Talk:Dreamweaver (disambiguation)

Why two

Yes, its unusual to have two primary topics. But after a discussion at Talk:Dreamweaver, this seems to be an optimal solution. The two items are very likely the top two most likely hits for Dreamweaver/Dream Weaver. If we split the dab page, they would likely be the primary topic for their respective dab pages. But for the other entries, there can be confusion as to whether the editors will expect the blank to be there or not, so a common dab page makes sense. Therefore the two "primary topics." Both primary topics have hatnotes that point both to the "other" primary topic page and to this dab page. Please discuss if you have a better solution! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 02:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamweaver and disambiguation

Hi!

There's a discussion regarding disambiguation at Talk:Dreamweaver#Dreamweaver and disambiguation which may be of interest.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page improvement

Okay, as requested by the gentle editor calling for BRD (despite the fact that I wasn't afforded that same courtesy), I will defend the better form of the dab page by noting that it uniformly follows the fomat of virtually every other dab page I've seen. This one that keeps getting reverted back to seems to favor a specific technology term, which would seem somewhat less than netural. As the other editor is at three reverts, it's likely in their best interest to discuss the matter. The older view of the page: ([1]), and the newer, more uniform version of the same page (with no terms removed) (2) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this conversation not better be held at Talk:Dreamweaver#Dreamweaver and disambiguation? TFOWR^propaganda 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts? I reverted your bold redoing of the page, and restored the version as you had no consensus for it and it directly conflicted with the current consensus at Talk:Dreamweaver#Dreamweaver and disambiguation. Please be more careful in such claims, as it seems very bad faith. You boldly redid the page, it was reverted. It is to you to discuss and get consensus for your changes. As noted in your other complaint about this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation‎#Other problem with the Dreamweaver dab page, the current version properly follows WP:MOSDAB, in which the primary topic is put at the top. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that three reverts are still reverts, unless reverting blatant vandalism, of which we both know my edits were not. It isn't bad faith to remind you of that which you appear to have forgotten so many times in the past; it's prudent. Now, if you want to discuss bad faith, I would think that calling someone "dishonest" is a lot more bad faith, as it extends beyond the incident at hand; anyone can screw up and forget how many edits they have made, whereas being dishonest is no mistake (you know, like hamfistedly trying to frame an introductory question to suit your needs and dumbly expecting to get away with it). It was a blatantly stupid accusation on your part, and easy to refute. Your immediate next step should have been to apologize. You might want to talk with others about the wisdom of this. If you are considering the burden of apology to someone with a smaller edit count than you too burdensome, realize that mistakes, freely admitted,, build a lot more bridges than apologies avoided. You fucked up, plain and simple. If your ego won't let you apologize, that's fine, but expect a bad rep to develop because of it.

Now, I have stated repeatedly that your proof for the primary target being the software is seriously flawed. I will keep saying it because the truth of it isn't going to alter. The change I made conforms to thousands of other dab pages out there (I conformed the page to the thirty I quickly surveyed). Instead of simply reverting with a snarky message (and we've both seen how ineffective those are with me), you should have sought out a compromise, or at the very least better discussion. Again, a failure of AGF on your part. I am still willing to discuss it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders

It is impossible to have two primary topics; this is a technical limitation of Wikipedia. The base name can only go to one article (topic). If it is really important to have a primary topic for Dreamweaver and a different primary topic for Dream Weaver, you'd need two disambiguation pages: Dreamweaver (disambiguation) and Dream Weaver (disambiguation). I don't think it's that important.
Alternative solution (already done) of putting the song in the hatnote on Adobe Dreamweaver is a good one. It would still be listed as the "first alternate" here too -- in the list, under the "music" group.
Regardless, Dream Weaver (song) should be moved to Dream Weaver rather than being the target of that redirect. Or the redirect should be changed to either here or the software.
Any warnings of 3RR violations should occur on the allegedly offending party's talk page, and a subsequent revert reported accordingly. There's no sense getting into here. If you have to get into it anywhere, include links to the diffs of the reverts you think are in violation.

Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC) (I've switched bullets to numbers for ease of commenting)[reply]

I understand I'm bending the definition of "primary topic," but I think it makes a lot of sense here for the reasons I mentioned. You don't say what you think is wrong with it? There seemed to be consensus at the referenced talk page. And I'm not sure what you think is not important.
I've done it on both pages.
Could you do the move (or is it one a non-admin can do).
I think much of the frustration in the discussions had to do with not realizing that "Dream Weaver" redirected to "Dreamweaver." Many were assessing things on entering Dreamweaver alone and not Dream Weaver as well. I'm not saying this excuses any of the bad conduct, only to say that some of the catalyst for it has gone away.

Thanks for the comments. I'm most interested in item 1. This seems to be a good solution for this rather unusual case. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll perform the move of the (song) after a few days (or a week) after the redirect change, to allow any objections a short chance to surface.

As for item 1, physically you can't have two primary topics for a disambiguation page. When the user strips off the "_(disambiguation)" portion of the URL, they'll find the actual primary topic, and regardless, the entries of the competing topics still have to be ordered on the page -- one has to come first and one has to come second. See America (and especially Talk:America) for more. Some alternatives that I think would work just as well here (leaving no reason to invoke WP:IAR, since no benefit is gained, even if the base name and ordering problems could be solved), roughly in order of how I'd do it if it were just up to me (the first two are really a tie though, but I have to list one first):

Move the disambiguation page to the base name and use the "most often refer to/may also refer to" grouping as on America or Charleston; redirect both "Dreamweaver" and "Dream Weaver" there. (This is how the "two primary topics" problem is typically solved.)
Dreamweaver is the primary topic, Dream Weaver is the first entry in the list. This is essentially what you have now, except for the list is formed differently (bolding in the entry, and the entry appearing before the "may also refer to" line.
Split Dreamweaver (disambiguation) and Dream Weaver (disambiguation)
Find a neutral third spelling ("DreamWeaver"?), leave each of the other two as the primary topics for their spellings but no primary topic for the third. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are a nice span of possible solutions. The first seems to mesh well with the way in which the page is currently set up. Granted, it is a bit of a different case than America (since here the confusion is punctuational rather than a greater referential problem), but if it seems like confusion between Dreamweaver and Dream Weaver (song) is great enough to ignore some of the rules, the first of JHunterJ's suggestions would be a reasonable way to go. The second and third suggested solutions follow the manual of style a bit more, but require one to decide if/which article is the primary topic, or decide that neither warrant the status (although the third solution would seem to require a bit too much overlinking, as well as the fact that different capitalizations/punctuations of words don't usually get different disambiguation pages - see the examples of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Introductory_line - although I have been out of the loop for a while so it is possible that this has changed somewhat!). Regardless, if the pseduo-two primary topic deal does end up staying the case, I agree with JHunterJ's previous statement that Dream Weaver (song) should end up being located at Dream Weaver. -- Natalya 12:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walk me through an example of the way this would play out for the casual user, JHunter. Some of the technical stuff is still a little bit over my head. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. What's the casual user doing?

Entering "Dreamweaver", looking for the software. Option 1, he would reach the dab page and click through the topic entry. Options 2, 3, 4, he would land on the Adobe product article.
Entering "Dream Weaver", looking for the software. Option 1, he would reach the dab page and click through the topic entry. Options 2 and 4, he lands on the song page, clicks through to the dab, clicks through to the software article. Option 3, he lands on the song page, clicks through to one dab, clicks through from there to the other dab, and lands on the product article.
Entering "Dreamweaver", looking for the song. Option 1, he would reach the dab page and click through the topic entry. Options 2 and 4, he lands on the software page, clicks through to the dab, clicks through to the song article. Option 3, he lands on the software page, clicks through to one dab, clicks through from there to the other dab, and lands on the song article.
Entering "Dream Weaver", looking for the song. Option 1, he would reach the dab page and click through the topic entry. Options 2, 3, 4, he lands on the song page.
Entering either term, looking for one of the other topics. Option 1, he reaches the dab page and clicks through to the sought topic. Options 2 and 4, he reaches an article, clicks through to the dab, and clicks through to the topic. Option 3, he reaches an article, clicks through to one dab, and might need to click through to the other if he's used the "wrong" title.

