Talk:The Advocate (magazine)

Untitled

Needs disambiguous page to remove first section. tdempsey 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a Tribune Co. newspaper

The Advocate is a national magazine owned by Here Media Inc. It should not be confused with the Tribune Co. newspaper The Advocate, published in Stanford, Connecticut.

Nor should it be confused with "The Evangelical Advocate" owned and published by the Churches of Christ In Christian Union, and Ohio based religious corporation.

There is a hatnote at the top of the page directing people to The Advocate (disambiguation) for other uses of the term. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2018

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

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 12:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The Advocate → The Advocate (LGBT magazine) – There are way too many things referred to as The Advocate. The LGBT magazine is not the primary topic for this. After the move is done, move The Advocate (disambiguation) → The Advocate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support no primary for this common title In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support both movies per nom. (side comment: you should have used the multi-page request so the disambiguation would have been part of the request). --Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looking over The Advocate (disambiguation) and some corresponding page view stats I don't see anything that comes close to this newspaper in terms of historical significance (published since 1967) as well as likelihood of being sought. Unless someone can point out something I've missed, I think we have to oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 20:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical significance isn't only metric to go by. If someone tells you 'Did you hear about 'The Advocate', you've got zero way of knowing if they mean the LGBT magazine, the movie, one of dozens of newspapers, and we should not assume to do so for the reader. This is comparable to Mercury. You've got no way of knowing if someone is talking about the planet, the element, or the Roman god (or a bunch of lesser known things). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Headbomb, you mean, WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT? Because many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind". There are two criteria that matter: likelihood of being sought relative to the other topics that could be sought by the ambiguous term in question, and historical significance. The LGBT magazine prevails handily per both. --В²C ☎ 20:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does not. Especially outside the American LGBT community. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Asserting it, with or without the "certainly", does not make it so. I backed up my "does so" claim with page view stats. What is your "does not" position based on? --В²C ☎ 21:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

[1] the LGBT magazine doesn't even reach 50% of pageviews, even if you filter out Help pages, and the 'see also' links. And 'The Advocate (film)' is heavily under-represented, since it's located at The Hour of the Pig, which would further reduce the relative pageviews for the LGBT magazine. The LGBT magazine may be what first comes to mind to many people, but this is not even a majority, and there is no primary topic here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that massviews tool. Why are you querying the dab page and why is it showing help page pageviews? What is it showing? I'm seeing a daily average of 239 views for the LGBT publication per the link I provided above. No other use of "The Advocate" comes close. And if you think this is like Mercury, you haven't looked at those page view stats which shows a virtual tie between the two main uses. --В²C ☎ 01:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm using massviews because pageviews doesn't support more than 10 links. The top relevant (removing Help: / Talk: links + see also links) results are

Rank	Article	Monthly views
1	The Advocate	3,236
2	The Advocate (Louisiana)	1,340
3	The Advocate: A Missing Body	608
4	The Advocate (Stamford)	422
5	The Harvard Advocate	344
6	Charitie Lees Smith	279
7	The Advocate (Tasmania)	207
8	The Advocates (TV series)	191
9	The Advocate (Newark)	173
10	CTNow	126
11	The Advocates	122
12	The Advocate-Messenger	101
13	The Advocate (Melbourne)	88
14	The Advocate (Fairhaven)	56
15	Advocates (short story)	50
16	The Daily Advocate	32
17	Advocate (Pittsburgh)	28
18	The Advocate (Contra Costa College)	27
19	The Advocate (2013 film)	21
20	USS Advocate (AM-138)	18
21	The Advocate (Portland, Oregon)	17
22	USS Advocate (1861)	13
23	South Cheatham Advocate	7

