Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation)

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 not moved. Evidence presented supports the argument that the North Carolinian city should remain the primary topic. If you're upset by the apparent US bias here, I direct you over to Durham, which may make you feel better. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh (disambiguation) → Raleigh – The article Raleigh currently redirects to Raleigh, North Carolina (and has been edit warred over this evening), but I do not believe this is a sufficient primary topic. That article got 132,080 hits over the last 90 days, while Raleigh Bicycle Company got 27,363 and Sir Walter Raleigh got 13,311. However, I'm going to make a controversial claim and speculate that the vast majority of people searching for the capital of North Carolina are in the United States, while very few outside it will be. As a UK resident, a Google search for "Raleigh" with no other terms brings up in order: the bicycle company, the charity (2 hits), our article on the bicycle company, a cycling team, a BBC news article on Sir Walter, cycles again, and HMS Raleigh. I don't get a single hit for Raleigh, NC until the last but one entry on page 2, which is advising me on hotel rates there. Therefore, I suggest that the current redirect contributes to systematic bias and should not be used. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Your stats show which Raliegh is the primary topic and it's the city in North Carolina. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the previous !vote should be disregarded due to apparent misunderstanding of WP:AT title policy and practice: "which Raleigh is the primary topic" - since our first question re WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for any article, since a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the exception not the rule, is not which article is the top topic (which Raleigh NC might well be with about 20-30% of GB hits) but whether (not "which") there is or is not any topic which is 66% or so of all long-term WP:RS references, which "Raleigh" alone clearly is not. See "raleigh was" / "raleigh is" / "of raleigh" . This coupled with the availability of natural in that Raleigh, North Carolina and Walter Raleigh etc. are the actual titles, makes no sense for the baseline "Raleigh" not to be functioning as a dab (among other reasons so dab bot function can get fully working). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of that based on any sort of policy or guideline? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 12:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as linked. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous !vote should not be disregarded. The stats show both that there is a primary topic (which is neither the rule nor the exception, but rather one of the two possibilities: primary topic or no primary topic) and which of the topics it is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link please for this previous !vote? DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In icti oculi said "the previous !vote should be disregarded" in reference to Calidum's !vote immediately above In icti oculi's !vote. It is Calidum's !vote that I also refer to in response to In icti oculi, so I don't understand your question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you meant that there had been a previous move discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support While it is likely that in much of the USA "Raleigh, North Carolina" is what first springs to mind when "Raleigh" is mentioned, there are other places in the USA called Raleigh, and others in other countries. In Britain the poet and soldier, or the bike company, will probably come to mind first. I do not see that any one topic can claim primacy on a global encyclopaedia, and as In octu oculi said, natural forms exist for specifics Raleighs. DuncanHill (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support dominance is less than 10:1 over all other choices combined. We should also disambiguate Plymouth and Birmingham, both of which suffer from lots of UK-bias, while we're at this. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly against Birmingham being a disambig in place of Birmingham, West Midlands. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The evidence cited in the nom itself indicates the city in North Carolina is the primary topic. No evidence suggests otherwise. --В²C ☎ 05:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out above, the debate is not really what the primary topic is, but whether there should be a primary topic at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't live in the world of what something should be. We live in the world of what something is. This move would just make it harder for readers to find what currently is the primary topic. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 12:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There either is or there is not a primary topic for a given term. Asking if there should be one is as nonsensical as asking whether your age should be an even number. That is, either the topic meets the primary topic criteria for this term, or it does not. If it does, then it is the primary topic. There is no question of whether there "should" be one, except in terms of whether the topics meets the criteria. --В²C ☎ 23:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to have priority for the disambiguation page. Coreyemotela (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Why? Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 12:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed this page was created in 2006 as a disambig page and only changed without any consensus to do so in 2012. JHunterJ (talk · contribs) has made things a little obfuscated by histmerging the page recently so the mess can be cleared up, but you should find it's all there. So, in effect, this is a confirmation that we should revert back to what was the longest standing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Longest standing" isn't the baseline. The version from 2012 was there stably enough to be the de facto consensus until this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not make things obfuscated. The cut-n-paste mover made things obfuscated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I gave the impression you deliberately made things confusing. You didn't - the page history now looks like the article was always here because that's what a histmerge does, and you rightly decided that correcting the attribution to comply with our copyright policies was more important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the information in the proposal. Having the city the primary topic is best serving the readers of the encyclopedia. We don't favor the US readership, but we don't discount them either. (WP:BIAS is an essay regarding article content, not reader navigation.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Based on the information presented so far, there is a primary topic and it is the city in NC. Would need some additional reason to displace it as the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Unsure. The fact that the base name used to be the disambiguation page title is actually very helpful. We can look back to a 90-day period in 2011 (say, March to May), and compare it to the most recent 90 days at the current disambiguation page. Here's what we find:
- dab page views at Raleigh from March, April, and May 2011: 11,610
- dab page views at Raleigh (disambiguation) last 90 days (a/o May 23): 735

