Jump to content

Talk:Bing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect or disambiguation

[edit]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the dab belongs here rather than at Bing (disambiguation). I'd move this myself, but I'm not getting involved in the current petty edit war. So consider this proposed. The search engine is brand new and there's no evidence that it's the primary use for the name at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted this on the talk page of Bing (disambiguation) - I assume what you mean is that the dabpage should be at Bing, the search engine should be at Bing (search engine), and Bing (disambiguation) should redirect to Bing. If so, I support this. It's not established yet that the search engine will be the primary usage. As a more general, point, though, I absolutely support having some page of content at Bing, whether it's the search engine or the dabpage. The current practice - repeatedly redirecting from Bing to whatever because that's the easiest way to edit war - wastes an oppurtunity to have content at the simplest title. Hopefully this discussion can fix at least that much. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There should always be either an article or a dab page at the root location - not doing so is nonsensical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this wasn't perceived as an edit war, but rather as BRD. I believe that Bing_(search_engine) should be moved to Bing. You are correct in that it was my mistake to make Bing a redirect when it could hold content.

I would like to propose that:

Here is the cause for my concern for leaving Bing in the state of a disambiguation page as it is now...

While some may view it as a miscalculation, most viewers seeing the Bing disambig page are headed for Bing (search engine), and from what I can see 15% don't make it there. In addition, we are forcing tens of thousands of viewers to see a needless disambig page. I can tell that most people seeing Bing are off to see the search engine because prior to Microsoft's Bing search engine Bing recieved less than 300 page views a day.

Please consider this and let me know if my logic/rationale is flawed in any way.Smallman12q (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable proposal, but I'd like to see what the intended target of most inbound wikilinks is first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many from article space - four from spelling or titling variants of "Bing", four for the search engine, three for the historical Chinese province of Bing (which we don't have an article on), two for the toy company, and four to various others. If we had an article on the province, it would a competitor for the primary usage; since we don't, those links are already dead-ends at the moment. On the other hand, three of the four spelling or titling variants clearly anticipate a dabpage being here (the fourth is from Bing (disambiguation)). I don't see that the links establish a clear primary usage. However, Smallman12q's other statistics are fairly informative. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

99% of Bing visitors seems to be here because of the Bing search engine. (before the search engine only 50 people a day). Lets just move this listing article to a disambiguity page and redirect Bing to the search engine article. hAl (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The support side was able to convincing show that the majority (upwards of 90%) of the current traffic for Bing is looking for Bing (search engine). However, there was no consensus that 3 months of "buzz generated" traffic is sufficient to establish a topic as primarily. As such, there is currently no consensus to move. I suggest revisiting this topic if the traffic for Bing remains elevated for several additional months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bing → Bing (disambiguation) — This page is currently getting tens of thousands of views that are meant for Microsoft's Bing (search engine). In addition, it appears as though many people don't "turnover" to the Bing article and simply leave because they see this isn't the "Bing" they were looking for. See the discussion below. Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Support. The search engine gets over 100k page views per month,[1] which is over 20 times more than the second most popular page titled "Bing". Moving the search engine to Bing is a helpful move for the readers. Jafeluv (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recentism at work 70.19.117.122 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recentism? Care to elaborate?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had heard that Microsoft had given up on bing and was going to bling instead, I mean Yahoo, but this story[2] indicates that with the deal with Yahoo, Microsoft will make Yahoo use their search engine. The story is hosted by google and ends with the comment that bing results are not as comprehensive as Yahoo's and that Yahooer's will switch to Google when they notice that. I think that Bing has been around long enough to warrant the switch to primary topic. All of the rise in bing traffic[3] has been due to the search engine. I would recommend leaving the article at Bing (search engine), though, and using Bing as a redirect, and moving the dis to Bing (disambiguation), and placing at the top of the search engine article, Bing redirects here, for other uses see Bing (disambiguation). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What would be the benefit of leaving this at the disambiguated title if the plain Bing would redirect there anyway? Per our disambiguation guideline, if there's a primary topic it should be at the plain title. If not, the disambiguation page should be at the plain title. Neither scenario supports the plain title being a redirect somewhere else (although that setting can also be used—see Danzig, for example). Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You lose the page views when you do that, it is too new to just move it to Bing, in my opinion. As to the original question "In addition, it appears as though many people don't "turnover" to the Bing article and simply leave because they see this isn't the "Bing" they were looking for." I would interpret that as people using WP for a topical dictionary and heard or saw the word Bing, and learned all they wanted to know about it from the disambiguation page. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This move request smacks of recentism. A search engine which only just went up a few weeks ago is not notable enough to deserve the article name. As for people leaving after not seeing it's a disambiguation page, that is original research and not relevant. It is NOT the primary topic and Bing should remain a disambiguation page as there are many notable topics that use the name. The search engine is getting a lot of hits because it just launched and people are curious about it, a lot of products get a surge of interest when they launch but many then quickly drop back down. TJ Spyke 22:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; Microsoft is currently working with Yahoo! on developing a search engine jointly, we can't count on Bing lasting long. — CIS (talk | stalk) 05:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what we do. We don't name our articles based on expectations of the future: we name them based on what the most likely search targets for the term is right now. If things change in the future, nothing prevents us from moving the article back to its original location or even completely another location. Jafeluv (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crystal ball policy notwithstanding, I also think recentism comes into play with this request. I just don't think the search engine is popular enough compared to other "Bing" namesakes to warrant a redirect. I would support noting the search engine as the primary topic on the disambig. page though, which I can go ahead and do now. — CIS (talk | stalk) 06:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A couple of redirects containing Bing, Bling, Microsoft, Yahoo, Windows, search engine, Vista ... might solve the issue. No reason to change the wikipedia naming structure for such a temporary hype. There might be a trick to add HTML keywords to redirects to improve search hits. --Foroa (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The easiest way to look at this is through statistics:

Note: Bing was unveiled in May of 2009

    • In April of 2009, Bing received 1385 page views. Stats
    • In May of 2009, Bing received 15102 page views. Stats
    • In June of 2009, Bing received 128577 page views. Stats
    • In July of 2009, Bing received 55472 page views. Stats

Below is a chart showing the number of page views the various topics under Bing disambiguation have received for July 2009. These stats can be seen at Wikipedia article traffic statistics

Article Name Page Views
Bing (search engine) 139042
Bing (Chinese flatbread) 2063
Bing (company) 1260
Bing (mining) 223
Bing (program) 1120
Bing (soft drink) 658
Bing (surname) 585
Bing cherry 14918
Barbershop in Germany 162
Bing Crosby 85072
Bing Devine 397
Brett Lee 17577
Dave Bing 6867
Jon Bing 289
Stanley Bing 870
Twin Bing 346
Bada Bing 10300
Chandler Bing 37630
Byng 356

Page Views that Bing received prior to the search engine and when it was unveiled

Month Page Views
200901 1646
200902 1262
200903 1426
200904 1385
200905 15102 (when Bing (search engine) came out)
200906 128577
200907 57399

Please view related information:

Personally, I believe that Bing (search engine) is indeed the primary topic and that we are forcing ten of thousands of viewers to see this page needlessly.Smallman12q (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition- I've added a chart showing the number of page views that Bing received prior to the search engine, as well as after. It can clearly be seen that prior to the search engine, Bing received under 3k views a month, while after the search engine, it receives over 50k page views per month.Smallman12q (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that Bing (search engine) is indeed the primary topic'": Will this still be true after a year or two? New things are often a sensation for a while, then they become part of the scenery. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but page moves aren't made for two years at a time. They can be reversed at any time if it seems that the search engine is no longer the primary topic. Therefore, what really should interest us now is: what will a reader searching for 'Bing' most likely be looking for right now? Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - misdirected external links to Wikipedia are not our problem. --96.243.59.151 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? It is wikipedia that is misdirecting them=P.Smallman12q (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless better information comes up. The search engine may be popular and its article may get a lot of views, but that doesn't prove that it is the primary sense of the word "Bing" and it doesn't prove that most people who type "Bing" into the search box are actually looking for Bing (search engine). (The fact that that page has the most views doesn't necessarily prove it; those people could have come there by clicking internal links or external links, or typing its name directly.) Unless someone can find proof that almost everyone who types "Bing" goes on to follow that link, I don't think we have strong enough evidence that that is the PRIMARYTOPIC for this word. The crux of this issue is whether Bing is the primary topic, but in my experience primary topics have been much more clear-cut than this.... for a hypothetical example, if there were a 1920s shoemaker from Serbia who was named Barack Obama, it would be appropriate to consider the US president the primary topic. In this case, though, the number of other topics is quite large, and even if they are not as notable or popular as Bing they are at least notable or popular enough to not be quite as bad as Barack Obama the shoemaker. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a chart which shows the number of page views prior to Bing (search engine) and they were roughly 3k or so a month compared to 50k a month after Bing came out. Is this the information you were looking for?Smallman12q (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Bing Crosby numbers are a substantial fraction of the Bing search engine numbers, and those aren't likely to vary much over time, while the Microsoft Bing numbers are likely to decline until they reach stability. Once we see where they settle to, then we can decide if changes need to be made. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the discussion is headed more towards this question: Is Bing (search engine) the primary topic for Bing? Well I've looked at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it states as follows: 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)".(should be an an in there=P). And so I ask, what are the criteria(or guidelines) for determining a primary topic? I find that I have hit additional ambiguity as there is no Wikipedia entry that defines what exactly is a primary topic. So could someone please explain/post what makes a topic primary?Smallman12q (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most of the inbound links are to the search engine, which is by far the most important consideration (as we want inbound links to get people to the right article as often as possible). Most of the arguments made in opposition have no founding in our naming conventions, and the rest rely on the prediction that the search engine will become less popular in time; we shouldn't base arguments here on predictions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What's the benefit of having disambiguation at Bing?

