) should be followed. But they may or may not apply identically to articles on other topics (which would be covered by other projects' guidelines). That's what I was trying to point out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbre. Is this really what people want to do with dab pages? The arbre page has two articles that could legitimately be written someday, but don't exist now (the Belgian place names), and it has one phrase that could marginally be a hatnote somewhere (the planet in Anathem), but wouldn't make an article on its own (in my estimation). The rest of the entries are all partial matches.

I note that the current text of

The introduction is essentially the same now as in March 2008 (and maybe long before that, I haven't bothered to check); I'm not aware of any significant changes or discussion of changes in recent memory. The phrasing is slightly different, but the meaning is the same. I'm not entirely sure what your issue is. If you're saying that the

Brownie (food)

-- that rule would just be ridiculous and detrimental.

In regard specifically to Arbre, my opinion is that it's not the greatest or most useful disambiguation page ever, but the three entries listed are legitimate. Everything under "See Also" should probably be removed as unlikely targets for someone searching on "Arbre." Propaniac (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, could reasonably have the same name' is reasonable, yes; no, I certainly wouldn't exclude chocolate brownie. (Actually I kind of think that ought to be the primary topic for brownie, but that's neither here nor there). My issue is more with disambig pages for which all, or even all but one, the non-partial-match entries are redlinks, with no strong reason to believe that there'll be an article any time soon. That seems to be a "navigational aid" with no clearly relevant place to navigate. In my opinion it would be better for such searches to bring up the search page than this very marginal dab page. --Trovatore (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why two different dab pages exist, but if I can make the mistake between the two (wondering what happened to half the dab terms), then undoubtedly it could happen with the regular user. I propose we merge them, but I've never really hear about merging dab pages before. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dab mergers are handled like article mergers; proposed and (possibly) discussed at the pages' talk pages. In this case, though, the mistake is soothed by linking the two in their "See also" sections. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

A See Also in a dab page? That sounds kinda circular. Why not just combine the two; it seems like Survivors and The Survivors" are only separated by the article (grammar term, not the encyclopedia type). There would seem a lot of confusion inherent in having two separate pages that a See Also shouldn't be expected to compensate for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a trade-off. Short lists may help people find the things they are looking for when they get the name right. Long lists may help people find the things they are looking for when they get the name slightly wrong. Moving in one direction or the other hinders some and helps others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the two lists, (Survivors (disambiguation) and The Survivors) do you think combining them creates a list that is too long? If so, what criteria are you using as a measuring stick? While I see the need to keep these sorts of determinations fluid, what sorts of precedents do we have to go one way or the other? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, looking at the two lists, do you think leaving them separate creates too great an obstacle if they are linked from each other? If so, what criteria are you using as a measuring stick? Like I said in the first answer, use the pages' Talk pages to find the consensus -- I didn't bring a measuring stick, nor do I see the need for one here. I have no preference one way or the other on "(The )Survivors", and I won't be arguing one way or the other on that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating my argument back to me is hardly an effective way to answer my questions, JHunter. That said, yes, I believe it creates an obstacle. There isn't a need for a 'see also' that provides yet another link to yet another dab page - it is a wild goose chase and not at all encyclopedic. Our job is to cut to the chase and deliver the info in a concise way. Pinballing the reader around doesn't accomplish that.

I'll take your suggestion to the two pages discussion areas. I just wanted to address what I felt was confusing info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out: there are actually 4 dab pages in the frame here (with and without article x singular and plural: "(The) Survivor(s)")- and by the letter of

WP:DPAGES they "may" all be combined into one page. I think the current situation, where each one has "See also" links to the other 3 variations, seems to work fine. PamD (talk

) 09:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Showing the problems with the argument by paralleling it was effective, Arcayn. Trying to turn the conversation into a witness interrogation was not effective. Since I have had experience with that before, I chose to stop it before it gained any momentum. BTW, see also sections are quite common on disambiguation pages, they are effective ways of linking similar ambiguous titles. One additional click is hardly a pinballing or a wild goose chase. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A list of items, especially growing to around six or more, should be listed (by date if especially significant or) in alphabetical order as standard. It doesn't say that on the guidelines. There is no hit for "alphabetical". I want to quote the guideline that says, "Order the list alphabetically rather than how you feel the items are more relevant." Some lists are quite long including disambiguation pages. Is this intentionally missed? ~ R.T.G 18:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not missed, but it is covered differently on