So we are saving approximately 45,000 unnecessary trips to the dab page every year with the current setup. As against the roughly 3,000/yr who must navigate the dab page today (and would have to do so anyway, regardless of the title of the dab). That (plus the page usage stats given above) spells WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to me. Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Added links to stats page per Tony's suggestion. Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much to Tony for the more thorough research and results on other Walter Raleigh-related pageviews. That certainly changes the equation. The reason I'm not switching immediately to !support is because the disambiguation pageview evidence still suggests that many fewer people are going to the dab page instead of straight to an article with content, which is a good thing. I'm not sure how to square that just yet. Perhaps the percentage of people searching for Walter using plain "Raleigh" is still much smaller than the percentage of people searching for the city using plain "Raleigh"...? Dohn joe (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am dismayed to discover that apparently what 10,000 British people search for is as important to the nominator as what 50,000 Americans search for. Clearly the primary topic is the city. Red Slash 03:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a profound disservice to readers-in-search to name this anything but "Raleigh (North Carolina)".
@Dohn Joe: it's not helpful to refer to historic pageview data and link to only the current titles of relevant articles—not giving the actual pageview data link for people to verify and vary by looking at nearby months and similar article titles. You've been doing this repeatedly.
@JHunter: Nothing in the "evidence" presented above shows that the city is the primary topic, or shows even that there is a primary topic. Of course pageviews are slanted toward this middle-sized US city (population less than 0.5 million). People are probably unable to find the competing pages. In a Google search on "Raleigh" not a single Wikipedia page among the 30 listed at the current useless dab page Raleigh (disambiguation) turns up among the first 400 hits. Why not? Is Walter Raleigh less significant than the city by that margin? Well, no. The dab page is useless because it naturally does not appear in those 400 Google hits either. Nor does it appear in prompts on an internal Wikipedia search until "raleigh d" has been typed—and then it is eighth in the list. Our readers have no idea it exists; only editors know this sort of thing. And there is not the slightest evidence that faith in hatnotes is warranted. Finally, appeals to historical pageview data are obscure and worthless in the absence of a full account of the shifts in relevant titles and redirects, and a rigorous argument to extract their true significance. If the dab page were at Raleigh, that would soon appear at the top of Google hits, to everyone's benefit and to no one's inconvenience. And the page Raleigh, North Carolina would still appear very near the top. As near the top as the true level of interest in it would warrant. Please serve the reader: not editors' pet theories. Tony (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony, everything in the evidence (no scare quotes needed) above supports the city as the primary topic. The dab page is linked from the hatnote at Raleigh, North Carolina. If every one of the readers seeking the other topics went through the city page first, and we reduce its count by their counts, it would still be the most-sought of the "Raleigh" pages (and of course some of those readers would not have gone through the NC city page first, widening the gap). There is not the slightest evidence that your lack of faith in hatnotes is warranted. The dab page at the base name inconveniences the readers seeking the primary topic. This is why WP has primary topics at all, instead of putting William Shakespeare (disambiguation) at William Shakespeare. I do agree that we should continue to serve the readership, not editors' pet theories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JHJ: You claim that "the dab page at the base name inconveniences the readers seeking the primary topic", perhaps prejudging the very issue under discussion. Why assume there is a primary topic at all? What we do know: there are at least 30 items that readers might plausibly be after when they enter "Raleigh" in any kind of search. We know that under present arrangements a Google search on "Raleigh" will find none of those 30 items on Wikipedia; only the capital of a US state—not one other, no matter how many pages of the search results are sifted through. We know that the present dab page is hard to find. With respect: you've attempted answers only to what you consider easy to answer; but why not respond to the hard challenge? Perhaps then, you might consider answering this ngram evidence for * Raleigh. Most mentions of Walter Raleigh in reliable print sources wouldn't use the full string "Walter Raleigh"; even so, the line for him dominates the chart over the 20th century, and still does—along with the line for "Raleigh" at the start of a text (and many of those would also be for him). Moving beyond the untrustworthy RM formulae that we see all too often, it's clear that a rethink is long overdue. Here is genuine evidence of notability, and it leaves any superficial claim based on unanalysed pageviews in its dust.
