This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
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.
That is not sufficient: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic (my emphasis). This is not the case here.
A further consideration is that Wild Wing has been directing some traffic to the restaurant chain that shouldn't have gone there. Experience has shown that in situation like this, pageviews of the alleged primary normally drop significantly relative to the other meanings, to the point where it becomes obvious that a primary never existed. Paradoctor (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disregarding "Wild Wings" which is a WP:PTM, and considering the views from 2024, which gives us a current picture[1]. That gives us 67%, or nearly 72% if we include both the article and the primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not accounting for the misdirected traffic.
"disregarding": cherry picking. And how is a plural a PTM of the singular? By that measure, both Wild Wing Restaurant and Wild Wing Cafe are PTMs too, and Wild Wing should redirect to the mascot, which is the only exact match.
67, 72, whatever: 2:1 is not much more. Given the context, this is comfortably within the margin error, especially given that you're still not accounting for the misdirected traffic. Paradoctor (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For reasons I haven't been able to figure out myself, the pageviews for Wild Wing Restaurants exploded in March 2023, and while they've reverted towards a new equilibrium since then, that new equilibrium is still comfortably higher than the pageviews for any other topic by this name. The plain language of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that a topic is primary by usage if it is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined to be sought—and that threshold is met here. The primary topic thresholds proposed elsewhere in this discussion are not aligned with this guidance, and are not reflective of widespread practice in the titling space. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: The key issue being discussed is whether any of the disambiguated topics here meet WP:PTOPIC by pageviews (as there is no "standard" threshold), or if pageviews can be relied upon at all in this case ASUKITE15:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support No obvious primary topic, views for the restaurant chain fluctuate heavily and sometimes are not much more than the other pages. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination; Crouch, Swale; Steel1943; jlwoodwa; ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ and The Kip. There are five entries listed upon the Wild Wing (disambiguation) page [the lead line should state, "Wild Wing or Wild Wings may refer to:"] and the eight-sentence stub delineating Wild Wing Restaurants does not appear to possess renown sufficient to dwarf the combined prominence of the remaining four entries. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs)01:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per 162 etc.. They were right when they said, “OP's graph clearly shows that Wild Wing Restaurants, the current primary topic, gets the majority of the pageviews.” This is a quintessential WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. The relevant threshold here is, “more likely [to be sought] than all the other uses combined”. None of the support refutes this. “Designating a primary topic by usage is not sufficiently clear cut.”??? Wut? “Primary topic by usage” is what determines most primary topics! This case clearly meets the hurdle. Support here needs to be (un)weighted accordingly-for having no basis in policy. --В²C☎06:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not quoting the full criterion: much more likely than any other single topic,and more likely than all the other topics combined (my emphasis). Paradoctor (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said relevant threshold. When there are more than two uses, the only way the most likely is “more likely than all the others” but not “much more than any other single topic”, is when one of the other uses dominates the other uses to the point of being close to the first. Like a 52/46/2 distribution, where 52 is arguably not much more than 46. But here we have daily averages of 26/16/3/1/1, which, in percentages, is 55/34/6/2/2. 55 is much more than 34 in any other context, like daytime temperature, football game scores, ages, betting odds, dinner price, hourly wages, election results, etc etc. And it’s much more in this context of likelihood of being sought. The bottom line is that with this primary redirect configuration more than half the users searching with “wild wing” are taken directly to the article they’re seeking. That’s why we have primary topic: to avoid sending everyone to a dab page when the majority can be taken directly to the page they seek. —В²C☎08:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTA is an essay and carries no policy-based weight.
The article with the high page view count is not at the base name.
Even if there is significant base title advantage in some cases, there’s no reason to believe that’s the case here. To the contrary, the daily average on the Wild Wing redirect at the base name has a daily average of 1, indicating that relatively few actually go through the redirect. But the nevertheless relatively high daily page view count at Wild Wing Restaurants tells us that’s what people are likely seeking, much more likely than any other use.
As to 55 being much more than 34, I specified seven contexts off the top of my head where it is, and explained specifically why it is much more in this context. Nobody has explained why it isn’t much more in any context, much less in this one, especially now that BTA has been shown to be inapplicable here. Not to mention that a standard finding 55 not being “much more” than 34 would probably invalidate well over half of all of our primary topic articles. There is no reason for this case to be an exception. This is why the nom and Support arguments here need to be dismissed. They’re devoid of actual policy basis, or any substance for that matter. —В²C☎18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RMCOMMENT doesn't say to strike every !vote that doesn't link to a policy, it says to explain how you think policies and guidelines apply to the situation. WP:PT1 (a part of the WP:Dguideline) is about the topic sought when a reader searches for that term, and the WP:BTA essay explains how pageview statistics (where the reader ended up) can differ from what the reader wanted. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Captain Obvious. None of that supports the nom. I hate to repeat myself, but you seemed to miss why BTA does not apply in this case. BTA is about an article at a base name (in this case, Wild Wing) accumulating page views from users looking for another use. But this article is not at the base name. A redirect is. What’s the difference? The difference is we have separate page view counts for the redirect, and it tells us the percentage of users getting to the primary topic article via the redirect at the base name is insignificant. So there is not much, if any, base title advantage. Citing a policy does not make an argument policy-based. As you said, you have to explain how it applies to the situation. Support has not even addressed the fact that in this situation it’s a redirect at the base title, much less acknowledging the redirect’s relatively low page views and the ramifications of that. The nom/support arguments are essentially baseless. —В²C☎20:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The search engine's first result is Wild Wing Restaurants, likely influenced by Wikipedia's redirect.” That’s not how search engines work. They certainly don’t favor one url over another based on it being shorter or having a primary redirect on Wikipedia. And, again, the standard you’re arguing to use here would invalidate most primary topics. It’s inherently contrary to policy and practice. —В²C☎02:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The search engines have learned people searching for “foo bar baz” are most likely looking for our article at Foobar. Similarly, they’ve learned people searching with “wild wing” are most likely looking for Wild Wing Restaurants. We leverage that knowledge by making Foo bar baz a primary redirect to Foobar and by making Wild Wing a primary redirect to Wild Wing Restaurants. This is why we have primary topics and primary redirects, and how we decide where to have them. You believe the tail is wagging the dog? That this redirect might be confusing Google? You overestimate the influence of Wikipedia redirects on search engines and underestimate the effectiveness of Google. —В²C☎14:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