Any but that last case might be mitigated by use of {{two other uses}} on the articles at the base names. The current layout plays out exactly like option 2, except that is doesn't conform to the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for eloquently spooling it out like that (nice job). I think I like option one the most - fewer clicks than any of the others, save for accidentally ending up precisely where they wanted to go. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course vacating "Dreamweaver" to put the dab page there was handily rejected at Talk:Dreamweaver. –xeno^talk 14:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And ending up where the majority want to go isn't an accident. If the majority can be served by correct identification of a primary topic, then option 1 does not result in the fewest clicks -- those reaching precisely where they wanted to go bring the click average down. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that presupposes that the "majority" is being determined appropriately; I don't think it is in this case, JHunterJ. I think the popularity of the song with most users is being vastly underestimated, and the popularity of the software program is - conversely - vastly over-estimated. Consider two other Adobe programs, Acrobat and Flash: both initial landing pads are dab pages, though a google search pulls up almost completely software programs.

I think it isn't unreasonable to say that internet searches tend to skew in favor of computer programs and computer-related material and topics. Not everyone uses the internet for that, and not everyone uses the Wiki-en to look at discussions of software. I think that, in recognition of that, we need to dab the words "dreamweaver" and "dream weaver". I say both because until I discovered the song article, I didn't know there was a space between 'dream' and 'weaver' (you can't really hear it in the song). I am guessing that most searchers aren't going to know either.

I think that using a single dab page makes it a more efficient solution for all concerned. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is only one part of the calculation. We also looked at page views which showed that Adobe Dreamweaver was far and away the primary topic for Dreamweaver. –xeno^talk 15:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it sounds like there would have to be a change in consensus to change from "Adobe is the primary topic of Dreamweaver" to "Neither the song nor the Adobe product is more primary than the other for Dreamweaver". You can try a move request to see about changing consensus, or use options 2, 3, or 4 (each of which leaves the redirect Dreamweaver pointing to the Adobe product). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

As I pointed out rather explicitly before, wiki article viewer totals are even worse at determining a primary topic, as a initial search will show everyone who was redirected to a given page, whether it was the correct article or not. I am unfamiliar with move requests, so I would be concerned about messing it up and causing further confusion. Look, I am not advocating that we confine Adobe dreamweaver to a dank little closet under the stairs. I am instead suggesting that an elegant and efficient solution is available for us. As the internet skews towards computer-related topics, it is unwise to use a web search as proof-positive that a given software (and internet-focused software at that) is more popular. It isn't as if this has never been done before without success. It can be done, and causes the least amount of ruckus for the casual user. I mean seriously, are we declining to add a single click to one choice and create at least two additional clicks (and unquantifiable levels of frustration) for everyone else? That isn't encyclopedic. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to find your hypothesis that there are many people that arrive erroneously at Adobe Dreamweaver by way of Dreamweaver but then simply wander off rather than clicking through to the dab page (which got only 611 views last month) dubious in the extreme. We determine primary topic based on the data available to us, not on the data not available to us about some hypothetical reader completely that glosses over the hatnote. –xeno^talk 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I am not arguing for or against any of the stats that have or haven't been used to determine the primary topic for any of the dreamweaver names. Seriously, we are using the guidelines determined by consensus for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you don't want to mess with move requests (needed for option 1), which of options 2, 3, or 4 do you prefer? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about 5. Move the disambiguation page to Dream Weaver (disambiguation) with Dream Weaver (song) as primary topic, and Adobe Dreamweaver as first in the list. ? –xeno^talk 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whups. Yes, I missed that option. That would work too. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, I apologize if I mis-stated myself; I am saying that people who type in 'dreamweaver' automatically end up in the adobe program because of the redirect. The article traffic stats aren't going to reflect who ended up there by accident. They are only going to show who landed.