JHJ, there's zero evidence, so far, for your claim that the dab page would inconvenience anyone at all. Such pages are there to arrive at, to help people find what they seek—not what we assume, on flimsy evidence, that they must be seeking. Tony (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume there's a primary topic. Instead, I look at what's there. Prior to 2012, there wasn't a primary topic. From 2012 until now, there has been a primary topic. From the numbers provided by the OP, that arrangement appears to be the one best suited for the readership. No assumption needed. With respect: not reaching the conclusion you want is not "prejudging". If you would like to initiate the rethink of "RM formulae" (the assumption I am making is that those would be the primary topic criteria) or make the case that base-name dabs inconvenience no one at all (which has the obvious conclusion that all disambiguation pages should be at their base name), you should bring that up at WT:D, but it's been brought up before, and not gained consensus. I am not aware of any goal of Wikipedia article arrangement including the manipulation of Google search result rankings, and there's no point in making the disambiguation page easy to Google -- it's easy to reach when navigating Wikipedia, which is as it should be for a Wikipedia navigational aid. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - I added the links. Sorry for the inconvenience - I didn't realize I'd been doing so "repeatedly". I hope you can now verify for yourself the impact of moving the dab page from "Raleigh" to "Raleigh (disambiguation)". The shift in numbers is dramatic, is it not? Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the state capital appears to be the primary topic by a large margin. See also the "WhatLinksHere" test: over 5,000 incoming links for the capital, a few hundreds (at best) for any of the alternatives. Cavarrone 14:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that nobody has really picked up on my second point in the nomination. Everyone here I think is mistakenly saying "Raleigh NC is the most important", whereas what I think they actually mean is "Raleigh NC is the most important if, like me, you live in the United States". Otherwise, why would a straight Google search from a UK machine for "Raleigh" give no hits at all on the first page. Whereas, "Boston" brings up the Massachusetts city, with the Lincolnshire town not getting a look in, and "Washington" has the state, the president, and DC as the top three, again with no mention of the town near Teesside in North East England. So, why, when Google knows some US cities interest worldwide readers, does it think Raleigh NC is not one of them? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for record, I am Italian... and a Google search from an Italian machine, which is neutral from both American and British bias, gives the city as the second result behind the website www.raleigh.co.uk/ as well as 12 more other results related to the city on the first page. Cavarrone 17:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Google considers that the bicycle company is more relevant to you than the city. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert of Google coefficients/pageranks, however the majority of results on the first two pages are of commercial nature (eg. "Hotel in Raleigh"), the WP page for the city is the first and one of the few non-commercial websites in the first two pages, and the results linked to the city are a large majority in the first three pages (I haven't investigated further). I can provide a list of the results if it could be useful to the discussion. Cavarrone 18:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raw WP:GOOGLEHITS are generally not used as a valid RM resource for this exact reason. Red Slash 04:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would disagree that almost anyone is saying that the North Carolina city is "more important" than any of the other "Raleighs". I think most folks are simply looking at actual usage of the encyclopedia by our readers, seeing where they go, and trying to enhance their overall experience in reading and navigating. They are telling us what they are looking for. Dohn joe (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. By any reasonable measure a capital city with a whole ton of people in it is far more important than one long-dead dude and a couple relatively minor enterprises and charities. Red Slash 04:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. So many important topics, place names and not, there is no PrimaryTopic. The page views reflect US bias of ease of access. If moved, google will continue to send US ambiguous searches to the probably wanted page, title decisions should not be trying to assist imagined search problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All oppose votes above assume that the proposer's survey of pageviews is reliable; but it is fatally flawed. Those votes should therefore be discounted, as they stand. The base article for the major competitor as primary topic is not Sir Walter Raleigh. That is merely one of several redirect pages for Walter Raleigh.
The correct pageview statistics (base article and all redirects) are as follows:

 Pageviews Article
   108,040 Walter Raleigh [base article]
    13,297 Sir Walter Raleigh
        27 Lord Walter Raleigh
       452 Sir Walter Ralegh
        60 Sir Raleigh 
        30 Walter Ralagh
     1,064 Walter Ralegh
        20 Walter Rawleigh
        51 Walter Rawley
   123,041 total effective pageviews for Walter Raleigh

Anyone here is welcome to supplement this with comparable statistics for Raleigh, North Carolina along with all relevant articles listed at the dab page, and to present a new argument to convince us that JHunterJ's recent unilateral and undiscussed redirecting of Raleigh to the city article should not be immediately reversed; alternatively, they could do the honourable thing and reverse their votes.

Until we have that full evidence and accompanying arguments based on the needs of readers, the pageview evidence in favour of Raleigh as the dab page is overwhelming. Add the ngram evidence adduced above (to which there has been zero response). Add also the evidence of a Googlebooks search on Raleigh, which shows an order of magnitude more concern with Walter Raleigh than with the US city, in reliable sources as opposed to a US-dominated web and a US-biased Wikipedia. Tony (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this false spin of the recent actions. I did not unilaterally redirect Raleigh to the city article. Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)'s recent unilateral and undiscussed redirecting of Raleigh to the dab page created the WP:MALPLACED problem[1] that I fixed. The burden is on those wishing to change the two-year-old stable version. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tony, for finding and adding the additional pageviews. I decided to take up your gauntlet and complete the picture:

 Pageviews Article
   132,309 Raleigh, North Carolina [base article]
     5,877 Raleigh
        91 Raliegh, North Carolina
       621 Raliegh, NC
       211 Raliegh 
        30 Walter Ralagh
        31 Raleigh, USA
       356 Raleigh, N.C.
    18,355 Raleigh, NC
       237 Raleigh north carolina 
       896 Raleigh nc
       139 Raleigh (NC)
       118 Downtown Raleigh, North Carolina
       135 Downtown Raleigh
        41 City of Raleigh 
        39 City of Oaks
        31 Citizens Advisory Council (CAC)
       151 Capital of North Carolina
   189,991 total effective pageviews for Raleigh, North Carolina

And here are the views for the rest of the dab page (base titles only, no redirects):