[edit]

There was debate whether or not we should move the Bing search engine article to Bing for the sake of convenience, as opposed to having the disambiguation page here. I'm taking this discussion with a grain of salt as there are haters and fanboys of all stripes and colors. Given the fact that we can disambiguate as much as we want even at a perfectly decent and legitimate article name such as Bing (disambiguation), what are the primary benefits of locating the article with the overwhelming majority of the traffic at somewhere other than the most convenient spot? In terms of optimizing Wikipedia for the benefit of Wikipedia and its users? Can I get an explanation of the pros from just one side, so that I can get a better understanding? Question posed by a non-fanboy user with zero Microsoft software and Google as the default search engine. —Tokek (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, as I showed before, logic doesn't always rule here. I'd propose that we at least do a "trial run" and see how many views the disambig page gets then. Smallman12q (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bing redirects to Bing (search engine)

[edit]

Bing now redirects to Bing (search engine)...curious to see what kind of traffic Bing (Disambiguation) gets...Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked to have the malformed move reversed; it mangled the page history and left the disambiguation page at a nonstandard target. I'll be clear; I think having the dabpage at Bing is correct, and so I'm asking for this to be returned to my preferred version - but in any case, that move is an example of the exact wrong way to preform such a change. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved against a previously established discussion, and should be reverted at once. Once a consensus discussion has been processed against just this specific move, it should not be done without establishing a new consensus. 76.66.201.240 (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's back to the status quo ante now. If anyone wants to start another discussion on the naming issue, be my guest - but previous evidence is that discussion will remain inconclusive. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is terrible that 95% or more of the people visiting this page trough using Bing are a lookup phrase are looking for the Bing (search engine) article. When such an extremly large majority of visitors using a specific lookup phrase are looking for only one subject then they should not get a disambuguity page but they should be forwarded to that subject page directly and have a link to the disambiguity page on there. 62.58.36.58 (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in as someone just looking for the page on the search engine and getting this page. I even scanned the list a couple times before I found the correct link. So, I moved the search engine link to the top of the list, but I would support making a search for Bing point directly there with a link to this disambiguation page at it's top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.6.109 (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status report

[edit]
"This is the first time that I have heard of Bing the search engine" Not a chance.
Have you heard of Yahoo? Bing is the third largest search-engine, from one of the planet's leading software firms. The page should clearly lead to Bing (search engine) and not to a disambiguation page. This 'argument' is loaded with NPOV trolls. 173.206.50.230 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed another uncalled for personal attack, but the discussion is actually at Talk:Bing (search engine)#Move?. I have left the personal attack above as a horrible example of what not to do - call someone names and either completely misundertand what happened or deliberately distort what happened, I'm not sure which. Anthony moved what was already a dab page called 'Bing' to a dab page called 'Bing (Disambiguation}'. When we do that sort of thing, we can't be expected to recall every entry (or even any entry) on the page. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I missed this [4] where he undid a redirect in June 2009 that someone had made. But he still can't be expected to remember reverting someone on something trivial, and he did not change Bing to this disambiguation page, his revert there simply restored the status quo. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bing (province)

[edit]

Currently a redlink with no incoming links, I have nonetheless added Bing (province) as an entry on this disambiguation page. Over 300 articles on English Wikipedia now refer to Bing Province or Bing province, all but a handful without any link. Like Shanxi, Bing is often used alone (without "Province" or "province" or other qualifier such as "region" or "area"). 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that Bing Zhou is just Shanxi by an older name, and we have a little information on Bing in that article. I agree that this is an omission, so I'll create some redirects for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, Bing must be kept distinct from Shanxi; it is clear the two are not the same, even though they are geographically co-located. It is similar to keeping Roman Empire separate from Italy. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Power Systems

[edit]

I was rather surprised that no article exists for this company - their products are widely used in various cars and motorcycles, and in the popular Rotax 912 light aircraft engine. I added it to this disambiguation page nonetheless, even if it now shows up as a red link. There is an article on the German wikipedia, though, at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_Power_Systems but I couldn't get the interlanguage linking to work. Best of all, of course, would be if someone created the article on this wikipedia. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An existing article in the English Wikipedia is necessary for disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

[edit]

Dear editors: the above RM from August 2009 has essentially been reversed as per this recent RM on the argument that the search engine has no long-term significance. However, I have noticed a number of editors during that RM arguing that Bing Crosby could have primary topic status judging by long-term page views. Hence I would just like to gather opinion from other editors on whether this could possibly be an option. Thanking you in advance for your feedback. Regards, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Possibly place to try WP:DABTEST to measure the usage of just Bing for Bing Crosby. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Google Trends, the search engine Bing gets a lot more hits than Bing Crosby. For this reason, I suggest moving this title to "Bing (disambiguation)" so that "Bing (search engine)" can be moved to "Bing". Aasim 17:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a different conversation that would have to be proposed on that article's talk, but to put my two cents in that wouldn't seem consistent to me. Those other two titles are appropriate because they are search engines from the companies Google and Yahoo, each of which has a variety of other products and services as well. If Microsoft had decided to just slap a search bar onto their site then we might have a Microsoft Search, but instead they decided to call the new service Bing. Since Bing is only a search engine and there is no "Bing <something else>", the current title is appropriate. I suppose it could also be Microsoft Bing, but I assume it's already been discussed at some point. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bing&oldid=1242569121"