That's 7506 monthly views. Or 43% for the LGBT magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but you should be including only topics that users would search for with "the advocate". That excludes at least "The Harvard Advocate" (344) and "Charitie Lees Smith" (279) which brings it down to 6883 total or 47% for The Advocate, and that's still assuming all those others are as likely to be sought with "The Advocate" as this topic is. I think despite the large number of topics, that this one is still so close to 50% of page views, that qualifies as "more likely than all the other combined". --В²C ☎ 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Harvard Advocate is absolutely referred to as 'The Advocate', see e.g. [2] or [3]. It was also called 'The Advocate' from 1866 to 1869.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support, too many titles to clearly distinguish a primary topic. bd2412 T 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per В²C. I would argue that the LGBT magazine seems to be the most likely topic those typing The Advocate are seeking, especially since it appears to have been been living comfortably at this article name since 2004. On what are you basing the idea that this is not the primary topic, just the fact that there are a number of other entities with the same name? I don't think any of these minor publications and other items come even close to the LGBT magazine's notability. The pageviews provided by В²C above support that.— TAnthony^Talk 21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@TAnthony and -sche: see table. Pageviews do not support this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as TAnthony; this seems to be the primary topic, and the stats (and apparently long history at this title) seem to confirm that. -sche (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@-sche: the guideline is significantly "more than all others combined" not "most likely" @TAnthony: and "more than all others combined" needs to be demonstrated from GBooks as well as Pageviews. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support. There are way too many entries on the DAB page that are locally the only “The Advocate”. Some are even foreign, while the current basename holder is just American. Stats can be helpful, be here, with no broad coverage of any, there is clearly no primary topic without even having to look at usage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you aware of any basis in policy, guidelines or conventions for any parts of your reasoning? Thanks. --В²C ☎ 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Longterm significance. The LGBT magazine has zero long term significance for readers of the other magazines and newspapers. ASTONISH, which is addressing the same point. The generality of the PT guideline that speaks to two major aspects that editors commonly consider, implies many other things may be considered and that the two dot points are not exhaustive. Page views are an easy-to-find statistic, but they are extremely prone to bias, readers of some newspapers are more likely to be active online than of others. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons already given by others. Omnedon (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support. A definite or indefinite article hardly ever satisfies WP:SMALLDETAILS, and this isn't one of them.

Headbomb's statistics are convincing: 43% is nowhere near WP:PTOPIC, which IMO requires something like 95% or preferably 99%. Bad links to DAB pages get found and corrected; bad links to PTOPIC pages hardly ever do. Narky Blert (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support There are too many for this to be clearly the main topic, given the views above and PT#2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Seeing this move populate a few watchlist slots, why is the "LGBT" part needed? "The Advocate (magazine)" should be sufficient for getting off the disambig page, with potentially only The Harvard Advocate being a possible match, but that can be handled in hatnote. --Masem (t) 19:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s not the only Advocate magazine; “LGBT” is extremely helpful for recognisability; hatnotes are crutches consuming prime space at the top of an article and should be more discuourged than a perfectly reasonable title (subtitle). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

https://www.spinal.com.au/resources/advocate-magazine/ is yet another. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Award nomination

• 32nd GLAAD Media Awards

---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The Night Watch (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

---

The Advocate (LGBT magazine) → The Advocate (magazine) – I don't dispute the finding in 2018 that this is not the primary topic for "The Advocate", but there was insufficient discussion there about whether a double-disambiguator is necessary. The Advocate § Magazines lists two other magazines, but neither is actually called "The Advocate". The Harvard Advocate can be referred to, abbreviatedly, as "the Advocate", yes, but likewise The New York Times can be called "the Times", and we nonetheless treat The Times (of London) as primary topic there. I don't see how this is any different. There is only one magazine on Wikipedia called "The Advocate", and this is it. (Likewise I doubt [4] is notable, and, even if it is, it is vastly less significant then the most prominent publication for the largest LGBTQ community in the world.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The Harvard Advocate has a different title and the NTEU magazine doesn't even have its own article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The context provided by "LGBT magazine" is most helpful to the general audience. Lots of people aren't familiar with this publication and without this context, they're left to guess. The fact that The Advocate (LGBT magazine) gets clicked on more than other publications with a similar name is really irrelevant. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  This argument flies entirely in the face of WP:PRECISE, a policy that instructs us to use only as much additional detail as necessary when disambiguating an article title. I'm not convinced that being "helpful" is enough cause to WP:IAR here; there are countless articles whose titles might demand guesswork from an unfamiliar reader (e.g. Blind Faith or Drawing the Eel), but we don't throw unnecessarily detailed disambiguators on those article titles either. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The Harvard Advocate probably should have a hatnote if the RM succeeds. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Randy Kryn: The hatnote should go the other way, no? Something like
    This article is about the LGBT magazine. For other uses, see The Harvard Advocate and The Advocate (disambiguation).
    -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's what I meant, thought it was clear enough but thanks for exactness. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom and I think the expanded hatnote makes sense. Skynxnex (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I don't really see the comparison with the New York Times as that is a base name primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • My point isn't about The New York Times being primary topic for that name; my point is that it is frequently called "the Times" but we nonetheless consider The Times of London the primary topic for The Times. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.