Talk:Harrisburg

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg (disambiguation) → Harrisburg

Support - restore disambiguation page to its original title. --Una Smith (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only widely known Harrisburg is the capital of Pennsylvania which is clearly the primary meaning of the term, Harrisburg. So, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the article about the capital of Pennsylvania should be at Harrisburg, or, at the least, Harrisburg should continue to redirect to it (which it did until today when it was changed - I just reverted that). In any case, putting the dab at Harrisburg, or making Harrisburg redirect to the dab page, wrongly implies that there is no primary usage. The fact that there are many uses of a given term does not mean that not one of them is the primary meaning. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the relevant criteria is whether there is one topic that is "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)". By the google test results shown in the Comments section below, the Harrisburg of Pennsylvania clearly meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The capital of Pa. is the primary usage and gets many more page views than all the others. Station1 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than all the other entries combined? Station1, is that why you deleted all those other entries from the dab page? --Una Smith (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no; I explained why in the edit summary and below (and I'm not sure I appreciate the insinuation). Station1 (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose None of the other Harrisburg entries appear to be on the same level of usage as the Pennsylvania capital. --Polaron | Talk 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, relatively clear primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the capital of PA is obviously the primary topic. Powers ^T 02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By my calculation it is about 20 times the size of any of the other places mentioned. Sam⁵ (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Considerably larger and more widely known than all the others combined. Kanguole (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Google test results

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,570,000 for Harrisburg +pennsylvania Results 1 - 10 of about 5,410,000 for Harrisburg +PA

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,260,000 for Harrisburg -PA -Pennsylvania

These results clearly show that all references to all Harrisburgs outside of PA combined do not get as many hits as does the capital of Pennsylvania; clearly it is the primary meaning per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument assumes that "PA" returns pages having to do with Pennsylvania, USA. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that not an excellent assumption? Station1 (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it returns so many hits having nothing to do with Pennsylvania. The more appropriate Google test would be Harrisburg +Pennsylvania vs Harrisburg -Pennsylvania. --Una Smith (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "it returns so many hits having nothing to do with Pennsylvania"? I just did a search on "harrisburg +PA" and in the first 25 pages of results I noticed only one not related to Pennsylvania. Where are you looking? Station1 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PA" stands for many things besides Pennsylvania: it even has a Wikipedia dab page: Pa. --Una Smith (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true, but none of them in combination with Harrisburg makes much sense or returns any significant result in a google search of "harrisburg +PA" Station1 (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg +Pennsylvania: 1,580,000
Harrisburg -Pennsylvania: 5,890,000

--Una Smith (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrisburg -Pennsylvania" does not eliminate all references to the capital of PA. If you are trying to argue that the capital city of PA is not the primary topic for "Harrisburg", please state that explicitly (you didn't even mention it in your move proposal). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search term "PA" includes a lot of irrelevant data not related to the question at hand. So omit it. That leaves "Pennsylvania". The Google web search counts with and without "Pennsylvania" do not support the claim that Harrisburg, Pennsylvania meets the criteria for a primary topic. Moreover, because Wikipedia has numerous articles related to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the 1,580,000 Google hits for "Harrisburg +Pennsylvania" do not all belong to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Here are some more.

Results 1 - 10 of about 20,300,000 for Harrisburg
Results 1 - 10 of about 5,890,000 for Harrisburg -Pennsylvania.
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,510,000 for Harrisburg -Arkansas -Illinois -Indiana -Missouri -Nebraska -"New York" -"North Carolina" -Ohio -Oregon -"South Dakota" -Texas
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,820,000 for Harrisburg -Arkansas -Illinois -Indiana -Missouri -Nebraska -"New York" -"North Carolina" -Ohio -Oregon -"South Dakota" -Texas -Pennsylvania