 Pageviews Article
     1,624 Walter Raleigh (professor)
       734 Todd Raleigh
     2,104 USS Raleigh (LPD-1)
     2,982 USS Raleigh (CL-7)
     1,724 USS Raleigh (C-8) 
     1,098 USS Raleigh (1776)
     3,258 HMS Raleigh (shore establishment)
     1,496 HMS Raleigh (1919)
       554 HMS Raleigh (1873)
       644 CSS Raleigh (1864)
       712 CSS Raleigh (1861)
     3,964 Raleigh County, West Virginia 
       817 Raleigh, Memphis
       433 Raleigh, North Dakota
       566 Raleigh Township, Wake County, North Carolina
     1,185 Raleigh, Mississippi 
       614 Raleigh, Illinois
       289 Raleigh, Florida
       580 Raleigh, Pilton
       444 Raleigh, Newfoundland and Labrador 
       426 Raleigh, New South Wales
     1,617 Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh
     2,487 Raleigh International
       712 CSS Raleigh (1861)
   30,352 total effective pageviews for all other uses

So - 189,991 for the city, 123,041 for Sir Walter, 30,352 for the rest. The city is still "more than all the others combined" by 36,000 views per 90 days. That, plus the change in dab page traffic I listed above, means that keeping the base name pointing to the city is at least reasonably defensible. I remain unsure. Thanks again to Tony for pointing out the poor statistical basis for the discussion. One would've thought that one could've relied on the nom to at least use the best numbers for their own argument.... Dohn joe (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"One would've thought that one could've relied on the nom to at least use the best numbers for their own argument" Sadly, I'm a human being who makes mistakes and put the stats for Sir Walter Raleigh (a redirect), thinking it was the main article, by mistake. Anyway, in the stats here, you've left off the bicycle company. I'll complete the picture and add the pageviews for Raleigh Bicycle Company, one of the most established cycle manufacturers. And indeed, the topic I wanted to look for in the first place that started this whole edit-war and following discussion:

Pageviews Article
   27,678 Raleigh Bicycle Company
    2,391 Raleigh (bicycle)
      274 Raleigh Bikes
      266 Raleigh Industries
       76 Raleigh thread

That gives us an additional 30,865 views. So - 189,991 for the NC city, 184,078 everything else. The city is only 1.03 times the other results combined. That's not enough. When Gravesend, Kent got moved to Gravesend, it was because the stats showed the town in Kent was well over three times the results of the other articles put together. You need that sort of overwhelming dominance to get a primary topic. If in doubt - disambig. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries - I wasn't blaming you for anything. Only that the rest of us could reasonably rely on the stats that you had put up. And thanks for catching the bike company stats. I knew I'd miss something obvious.... But let me ask - how do you interpret the shift in the disambiguation page stats from 2011 to today? Dohn joe (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I sought advice from Noetica for this post.

@Dohn joe: Ritchie is right in both respects. Raleigh, North Carolina is not shown to dominate the field sufficiently to count as a primary topic. Since you did not include pageviews for redirects to those miscellaneous Raleigh pages, even 1.03:1 slightly overstates the ratio. For our purposes, the ratio should be thought of as 1:1.

@Everyone: It is high time we paid attention to some core principles at WP:PTOPIC (emphasis added):

... it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic
[contrast the typical misreading in discussion above, which prematurely decides that there must be one]
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic.
[again, contrast serious misunderstandings above that assume pageviews are the criterion]
... there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics
[does not preclude the use of other arguments or evidence, such as Google searches (including ngrams, and especially Googlebooks)]
[1:] A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
[not shown to be the case here, and decidedly weakened by other evidence and argument]
[2:] A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
[the greater general, global, and encyclopedic notability of Walter Raleigh is easily established, as I have pointed out above with a simple Googlebooks search that anyone may check; at least this evidence negates the city article's claim]
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move.
[contrast certain attitudes above, and also the motivation for the unilateral involved admin actions that led us to all this hard work]
Tools that may help [include] usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches
[as I have offered above, and most contributors here have resolutely ignored]

In short, it is not helpful to make glib appeals to WP:PTOPIC that misread and misapply its content, rather than discussing in the interest of our readers.