WP:MOSDAB. Items are sorted by likelihood, or possibly by some other order if that might help readers more than likelihood. -- JHunterJ (talk

) 23:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it should say that here in minor detail. List should take some sort of order. Anying from date to weight to alphabetics or geographics. Relevance should be off the cards on a list. Referencing is best by alpha-beta and further relevance is only guarunteed by size or weight or date etc. I think that is right anyway... no major here just noticed it was amiss... ~ R.T.G 01:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you pull "relevance" off the list. If we define "relevance order" as the order of likelihood it is what the reader is looking for, it should apply! They took their best guess at what the article they are looking for would be titled and they were wrong (thus they ended at the disambiguation page). They won't necessarily know what words they are looking for, so alphabetical isn't going to help (in many cases). A sequential search is efficient if the relevant ones are near the top. And sections should be shorter than 6 (or at least 10), I think - so if we get the order wrong, there won't be much damage. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Re "Yeah it should .... List should take some sort of order."
  "List" is a very broad term, and a Dab does not work like a simple list; it works more like a binary decision tree (binary bcz it would be so hard to formulate usable questions other than "Does it fall in this section's scope?" and "Is this it?"); a list, or a series of sections, each containing a list, is the workable way of presenting that tree. Often the most efficient ordering scheme is relevance (which should be understood as "likelihood of being the item [or the section containing the item] being the desired one"). True, it inconveniences users looking for less "relevant" entries, but even if all users' time is equally valuable (and i don't advocate trying to estimate under any other assumption), the time expended by all users of the given Dab page combined is minimized if we put the most frequently desired ones first, so those seeking them don't have to read and reject any less likely-to-be-sought ones.
  Alphabetic order is usually no more efficient than random order, bcz no user capable of guessing our Dab'g suffix for their topic is likely to go to Dab they expect to be of any length, rather than typing in the Dab'd title they have in mind and rely on a Rdr or search results.
  The most frequent case, i think, where something other than relevance can be more efficient, is where a date (i love dead-vs.-alive, then date of death or date of birth, respectively) gives the user a good chance of finding the exact dab'g info quickly by a binary search for the first plausible date. E.g., on the {{hndis}} pg John Smith, knowing that the one i want was a single adult in 1620, i start (assuming it turns out to be chronological) a quarter of the way into the list, and go forward or back repeatedly from there until i find a date between 1570 and 1605, then look at causes of notability and nationalities within that range.
  --Jerzy•t 05:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  

I can't see the sense in thinking, chuckle, that alphbetical order is only about as useful as random order. Chronology can be more relevant than alphabetics, so can size, weight, distance etc. Guessing is just guessing. Every other method is better than guessing so there should be the suggestion not to just guess but to use some sort of order which, I assume, is most often A-B but maybe dates are more often or something, they are equally important. ~ R.T.G 18:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion is to order them by likelihood. This is most often not A-B. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Define likelyhood. It is most often something rarely ever nothing. Likelyhood, felt like it, thingymajig, alphabetical order, by date, by weight,... ~ R.T.G 16:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion about moving

Everyone knows an

expects to be, or (b) send 100% to the article about the film Elephant where 3% will need to click on a hatnote to get what they want. The logic behind WP:PT is that 'b' makes more sense. That logic doesn't change just because the topic "Elephant (film)" has parentheses in its title. I can think of no reason why 'a' would be preferable. Station1 (talk

) 06:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think many people looking for the film will still enter "Elephant" first. Not sure of the percentage, certainly significantly greater than zero. Those people should be covered by listing all the films in a film section on the Elephant dab page. I would normally default a page like Elephant (film) to be a dab page - for consistency. I'd consider a "secondary" primary topic if there was strong consensus on the talk pages.