So if you exclude just Pennsylvania you get 5.8M results (though this excludes reference to the PA capital that don't reference "Pennsylvania" by name), but if you exclude every state in which there is a Harrisburg except Pennsylvania, you get 4.5M. And if you add Pennsylvania to that list, the 4.5M goes down to 2.8M. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania appears to be the single most common Harrisburg on the web but not the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at Wikipedia stats is not helpful because Harrisburg redirects to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: what fraction of the readers who end up on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania want to be there? --Una Smith (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

97.8% in October, 98.4% in November. (pages views of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania minus page views of Harrisburg (disambiguation).) Station1 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is interesting, it does not exactly address the question. Harrisburg (disambiguation) has next to no incoming links, so next to no page visits. Its only function is to help alert editors choose the correct link to use. Meanwhile, like every other ambiguous title, the title Harrisburg will accumulate incoming links needing disambiguation. And, considering how many choices there are, especially all the articles about topics connected with Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the intended topic may well not be Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I just went though this with Weymouth and Weymouth, Dorset. Considering it has almost no incoming links, Harrisburg (disambiguation) is getting too many page hits. Arguably, every one of those readers is following this detour:

click to Harrisburg
redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
click to Harrisburg (disambiguation)
click to article actually wanted

And as Harrisburg (disambiguation) doesn't include most of the articles related to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the end the reader may have to use the search box, or just give up. --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dab page comment

The first sentence on the Harrisburg dab page clearly states the obvious:

Harrisburg usually refers to the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the United States of America.

Moving that dab page to Harrisburg, per this proposal, would be wrongly implying that there is no primary meaning for Harrisburg and would be a self-contradiction. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you in opposing the move, this is not a very good reason -- it is routine to adjust the hatnote after a page move. A hatnote is technically not a part of an article, but rather a part of the disambiguation/navigational apparatus. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance of the practice to adjust hatnotes after a move (which I agree is routine) to my point. First, the sentence I was referring to is not a hat note. Second, what's relevant here is not what it references, but what it states as fact (which remains true regardless of how we name things): "Harrisburg usually refers to the city of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania." That statement is true and will be true no matter how Wikipedia articles are arranged, what Wikipedia hat notes say, or even if Wikipedia disappears. If a given name (like Harrisburg) is a dab page, or redirects to a dab page, that implies that name has no primary topic, regardless of what hat notes say. For example, Cork is a dab page, and, not coincidentally, there is no primary topic for "Cork". But there is a primary topic for Harrisburg (as the first sentence on the dab page clearly states), so that primary topic, not a dab page, should be at Harrisburg. Hat notes have nothing to do with this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed that you mentioned the dab page. But nonetheless, adjusting such indications of primary topics on dab pages are routine. The statements are somewhat mechanical in that they reflect the location of page titles. That a disambiguation page contains an indication of what the current primary topic status is should not be construed as evidence that the current primary topic is accurate. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Well, it is supporting evidence that that is the consensus, though not conclusive evidence. You can't discount a piece of evidence simply because it alone is not conclusive. I mean, I think it's fair to assume that when a dab page says, "X usually refers to Y", it probably (but not definitely) does, especially if it has withstood the test of time. I should also note that no one is challenging that assertion here either, thus strengthening the credibility of this supporting evidence. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is really not evidence at all. The dab page is supposed to simply reflect the current location of the pages. The formulation is fairly formulaic. Although there are some pages where considerable deliberation went into how to phrase the lede for a dab page (a couple that come to mind, in case you're interested, were Baykal (disambiguation) and HP (disambiguation)), that is more the exception than the rule. Generally the line on a page with (disambiguation) in the title, mechanically refers to the base name page (whether that page is a redirect or the actual topic). The lede for a primary topic on a disambiguation page presumes that a person arriving at the disambiguation page has most likely gotten there by clicking on the hatnote on the primary topic. So rather than include it in the listings or exclude it altogether, the style was developed to separate the link to the primary topic. It is admittedly a little convoluted, as many things involved disambiguation tend to be, but the existence of the line means nothing more than an indication of the page's current names. Yes, you are correct that no one has questioned this, but that is somewhat different that saying the mere existence of the line is evidence of what the primary topic should be. older ≠ wiser 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that line is simply an explicit statement of what the longstanding redirect from Harrisburg to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania implies: that the capital of PA is the primary topic; that "Harrisburg" usually refers to the capital of PA. Given that redirect, I suppose it's not new or additional evidence. But, it is relevant here since the submitter of this proposal changed that redirect, but the evidence established by the first line on the dab page was not updated, perhaps because it wasn't noticed, but maybe because the submitter knew that it was true, or suspected that trying to change it would get noticed and challenged. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the submitter had something else to do and in the meantime Born2cycle jumped in and reverted the change. --Una Smith (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect page comment