As for the situation in 2011 and 2014, from Dohn's statistics and others I derive these extrapolated pageviews for the two base pages and their common dab page (redirects are excluded, for this approximate treatment):

            Year     Walter Raleigh      Raleigh, North Carolina Shared dab page    Total pageviews
                                                                                    [2 articles, 1 dab]
            2011            573,828                      724,412          46,440  1,344,680          
                      dab:   46,440                dab:   46,440
                      sum:  620,268                sum:  770,852
                  dab/sum: 7.49%               dab/sum: 6.02%

            2014            432,160                      529,236           2,940    964,331
                      dab:    2,940                dab:    2,940
                      sum:  435,100                sum:  532,176
                  dab/sum: 0.68%               dab/sum: 0.55%

Conclusion from this table: For the amount of traffic these pages get, the percentage of views at their shared dab page was not at all unreasonable in 2011. All the evidence shows that the dab page was simply used, in a small percentage of cases. That is no bad thing. That is the purpose of a dab page. And although traffic at the dab page is much reduced in 2014 (under a new title), views are also drastically reduced at both target articles in 2014. Why? At least partly because of the renamed dab page. The figures in the right column epitomise the situation effectively. The total of all views was reduced in 2014. Such is the result of poor use of dab pages; and such is the ineffectiveness of hatnotes, a resource only we understand—and have blind faith in. The actual readers clearly do not see or use them. (By their essential nature, hatnotes are at a page the reader did not want to arrive at and will very likely not peruse.) Very few get to the Raleigh (disambiguation) dab page at all in 2014, because it is found on neither a Google search nor a WP search. Further research would almost certainly reveal similar deficiencies for other articles listed at the hidden dab page.

Tony (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partial title match

No "cycling", no "company", just "Raleigh"

Has no one mentioned this yet? Sir Walter Raleigh is a partial title match. ~~The cycling company is as well.~~ (Raleigh, NC is NOT a partial title match, at least not in the same way. Obviously the title of the article has an extra pair of words, but that is due to WP:USPLACE guidelines, which demands that we pre-emptively disambiguate almost all U.S. cities. But the actual name of the city is, quite simply, Raleigh. If Paris changed its name to London, we might have to move London to London, United Kingdom, but that wouldn't mean the UK capital's name had changed.) We can't just take the pageviews for a person with the last name Raleigh as directly relevant without first asking--what percentage of readers looking for his article would type in Raleigh to get there? And what percentage of people looking for the city Raleigh in North Carolina would type in Raleigh to get there? Red Slash 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that was the question I had asked earlier, whether it didn't make sense for the dramatic drop in dab pageviews that many more people use "Raleigh" to search for the city than they do for Sir Walter. Dohn joe (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cycling company is called Raleigh, not Raleigh Cycling Company, so your argument is invalid. Plus there are other towns called Raleigh in the US. And if you seriously thought London, United Kingdom is a good choice, then Alex Salmond would be incredibly cross at you and remind you what Edinburgh is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question was whether Sir Walter is often enough searched for as plain "Raleigh". If not, and it's only between the North Carolina city and the bicycle company etc., then the city would be clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Dohn joe (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit my error. The larger point still stands, but clearly, the bicycle company is not really a partial title match. Like the city, it would not be located here even in a world with no other claimants to the title, but your point is very valid, Ritchie333. I also am aware that usually British cities are disambiguated by counties but I'm not sure what would be done for London. Like, seriously, what would we do if we had to? Red Slash 22:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The numbers indicate that the vast majority of users searching for the term "Raleigh" are looking for the North Carolina city. There is no reason to inconvenience this substantial majority by diverting them away from the article they want, to one they don't want, while providing only a marginal benefit to the much smaller number of editors looking for something else. To the extent that there is a "second best" option that people are looking for, this can be parsed out in the hatnote, which might say, for example:
This article is about the city in North Carolina. For its namesake, see Walter Raleigh. For the bicycle company, see Raleigh Bicycle Company. For other uses, see Raleigh (disambiguation).