Using the same tool, I see that "dreamweaver" (which redirects to the software) received 6224 hits, and "dream weaver" (which redirects to the song) received 927 hits - and that's without the generic redirect for those who don't know to put the space in and initially land at the software. The song gets no boost from the wiki search engine (no space between words means the searcher is going to end up at the software). Additionally, the performer, Gary Wright gets 7882 hits. What that suggests to me is that, once the user gets the wrong entry, they re-search, using the artist's name instead of the song, all to find the song. That says to me that my suggestion that people are ending up in the wrong place as the initial landing pad isn't as dubious as you suggest. The inconvenience of a single additional keystroke for the users of the software program pales in significance when compared to the inconvenience faced by those not wanting the software, and having to take several additional steps.

Frankly, this is how I sought out the article as a reader, back before I started editing in Wikipedia. And I rarely noticed hatnotes at the top of the article until I started editing myself (which makes me one of te hypothetical readers). I am constantly pointing them out to my friends who barely use Wikipedia, or use it via their mobile device - and that brings up another point: a collective dab page (option 1) makes it easier for them to choose their destination with less hassle. It's sometimes easy to forget that not all the people who come to Wikipedia are jaded internet and Wikipedia users like we are. they may know how to click a link within an article, but most will gloss over the hatnotes, mixed in as they are with the banner links, etc., intent on reading, instead, the actual article (or heading back to the search page, such as the case may be).

Too bad we don't have a tool that shows user search paths by IP (most readers don't have accounts); while incredibly intrusive, it would be pretty helpful in matters like this.

Xeno, I didn't say I did not want to use MoveRequest; I said I haven't used it before, and wouldn't want to mess up an article in my inexperience. If it means a dab page is the landing pad for both dreamweaver and dream weaver, I'm all for it. I just don;t know how to use it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know that only 611 people viewed the Dreamweaver disambiguation page. We don't know how many wandered off after disappointingly getting to the software. In any case, they no longer have to take additional steps. There is a link right at the top of the Adobe Dreamweaver page to the song. If they don't see the hatnote, I'm afraid that is simply their loss - we simply aren't (at least I think we aren't) going to inconvenience tens of thousands of users who wanted the software for an unknown number of hypothetical people who don't read the first line of the page. If you want to file a requested move, see WP:RM, but there is already consensus at Talk:Dreamweaver not to redirect it to the disambiguation, so I suspect the same will be echoed in a formal move request to vacate it for the disambiguation page. –xeno^talk 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but I have already clearly indicated that I myself (and others) are part of the group you are terming hypothetical. Ergo, not hypothetical, but actual.

As well, Ifind your continued reliance on pageview or Google searches for this particular situation to be frustrating. PRIMARY doesn't demand they be used - it suggests that they may be useful. I feel I've more than adequately pointed out the critical flaws in relying on each of those two methods in this specific case. I haven't the foggiest where you are getting your figure of "tens of thousands" inconvenienced by a single additional click. I find it far more likely that the tens of thousands are those who aren't getting the article they were seeking would be the ones inconvenienced.