Harrisburg is a redirect page; it has about 130 incoming links. If it were a disambiguation page, it would qualify for automatic listing on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If all (or even most) of the links are to Harrisburg, PA, then readers would be ill-served by having a disambiguation page instead of a redirect. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because all readers are served best if the links are correct. The redirect page serves those readers who are looking for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania at the expense of other readers. Ideally, a Wikipedia reader (not an editor) will never see a disambiguation page, because links created to the page will be so swiftly disambiguated. That is done by editing the articles linking to the disambiguation page, and fixing the links so they go directly to the intended article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, you seem to be only thinking of readers who get to a given page by clicking on some link on some other page, and ignoring the experience of any reader who gets to a page by typing in a term in the find/search box and pressing Go. It is true that readers who get to pages by clicking on other links within Wikipedia should, ideally (with some key exceptions), never see a dab page. To any reader who gets to a page by clicking on a link this issue is irrelevant. But I dare say that many readers get around by using the search box and clicking on Go. I know I do. And to any reader who gets to a page by clicking Go, this dab page issue is relevant, and readers doing that are best served by being taken directly to the page they are most likely looking for (a.k.a., the primary topic), when that can be reasonably determined. That's the whole point of recognizing and managing primary topics, like Harrisburg, the capital of PA, the way we do. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too use the search tool, and I dislike being detoured to someone else's idea of what is a primary topic, especially when the designated primary topic is some place I have not heard of. That's hijacking my search. London and Paris clearly are primary topics; almost everyone in the world has heard of them, knows roughly where they are, etc. But Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is nowhere near that class of primary topic. I have mental images of London and Paris, but Harrisburg PA draws a total blank. --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia considers as a primary topic for disambiguation purposes. It does not mean the topic is famous or well-known. It just means that of all the Wikipedia topics that are commonly called by that name, one topic is clearly dominant over the other topics. It should not be compared to other things that have different names. --Polaron | Talk 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who the "you" in Polaron's comment here refers to, but in case it refers to me, I will say I do understand. I understand, and I disagree with the view that Harrisburg, PA is "clearly dominant". The logs of Harrisburg show that the page was a disambiguation page before being made a redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 2006, apparently without prior discussion. --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that only 4 of the pages referring to this one were in error: 3 referring to Harrisburg, Texas, and a list of brands that shouldn't have been linked. Kanguole (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kanguole, to find those 4 did you look at the context of each link within the linking article, or just at article titles? --Una Smith (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I skipped any article with Pennsylvania in the title, but I looked for the link in context in the others. Most of those articles are about people I'd never heard of. Kanguole (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in wrong place