Problem solved without moving anything or inconveniencing anyone. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was 1.03 : 1 a "vast majority"? And as Tony said, if you gather all the stats including redirects, you might find there's no majority. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Raleigh is a PTM, and therefore does not count in this equation at all. It may be a very important subject that includes "Raleigh" in the title, but it is no more reason to disambiguate than to have a disambiguation page at South because South Carolina contains the word, or at Zoo because Baltimore Zoo contains the word. Looking only to actual ambiguities, the North Carolina city is closer to a 10:1 lead. A hatnote mentioning the explorer (and the bicycle company) provides all of the disambiguation that is needed with respect to those options anyway. Some editors in this discussion have grumbled about the efficacy of hatnotes, but I have yet to see any proof that it is any more helpful to the reader to have a disambiguation page at a title where there is a most likely subject being sought. bd2412 T 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try googling "quotations about Raleigh" and see what you get. Or "Raleigh famously" "What is Raleigh" gives the town, the youth charity, and the explorer in that order. "Raleigh" is widely use to mean the explorer, just as it is used for the town or the bikes. Many texts will simply use "Raleigh" instead of Walter Raleigh, and it makes it much easier for editors to make accurate links (and to spot inaccurate ones) if the bare term either is the disambiguation page or a redirect to it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are plenty of people who are ambiguous with their surname. As an experiment to gather evidence (not proof), we could do here what we've done elsewhere: create a redirect for use on the dabpage (and base-name article hatnote) such as Raleigh (explorer), wait, and see its usage pattern. We did this before with Lincoln (president) and (for acronym-instead-of-surname experiment) EA (video game company), for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget he's just as famous as a poet, a soldier, and a courtier. The thing is, if you say "Raleigh" in Britain almost nobody will think you mean a city in North Carolina. Most people will think of Walter or the bikes. And as there are several places called Raleigh within the USA you can't assume that the one in North Carolina is automatically meant even when in a USA-context. The word Raleigh is inherently ambiguous, and the degree and nature of that ambiguity will be different depending on the cultural and national background of those involved. This is a global encyclopaedia and we need to make things clear on a global scale. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to suggest a different qualifier for the experiment. The actual text doesn't matter, as long as it's unique. You can indeed assume that the NC one is meant when it is used unqualified in a USA context. This is a global encyclopedia and we make things clear on a global scale through well written article text and navigational aids such as hatnotes and disambiguation pages. Putting a UK-specific meaning at the base name (Churchill, Plymouth) or a US-specific meaning at the base name (Reagan, Boston), or an Australian-specific meaning at the base name (Whitlam, Perth) doesn't mean things aren't clear. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that there isn't one single suitable qualifier! And as for Perth and the rest, they attract incorrect links like honey to flies. Just 'cos some articles are ambiguously and badly named doesn't mean others should be also. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that even when there isn't one single suitable qualifier(!), we still pick one when needed. See Madonna (entertainer) (even though she's a "singer, songwriter, actress, and businesswoman"). The naming conventions and primary topic guidelines aren't "bad" just because you disagree with them. -- JHunterJ (talk)

