Jump to content

Talk:Zamboni (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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: No move. While there's rough consensus that the term "Zamboni" chiefly refers to ice resurfacers generically, the creation of Zamboni Company, makers of trademarked Zambonis, in the middle of this RM clouds the issue and suggests that disambiguation is the most useful situation for our readers at present. Any future RM needs to consider whether the generic use is more common than Zamboni Company Zambonis and all other uses combined. Cúchullain t/c 16:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboni → Zamboni (disambiguation) – The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Zamboni is Ice resurfacer, so Zamboni should redirect to ice resurfacer, and the disambiguation page displaced. [1][2][3][4][5] --Relisted. Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
I don't understand this comment. Zamboni is already clear described as a disambiguation page. Are you suggesting that disambig pages should always have "(disambiguation)" as part of their titles? I have not encountered such a suggestion before. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Kauffner. That's a common myth. Typically a page with the title "XXXX (disambiguation)" does not even show up in prompts at the WP search box (top right of the screen). Not till the reader types in "XXXX d", and sometimes not even then. We know about DAB pages; the readers don't! Who makes a Google search on "XXX disambiguation"? No wonder explicitly marked DAB pages get so few Google hits, and so few pageviews. NoeticaTea? 03:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never use DAB pages, so I had no idea. Now I find out that the readers don't know about them either. So it is confirmed that such pages are indeed the bitter, spiteful core of uselessness! Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, it's a perennial proposal at the disambiguation project, but it's never gained consensus; Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 26#Disambiguation pages without the term "(disambiguation)" in their title, for example, was the one I could find first. Kauffner, readers know about disambiguation pages, despite Noetica's rhetoric. But I'll yield the point if the consensus is to delete all disambiguation pages and force readers to rely on the search box and search results to find topics with ambiguous titles. (That's my rhetoric, yes.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JHJ, you write: "Kauffner, readers know about disambiguation pages, despite Noetica's rhetoric." That was not rhetoric, that was a substantive statement of mine: "We know about DAB pages; the readers don't! Who makes a Google search on 'XXX disambiguation'?" You are free to disagree, and to show why you disagree. The question that I add is not rhetorical either. I know, from sitting next to naive users of Wikipedia and guiding them, that they have idea of such things. I have never observed anyone (apart from myself, to survey articles as a Wikipedia editor) searching on a title like this: "XXXX (disambiguation)". Truthfully, now: Does it seem plausible to you that a large proportion of readers (not editors!) would know to do that? NoeticaTea? 00:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A substantive statement used rhetorically. I was not mistaking "rhetoric" for "empty rhetoric". I disagree because the page-hit counts of disambiguation pages cannot be attributed to savvy editors alone. No, they don't search for them, but when their searches land them at pages they weren't looking for, they use them to navigate to their sought topic. "Use XXXX (disambiguation)" is not "Search on XXXX (disambiguation)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move because, as nominator says, the ice resurfacer object is definitely the main object in focus for people looking up the word "Zamboni". I'm not surprised that this is brought up for discussion now, as well as the fact that the ice resurfacer article received 100,000+ views only yesterday, due to the extensive coverage of the ice surfacer Zamboni, including but not limited to the little game at Google's front page. HeyMid (contribs) 18:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was a unique opportunity to assess a primary topic here. This dab received some 30,000 views, which is far more than a dab generally should. I suspect most of those readers were also ice surfacer views. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's 40345, in January so far. But take a look at the chart. Something's not right! What is the history of the article Zamboni that would account for the anomaly? Compare the equally anomalous pageviews for Ice resurfacer, to which Zamboni machine redirects: 133812! All of this has to be explained. It is a nice example of how analysis of evidence is necessary! Not unthinking acceptance. NoeticaTea? 03:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point as well, BDD. It's fairly obvious that at least 95% of the readers intended to go to the article about the ice resurfacer machine. That's why I support a move. HeyMid (contribs) 08:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The core purpose of article titles is to help the readers find what they are looking for. It is not to serve some unsourced and ill-researched principle like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (one guideline among many, and descriptively rather than prescriptively phrased), which we see from these discussions most editors do not cite correctly anyway. (Many have not digested its detail, I suspect.) It is not to remove useful precision on any pretext that can be found or concocted. (Sheesh. The DAB page has ten entries!) A useful test is therefore this: would the proposed move get more readers to their destination without being waylaid into the wrong article? The onus is on proponents of this RM to show that it would. NoeticaTea? 03:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you already know this is contrary to the guidelines and that you disagree with the consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but for the closing admin, please see WP:PRECISION. The core purpose of article titles is to identify the topics of the articles precisely and commonly.-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    JHJ, I do not think that the present form of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has consensus, but that is not really the point. In fact people misread and misapply that guideline, which is presented descriptively not prescriptively. Applied to the present case just as it is, it would not support this move. Anyway, see my update immediately below, and the statistical compendium I have posted in #Discussion. NoeticaTea? 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. OK, see pageviews for inventor Frank Zamboni's article: 641631 on 16 January 2013, but none shown at all on 14 January 2013 (and just 2989 in all of December 2012). Why? 16 January was his 112th birthday (he died in 1988), and a "Google Doodle game" was launched to celebrate the occasion. See this news story. So this is crass recentism at its worst. No grounds for a move, and the spike in pageviews has begun to recede. Let's all learn from this, yes? Meanwhile, note: the IP proposer of this RM knew these facts, and had made this edit to Ice resurfacer about the "Doodle game" without leaving any edit summary, ten minutes before proposing this RM (see diff) and without revealing the edit in this discussion. Sorry, not good enough. From anyone involved. Wasting editors' time and energy with shoddy documentation, and withholding of key evidence. ☺? ₴₪?? NoeticaTea? 10:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further update. See the statistical compendium I have posted in #Discussion, below. NoeticaTea? 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There are only two entries that could be called Zamboni, the ice resurfacer which by the way is never called a "Zamboni machine" but only a "Zamboni", and the song. Prior to the start of the hockey season neither got any page views, after, Zamboni (ice machine) got 130,000 views, the song, 1300. The dis page got 40,000 views, and there is no reason whatsoever to not have all of those views be redirected to ice resurfacer, or even better, rename ice resurfacer as Zamboni, and then create a separate, much smaller article for all of the ice resurfacers other than Zamboni, such as this one.[6] Zamboni deserves its own article, and should not be called Zamboni company, but simply Zamboni. Zamboni is the Scotch Tape or Band-Aid of ice surfacers, and like those, no one else can use the name, even though the public calls every ice machine they see a Zamboni. Apteva (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Apteva, you ignore the points that have been made already. The pageviews are wild and weird. Just look at the monstrous spikes over the last few days. Those statistics tell us nothing until the situation is investigated. They are entirely misleading. Why do you pretend nothing has been said about them here? Go and look at them. NoeticaTea? 04:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the subject and not on the editor. WP:FOC. There is nothing here that changes anything that I said, nor the validity of it. The fact that the article was moved has nothing to do with the suggestion that it is misnamed, and is clearly the primary topic. The page views are wild but completely understandable - about 10 million people just heard the word "Zamboni" for the first time and looked it up in Wikipedia. See 2012–13 NHL lockout. Apteva (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was focusing on the topic earlier with detailed points that no one else had yet made; then you came in and ignored those points as if they not been made at all. I pointed that out, and requested that you respond to those points. This is supposed to be a discussion, right? Now, you write: "The fact that the article was moved has nothing to do with the suggestion that it is misnamed, and is clearly the primary topic." The fact that what article was moved? From what title to what title? When, and by whom? What relevance has that to these very peculiar pageview charts (go look at the spikes in them!): Zamboni (40345) and Ice resurfacer (133812)? Ice resurfacer had 110455 views on 16 January 2013, but only 324 on 14 January. Why? We can't just take pageviews averaged over four weeks when that sort of thing is going on. Finally, what is the relevance of 2012–13 NHL lockout, "a labour dispute that began at 11:59 pm EDT on September 15, 2012"? How is that in any way comparable to the present articles? There may be a simple explanation for all this; but no one has given it. Please do! NoeticaTea? 08:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Late addition: I've done the required work. See my updates, above; and in #Discussion, below. –Noetica[reply]