This discussion should really be at Talk:Harrisburg (disambiguation) because that is the page proposed to be moved. Station1 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! Because if this move succeeds, this page (and this discussion) will disappear. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't disappear. --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this page be deleted to make way for Harrisburg (disambiguation) to move here? Station1 (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but how the move is achieved is not important because this discussion and the page histories will be kept. An administrator can do that, which is why this requested move is listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Una Smith (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can admin keep this page (this discussion) and delete it? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can move and merge edit histories from one page to another. --Una Smith (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your apparent unwillingness to even assert your own belief that the capital of PA is not the primary topic for Harrisburg, not to mention the dearth of anyone else agreeing with you (at least so far), this appears to be a moot issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that Harrisburg PA does not meet the criteria for a primary topic as outlined in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In every proposed move there is a source and destination. In this case, the source is Harrisburg (disambiguation) and the destination is Harrisburg. These discussions are supposed to go on the source page. Even the move template macro is designed accordingly, in which the parameter is supposed to specify the destination page. In this case the discussion and move macro are on the wrong (source) page, so the comment at the top wrongly states that this is about moving Harrisburg to Harrisburg. This discussion is on the wrong page. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that. Well, a note on Talk:Harrisburg (disambiguation) already directs readers to the discussion here. Good enough? --Una Smith (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good enough, especially since it looks like the closing admin will not have to deal with history merging issues... --Born2cycle (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page

I added a lot of entries to the disambiguation page. Station1 reverted my contribution, with an edit summary citing MOS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created. However, that section of MOS:DAB includes The above does not apply if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title. and If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does. Also, that section advises that articles such as "Title Hospital" may require their own disambiguation pages. It may be time to create additional disambiguation pages for articles with Harrisburg in their title, but until that happens I suggest we put them all in this disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the links you added might conceivably be confused as simply "Harrisburg", but it looks like you just indiscriminately added every article on Wikipedia that contains the word Harrisburg. That is not helpful to readers for navigation and is contrary to a long-established and useful guideline: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices." (WP:D) Station1 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My additions to the disambiguation page were not indiscriminate. Periodically, I spend a lot of time disambiguating links to articles with ambiguous titles. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is just like Weymouth, Dorset in that Wikipedia has a lot of articles associated with it. I just finished disambiguating links to Weymouth, a task that included "dispersing" links among numerous articles related to Weymouth, Dorset, as well as to articles having nothing to do with Weymouth, Dorset. Ideally, no reader should ever see a disambiguation page, because all incoming links are changed immediately so they go to the appropriate article. Thus, the main purpose of a disambiguation page is to help editors disambiguate the incoming links. That purpose is facilitated if the disambiguation page is more comprehensive rather than less. In particular, it is important to include on the disambiguation page those satellite pages related to a larger place name. I mentioned Weymouth already. Another example is Enfield: the London Borough of Enfield has so many local place names (many called Enfield for short) that it needs a navbox: Template:LB Enfield. --Una Smith (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ideally, no reader should ever see a disambiguation page, because all incoming links are changed immediately so they go to the appropriate article. Thus, the main purpose of a disambiguation page is to help editors disambiguate the incoming links." What??? No reader should ever see a dab page??? Any time a user types in any ambiguous term (e.g., John) that has no primary topic (unlike Harrisburg which has a primary topic) they will see a dab page, and yes, that is the ideal. The main purpose of a dab page is to help readers find the article with the specific meaning of their ambiguous term that they are interested in. That dab pages also help editors disambiguate incoming links is not even a purpose of dab pages, but an unintended consequence that editors can and do leverage. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, readers should not see dab pages. Only editors should see dab pages, and use them to disambiguate (meaning fix) incoming links so that in future all readers go directly to the article they expect. I mentioned disambiguating Weymouth. A few weeks ago, that ambiguous title had over 1000 incoming links. Although many links intended Weymouth, Dorset, a large minority intended other articles. (It is only now apparent that 40% intended other articles!) Now Weymouth has only 7 incoming links, of which 2 are hatnotes, 4 are articles with context so ambiguous that I cannot disambiguate the link, and 1 is a new article. All other links have been disambiguated to go directly to the intended article. No matter what its content is, an ambiguous title will attract new links needing disambiguation. Disambiguating those links may not be feasible unless they are isolated. A disambiguation page at the ambiguous title provides that isolation. Consider the alternative. Weymouth, Dorset has about 600 incoming links. Had the title Weymouth remained occupied by an article about Weymouth, Dorset, each new link would have been buried among 600 existing correct links. Although 60% of new links would be correct, 40% would be wrong and very hard to find among the correct links. --Una Smith (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there is a difference here. Born2cycle mentions users typing in an ambiguous term. Those are searchers; readers are people who are reading an article and click on a wikilink to another article. I agree that searchers should see dab pages. Born2cycle, can you agree that readers should not? --Una Smith (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people make a distinction between the two. Powers ^T 12:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, consider the context of your words that I quoted above: "no reader should ever see ... Thus, the main purpose ... is to help editors disambiguate the incoming links." The word "thus" indicates a conclusion, in this case a conclusion based on a single assumption: "no reader should ever see a dab page."