This problem only comes up on movies that: 1) have a title whose primary topic is another meaning than the movie and 2) there are other movies with the same title that are of significantly less interest. Not a big set of movies. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be generalized a bit. This problem has come in cases other than films. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation project has no hierarchy of primary topic. Each title can have one (or no) primary topic, and all other topics need to have either completely distinct titles or unique qualifiers appended to the shared title. Some content projects (such as the book project) might specify which qualifiers should be used and how these qualifiers might be selected in different instances. It would be up to the film project to decide that "film" can exist alongside "1983 film", or that once 1983 film is added to the project, the previous "film" should become "1996 film". Either solution would work from a disambiguation perspective. See also the section Question above-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Station1, we talked before about using redirects instead. Is this still possible? My issue is that too much emphasis is being placed on direct searches for "<Film title> (film)" when we have to remember that most readers will not be doing this. As an example, see page views for Avatar (film) compared to page views for Avatar (2009 film). "Avatar (film)" cannot be a primary topic if only 0.089% of people who want to read about the 2009 film use that specific queue. We can talk about redirecting "Avatar (film)" for this percentage, but that is a discussion about redirects, used to help get some readers where they need to go. Everyone else will go through the disambiguation page. The Avatar page views show that "Avatar (film)" as a searched-for term is not likely; it is because "Avatar (film)" is purely a Wikipedia construct. It means nothing to the majority of readers who are not actively involved with Wikipedia. I search with "(film)" in my queue, but that's because I'm familiar with how Wikipedia works and where that queue would take me. The Avatar page views reflect that most readers don't know that. If we're going to accommodate a small portion of people who can smartly navigate Wikipedia, we should use redirects and not page moves. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is off the track, but one point of math clarification: the primary topic of a redirect is determined by the percentage of people using the redirect who want to go to a particular topic, not by the percentage of people wanting a particular topic who use the redirect. If a million people view a film page and one thousand got there through a redirect to the film, and if only one of those thousand wanted a different film instead, then the primary usage of the redirect would be the current film target, even though only 0.1% of the film page viewers used the redirect; 99.9% of the users of the redirect were properly served. There might be other stats to support that here, but (a) we don't have guidelines for determining the primary topic of an already-qualified title and (b) I dont' think it would be the 0.089% stat above. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. The person who, having never visited the article before, compulsively adds " (film)" to their search query is unusual and atypical and we don't need to cater to them. I don't believe average/normal users [i.e. the vast majority] add parenthesized disambiguators to the end of their search queries, unless they know the exact article name in advance from copy-pasting or having already visited the page, in which case the exact article name doesn't matter for them anyway since they're just retyping it by rote anyway. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, to echo a pithy comment from the Independence Day discussion: The guidance about primary topics does not apply to the disambiguating phrase used to differentiate between two topics of the same type. Or at the least, whether the guidance applies there is questionable/debateable. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

JHunterJ, what do you mean by "guidelines for determining the primary topic of an already-qualified title"? Just trying to understand what you mean here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The dab guidelines specify when to add a qualifier (when there's ambiguity and the article is not the primary topic for its "normal" title). Once a qualifier is added, there aren't disambiguation guidelines for determining whether that qualifier should later be "assigned" to a different article -- no guidelines here for an already-qualified title. The topic project should cover those situations (or leave it uncovered and up to the individual page editors) as needed, and different projects might end up with different conclusions, which would be okay. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

(film) should be considered a disambiguator, it should not be considered a term as used when defining a

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. From that, it should then follow that article titles that contain disambiguators cannot be primary topics since their terms are already disambiguated by virtue of containing a disambiguator. I think it will complicate things much much more if, instead of disambiguating ambiguous terms completely, we go down the road of assigning films the status of co-primary topic or secondary-primary topic. I wouldn't just leave it up to common sense to deal with this in the future because common sense varies from one person to the next and, without a clear set of guidelines, any subsequent discussions are likely to rehash some of these same arguments. The Independence Day may seem like a minor issue but implementing a guideline on this may avoid issues with terms like John Smith form being assigned primary and co-primary topic status. Big Bird (talk • contribs

) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy if that opening sentence was in the guideline. We have sufficient issues with primary topic already. If that sentence was in place, it would make naming of dab pages easier and clearer. If I'm dabing the title, why not have unique dabs without an extra level of disambiguation. BTW, I closed the Independence Day discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we all agree that most searchers are going to type in "Independence Day" or "Elephant" or "Avatar" even if they want the films. The issue under discussion here does not affect that majority one way or the other. The question is what article the minority who type in "Avatar (film)" or "Avatar film" or "Avatar (movie)" or "Avatar movie" should be sent to. They add up to only 3% of the viewers of Avatar (2009 film) (the above stat s/b 0.89%, not 0.089%) but still represent 35,000+ searchers last month. All 35,000 were sent to a dab page when almost all of them wanted Avatar (2009 film), the primary usage of those 4 phrases by the criteria suggested at WP:PT. That's a lot of people even if a small percentage. Whether readers get where they want directly or via a redirect doesn't really matter, but the primary usage for those 4 search terms is fairly clear to me. Station1 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, so perhaps something along the lines of?: Articles whose titles include artificial qualifiers (e.g. the article for James Cameron's 2009 film, as contrasted with the article at "Avatar" about the Hindu religious concept) should be titled such that they are completely unambiguous (e.g. Avatar (2009 film), not Avatar (film)); pages with qualified but still ambiguous titles (e.g. Avatar (film)) may redirect either to a disambiguation page (e.g. Avatar (disambiguation)) or an unambiguously-titled article (Avatar (2009 film)), depending upon local consensus. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