Article names that attract incorrect links are bad! Or at least, if you want Wikipedia to be any good they are. DuncanHill (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should have every disambiguation page at the base name, to make it easier to find those incorrect links! But that proposal has been raised many times, and never gained consensus. So instead we sometimes have articles at the base name for ambiguous titles, and we can't use bots to find those incorrect links. Harder for the editors, but better for the readers. The claim that Wikipedia isn't any good under the current guidelines is silly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect links are not good for readers, they are bad for readers. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Incorrect links should be changed to correct links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, suppose we assume that a substantial proportion of people who type "Raleigh" are looking for Walter Raleigh. If the disambiguation page is moved to Raleigh, those users are still not getting the page they want. They are one click away from it. However, the even larger number of users who are looking for the North Carolina city are also no longer getting what they want. If my proposed hatnote is used, those looking for the city will have found it, and those looking for Walter Raleigh will be one click away from it. In that case, moving the page will be bad for a lot of readers, and good for almost none (only those who are looking for some meaning of Raleigh not found in the hatnote. In fact, since no consensus is required to edit the hatnote, I have gone ahead and done so. bd2412 T 19:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern isn't solely with "getting where you want to be with the fewest clicks" (which I am generally a fan of), it's also with accuracy. With Raleigh pointing to the city, incorrect links will be made by editors unfamiliar with the vagaries of what is or isn't a primary usage, and the assumptions made by some as to just how world famous a city in North Carolina is outside North Carolina (I have no doubt it is world famous in North Carolina, and quite possibly in South, East, and West Carolina too). With Raleigh either as the dab page or pointing to the dab page, it is easy to find and fix misplaced links. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect links can be resolved by merely changing all of the correct links to point to Raleigh, North Carolina (which would need to be done anyway if the page were moved) so that anything that should not point there will be obvious. This can be done without touching the redirect. There are many redirects that have the same issue, such as Anchorage, CIA, and Jove. bd2412 T 03:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you know which ARE the correct links? Links pointing to a dab page are easy to find and usually easy to fix. The same is not true of links to an article page. And, FWIW, I have been changing these links, and I could do it about five times faster if Raleigh either was, or pointed to, the dab page. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for readers wanting, say, one of the other Raleighs in North America, they go to Raleigh, which takes them to the city, then they have to click on the dab page, and only then can they find the correct link. If Raleigh WAS the dab page, they'd go there and find the correct link on that page. DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. Those are each valid arrangements that help readers navigate to their sought articles. Which one we use depends on whether or not there's a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there isn't a primary topic! And I was responding to the claim that we should arrange things to give fewest clicks. I've found link to Raleigh that were meant for a ship, the charity, the explorer, somewhere in Canada, and others where it is not obvious from the context which Raleigh in the USA was meant. DuncanHill (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there is currently a primary topic! Raleigh leads to Raleigh, North Carolina; this RM is to determine if there's a consensus to change (back) to no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Raleigh North Carolina is not the primary topic for Raleigh - you seem to be saying that the proof that it is is because that's the way the link points at this moment. I am beginning to wonder if you are deliberately being obtuse. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh, North Carolina has been the primary topic for Raleigh for two years. You seem to be saying that the proof is because you don't think it should be. I'll refrain from responding directly to your personal attack and assumption of bad faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia was arranged for my own convenience, then my first choice for "Raleigh" would be for it to redirect to the poet. My second choice would be to the explorer, and my third to the bikes. My fourth would be the courtier, and my fifth the soldier! Poetry, and exploration, are of course so much more important than most other things.
But of course Wikipedia does not exist solely for my own convenience, and that is why I think that "Raleigh" needs to be, or to point to, the dab page. This helps prevent surprising incorrect links, and also may serve to broaden the knowledge of those who have only ever heard of one of the many Raleighs. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I have relisted the requested move, as I do not believe the discussion to date has produced any clear consensus. I have also notified the Disambiguation Wikiproject about the debate. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - User:BD2412 has already stated the case rather clearly, including improvements, so I won't rehash but to say leaving it as is appears to be the lesser of all available evils. Since the city is the overwhelming desired target, likely due in part to being a state capital, it just makes sense. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dennis, I still believe it is only that if you live in the US. Otherwise I still believe it isn't. Anyway, I'm not here to beat the conversation to death with a lump hammer so I'll duck out here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really breaking it down by country (and not sure we should), I was looking at the whole. If we don't discriminate and take it on the whole, leaving it as is seems consistent with previous outcomes. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:24, 2 June 2014 (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.