If by readers you were only referring to users when reading and intentionally excluding users when searching then you wrongly concluded that the main purpose of dab pages is to help users when editing (editors) because that conclusion was based on assumptions that ignored the experience of users when searching (the helping of whom is the main and only purpose of dab pages - the dab page effect of helping editors is merely an unintended consequence of dab pages, not a purpose). So whether your words are interpreted with or without the reader/searcher distinction, the logic is faulty, and the conclusion that the main purpose of dab pages is to help editors is plainly wrong. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, you make the same logical error above, where you wrote "That's right, readers should not see dab pages. Only editors should see dab pages, ..." Only editors should see dab pages? Again, what about users who are searching for terms that turn out to be ambiguous? You agree they too should see dab pages. So why do you contend that "only editors should see dab pages"? So that you may (wrongly) conclude that the "main purpose" of dab pages is to help editors, and then argue that how dab pages help editors the most should be the main factor when considering where to put them? It would be a relevant argument, in a fantasy world absent of users who searched. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about search box users. Okay, let's consider them. When I search I use the Search button not the Go button, so I don't care what the article title is. On reflection, I see I do that precisely to avoid the "primary topics" that occupy ambiguous article titles. But a larger question is this: of the readers who reach an article of interest, what percentage got there via links and what percentage got there via the search box? Also, does serving most search box users justify sending others (search box users and link navigators) on time-wasting detours? Finally, the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC qualifies what is a "primary topic" and I think that is being disregarded by some contributors here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you forget about search box users? Regardless, that explains your lack of appreciation for the primary topic guideline. I almost exclusively use the Go button. And when I don't get to my desired page, I usually get put on a dab page, or the primary topic with a hat note link to the dab page, from which I can quickly find my topic. By the way, I consider learning that the meaning I'm searching for is secondary to some primary meaning as useful, which is what happens when I get sent to a primary topic page when I'm looking for a secondary meaning. I dare say that is the most basic and probably the most popular way to find things on Wikipedia, unless it's incoming links from google, etc.

By the way, as editors we are probably much more likely to be looking for secondary meanings of terms than are average users who are just using Wikipedia for information. They are, by definition, most likely to be looking for the primary topic of a given ambiguous search term (assuming it has a primary topic). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption. It may be true, or not. It is less likely to be true when the "primary topic" is not very primary. Absent any data on the search terms used by visitors, and on their subsequent link selections, we have to use proxies. I try not to use assumptions as a proxy. One proxy that I like is a review of the outcome of disambiguating links. I like it because it is quantitative, it reflects the behavior of Wikipedia editors, and fixing links is constructive. Weymouth and Harris are two recent cases. In both cases, there were enough incoming links that should go to other pages, to support replacing "primary topics" with dab pages at those ambiguous titles. Then, the links were completely disambiguated, and we found there were far more bad links than had been estimated at the outset. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes the caveat that 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)". I agree. --Una Smith (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that statement too. Not sure how that is relevant here, since there has been no discussion here (much less an extended one) about "which article truly is primary" with respect to Harrisburg - that statement refers to discussions about which of two or more meanings is primary with respect to some name. I appreciate what you did at Weymouth. Have you looked at Plymouth? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Born2cycle, do you assume that for every ambiguous title there exists a primary topic? --Una Smith (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.