It is not the start of the labor dispute that is significant but the end. Hockey has been in the news because of that. I did not see the google widget but I certainly heard about hockey in the news about the time of that spike, and that was the day of some exhibition games that were televised. Apteva (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Come on. If someone types the word "Zamboni" into a search engine or an encyclopedia search box, it is virtually certain that he or she is looking to read about ice resurfacing machines. That is the very definition of primary topic. Powers T 19:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! "Virtually certain"? The world is larger than that. Readers could easily be looking just for a survey of the possible meanings, or perhaps specifically for one of these: Anteo Zamboni, Frank Zamboni, Giovanni Fortunato Zamboni, Giovanni Zamboni, Giuseppe Zamboni, Marco Zamboni, Maria Zamboni, Paolo Zamboni, Zamboni (song), Zamboni pile, The Zamboni, The Zambonis, Guelfo Zamboni, Zambon, or Luigi Zamboni. To say nothing of these topics without articles on English Wikipedia, but on Italian Wikipedia: "Adolfo Zamboni", "Adriano Zamboni", "Cesare Zamboni", "Filippo Zamboni", and "Massimo Zamboni". And have you considered Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency?
Please justify your claim by a survey of those topics, presenting pageviews to make your case for changing the present arrangement. Pageviews before the recent ephemeral spike, of course. Not everyone in the world follows ice hockey, or cares one iota for the machine most often used in North America to restore the surface. Anyway, if Zamboni were so prominent in that context, why is the article for that device at Ice resurfacer, a title that does not even include the word?
NoeticaTea? 00:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Powers, still waiting for an answer to my question. And see the statistical compendium I have posted in #Discussion. NoeticaTea? 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing ice hockey with an ice skating surface, which is also used in, figure skating, among other things, so zambonis appear linked to much more than just ice hockey. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Doesn't affect anything here. For what it's worth, The Zamboni ice resurfacer has undergone a short sharp spike in interest because of Google's Doodle, building on ice hockey's popularity in North America. Ice hockey had 256,071 pageviews in the last 90 days; Figure skating had 86,234 (about one third as many). More important: that spike for Ice resurfacer has receded now, down from 110,455 on 16 January to 952 on 18 January. Less than 1% of what it was. The Zamboni DAB page on those same days? Reduced to less than 5%. NoeticaTea? 09:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC) See the statistical compendium I have posted in #Discussion. NoeticaTea? 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. Arguments based on page views are problematic, not only because of the Google Doodle, but because the article Zamboni Company was re-created (by me) in reaction to this RM. I'd like to let things settle down and revisit page views a few months from now. As to whether Zamboni is a generic trademark, I would like to see more generic usage in reliable sources to support that. Legally, it is not generic, as it has not yet lost its registered trademark. We don't redirect Kleenex to facial tissue, nor Xerox to photocopier. Observe the hatnotes on the brand-name articles. Per generic trademark, these trademarks have come close to genericization, but have been rescued by aggressive corrective campaigns. For an example of a trademark that is generic, see escalator#Etymology. Caution should be taken here. Do we want to provide evidence for a possible case that would precipitate the end of Zamboni's reign over their own name? Wikipedia cited as evidence in a court case? For evidence supporting genericized, look for sources spelling zamboni in lower case. Search engine statistical results should not be given the weight of actual published reliable sources. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: While it appears that "zamboni" typically refers to any generic machine of this type, the creation of the article on the Zamboni Company, which has the trademark, affects the discussion. Further comments should take this new article into consideration.--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Light Support I am going to fully acknowledge potential geographical bias, but in North America Zamboni is the colloquial term for a vehicle that cleans an ice surface. That being said, I'm not firm in the belief that a change is required.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • There are two articles that the term "Zamboni" can reasonably refer to. The machine got 8,959 page views in December, the song got 1,636. So there's a 90 percent likelihood a reader typing in this term is seeking the machine. Kauffner (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And, even more importantly, there's virtually no chance someone looking for the song would be surprised to find themselves at the article on ice resurfacers. If they know the song, they know the machine. Powers T 18:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If we look only at the last four days, we get 159 for the song and 2,740 for the Zamboni. So no matter which period is looked at, the peak on the 16th of 716 vs. 110,455 or the period before or after the answer is always the same - Zamboni is the Scotch Tape of ice resurfacing. Apteva (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are two articles that the term "Zamboni" can reasonably refer to."