And I guess I find it boggling that implementing a common dab for both should be like pulling teeth - it seems a pretty intuitive no-brainer to me. ::::::Okay, if necessary, I'll take it to pagemove and get some input there, while continuing to build consensus on dreamweaver (surprise surprise, the folk at that article don't want their spot as initial landing pad replaced by a dab). I am pretty strongly convinced that there are easy, efficient ways to do this. This discussion has rather soured me on the ability of Wikipedia regulars to adapt to and address unusual situations. You'd think I was killing a sacred cow, or something. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This situation is not at all unusual except for your continued persistence. I find it equally frustrating that you are still arguing against obvious consensus and long-standing practice. Your two arguments are quite vacuous - an unknown quantity readers who don't read hatnotes; and the belief that because the song has been around longer means it has a greater mindshare than the software. Neither of these are measurable. –xeno^talk 19:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the opening statements of this section, there are in fact precedents for disambiguation pages with more than one primary topic, usually based on differences in capitalization (e.g., HP (disambiguation), Krypton (disambiguation), Cloud (disambiguation), or FAD (disambiguation)) or less commonly on plural/singular (e.g., Freak (disambiguation). In this particular case, I think the software is pretty clearly primary topic for "Dreamweaver". There appears to be a reasonable case for the Gary Wright song to be the primary topic for "Dream Weaver", in that it is more likely that someone choosing to search with that precise capitalization/word split is looking for the song rather than the software. In my opinion, unless the disambiguation page is really long, I don't think users are helped by splitting disambiguation pages based on easily confused spelling/capitalization differences. This page really doesn't seem long enough to warrant splitting. I don't think there is anything wrong about listing multiple primary topics for easily confused spelling/capitalization differences. If the song is moved to "Dream Weaver" and the software remains at "Dreamweaver", there should be hatnotes that cross-referencing the other as well as the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I think that's what we have now (I've just moved the song to the base location). And I think we can put this to bed now. –xeno^talk 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don;t think we're quite there yet, Xeno. As has been pointed out before, Bkonrad, there is the problem that most aren't going to add that space (or even know it belongs there) in their initial search. Using a common dab (with both terms as primary) solved the problem efficiently, without a boatload of extra work. The way it is now, we haven't anything approaching a realistic view of how popular the software is or isn't. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - we do have something approaching a realistic view: we know that of the 6200 people who reached the page by the redirect, at most 611 continued to the disambiguation page. Even with the unknown number of readers who neglect to read the first line leading them to the hatnote, this is fairly good evidence that close to 90% of people typing "Dreamweaver" wanted the software. –xeno^talk 19:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) But it doesn't sound like anyone is prepared to go through the process of moving the dab to the common name, so this is where we are now. Xeno, Bkonrad, I am aware of other pages that are written as if there were two primary topics (indeed, I suggested HP (disambiguation) be written that way), but I had at least some of the points I listed (the technical limitations and implications) pointed out to me in one of the dab project discussions. Which of course I can't put my finger on now. It appears it is not explicit in the guidelines, but the physical limitations are there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't for a moment think you had forgotten the great HP debate. But the point you made at the top here seemed contrary to such an outcome. There is no explicit guidance about multiple primary topics, but there is guidance about combining terms on dab pages. It seems to follow that if there were primary topics for terms that are combined on a single disambiguation page, there would be multiple primary topics to list on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the limitations and implications were pointed out to me after that debate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the background of the HP debate, but I wanted to point out - again - that you are taking skewed information and twisting it into a balloon representation of one's small intestine. While you admit that the 6200 people who landed on the software program did so because of the redirect, you are presuming that 611 of them immediately went to the dab page, and that these were the only ones unhappy with their initial destination. I think that you are deducing that these folk used the hatnote at the software article to get there. I would further submit that it is equally if not more likely that these misdirected 6200 (or less - someone must want to know about the program) will simply either type the term again, alternating the spelling/spacing, or search a related term (in my above example, the artist).

In short, the fact that you cannot verify the process by which one gets to the dab page, you cannot make assumptions about it. And insisting that only hypothetical or addle-pated persons would gloss over the hatnote is a bit jaded. Most people do not read the manual, and will skip the links at the top to see if their preferred topic will be down near the bottom of the article (since we're conditioned to look at the bottom for a 'see also')

Therefore (while other reasons exist), using page statistics to determine primary topics where one of them is redirected from the most common search terms is simply ill-advised. At best. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This still appears to end in a move request, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]