From a disambiguation stand, Avatar (2009 film) could just as easily be moved to Avatar (film). There are many instances of one film/song/album/etc. having the simple qualifier and others having more specific ones; it works from the dab stand. If the film/music/etc. project wants to specify one way or the other, they can, and we could note that here, but I don't think we should proscribe Avatar (film) as a potential title. (Also, I'd avoid calling the qualifiers "artificial"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "artificial" is meant to convey that (film) or (album) is an arbitrary, although agreed upon, Wikipedia construct that may as well have been (movie) or (LP) and has no bearing to the actual real-world name of the subject. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Er, to your first two sentences, arguably no, hence why this very discussion is even happening; there's no specific guidance for or against that in current policy, it's just the happenstance of some articles and hasn't really been examined up till now; and as I and some others are trying to point out, it doesn't make sense to only half-disambiguate article titles. What's wrong with calling them artificial?, that's exactly what "(film)" et al. are; editors like you and me concoct them because we must for organizational reasons to keep articles on different subjects from having the same title. They're not arbitrary, but they're not natural; something like Avatar film would be natural and its traffic backs that up, but we obviously don't use it because it's less professional and systematic. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no specific guidance for or against it because it's possible to disambiguate without that guidance -- that's why there should continue to be no specific guidance for or against it here, and instead we can (continue to) leave it up to the topic projects or the individual pages. "parenthetical qualifier" is most accurate; they aren't exactly artificial; organizational reasons aren't artificial, and "artificial" can have more emotional weight than is needed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, it's not part of the subject's real name or title and, in its current form and usage, is unique to Wikipedia. Let's not get sidetracked by semantical arguments. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not disambiguation if the title is still ambiguous, and not making any decision on the issue leaves the encyclopedia looking inconsistent. The only reason the "primary topic" concept exists is so most readers have to click less to get to their intended article, and the rough outline of a rule I laid out wouldn't increase the "clicking distance" of any articles. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not everything in the encyclopedia has to be consistent with everything else. "Avatar" is ambiguous. "Avatar (film)" is not -- that would not be the expected encyclopedia article title of multiple topic, because it would not be the expected title of any of them. Now that the disambiguation project has been going on for a while, some savvy readers might have the "meta-expectation" of that title. But still, just like the plant articles go with Latin names and the bird articles go with Initial Caps of Common Names, so can the film project and the music project possibly make different calls with how to deal with the qualifiers in "their" spaces. Or even decide to go one way or the other in order to be consistent with another project. But that's their call. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is one, direct Elephant (film) to Elephant_(disambiguation)#Films. Otherwise you are constantly evaluating and rating which is original research. ~ R.T.G 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Avatar and Avatar (film) are both ambiguous. What everyone tends to forget is that a simple query is available if you are unsure. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RTG, that's hardly original research, but it is one of the possible (but not the only possible) working arrangements of those titles. Vegaswikian, the Google search won't tell you who expects to find an encyclopedia article titled "Avatar (film)", nor if those people are looking for different things. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It just might be better that if I type "Elephant film" into the search box and get all the films called "Elephant" rather than changing it every time there is a new Elephant the movie. That happens by redirecting to the disambig#Films section. The other way it doesn't happen and I have to get all clicky if the one you gave me does not match the one I was looking for not to mention letting me know there were more films of that name. ~ R.T.G 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I read this whole discussion and it seems to be utterly ridiculous. Basically, the only reason to carry the move out is:

There is absolutely no problem with where the article stands right now. There is no confusion as there is a disambiguation page and a hatnote leading to the other movie. The move, other than ridiculous, is also unnecessary. Feedback