No. Compare the huge DAB page Marconi, to take another inventor. Not a redirect to Marconi, California, for example. "Zamboni" might be searched for in connection with any of these topics:
Article        12/2012 pageviews

Anteo Zamboni               1336
Frank Zamboni               2989
Giovanni Fortunato Zamboni    17
Giovanni Zamboni             200
Giuseppe Zamboni             195
Ice resurfacer              8959
Marco Zamboni                176
Maria Zamboni                743
Paolo Zamboni               1994
Zamboni (song)               570
Zamboni pile                1228
The Zamboni                  168
The Zambonis                 580
Guelfo Zamboni               122
Luigi Zamboni                140
CCVI*                       3637
                    Total: 23054

* Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency; has several redirects that include "Zamboni", like Zamboni procedure
  • "So there's a 90 percent likelihood a reader typing in this term is seeking the machine."
A complete non sequitur.
  • "If they know the song, they know the machine."
Not proven, and not helpful for anyone finding the term "Zamboni" with a concealed allusion to the song, and seeking help on Wikipedia to determine the possible meanings.
  • "If we look only at the last four days, we get 159 for the song and 2,740 for the Zamboni."
Of limited relevance; the tail of the drastically reducing spike is still with us, for a little longer. See the section above, regarding the artificial "Google Doodle" spike in pageviews. See WP:RECENT about such spikes: "A news spike is a sudden mass interest in any current event, whereupon Wikipedians create and update articles on it, even if some readers later feel that the topic was not historically significant in any way."
  • "Zamboni is the Scotch Tape of ice resurfacing."
If so, so what? It has many other meanings as well, and in publications (reliable sources) those meanings dominate over a North American piece of seasonal sports equipment, whose article gets fewer than half of the pageviews for all of the sixteen relevant articles listed above – to say nothing of other topics in miscellaneous articles (and which have articles on Italian Wikipedia).

NoeticaTea? 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another thing that is helpful to do sometimes is to go back a year or a year and a half to get stats. We have Dec 2012, here are July 2011 and Dec 2011, for the only two subjects that could be titled "Zamboni". Frank Zamboni is not commonly known as "Zamboni" nor are any others above called "Zamboni". Marconi, Tesla, Gandhi, and Edison are all commonly known by their last name only, and half redirect to their namesake, but all probably should.
    • Title Jul Dec
    • Zamboni 4112 3841
    • Ice resurfacer 3745 9637
    • song 360 447
  • Basically, from the criteria that we use to determine primary topic, the article on cellophane tape is at Scotch Tape, and as far as I can tell, the article for machines for resurfacing ice for skating and hockey correctly belongs at Zamboni, based on those criteria. It is up to whoever closes this to determine whether this seems valid. Apteva (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Apteva, that case is not comparable at all. There is only one semantic association for "cellophane tape", and there are more than twenty semantic associations for the term "Zamboni". That's why Zamboni needs to be at a DAB page, and Cellophane tape does not. (As I write, that is a redlink; it is not even a redirect. Contrast Cellotape: a redirect to Sellotape.) From the criteria that are used for primary topics, no topic stands out as more notable than all others; and in terms of long-term notability and mentions in printed sources, the ice resurfacer has only a weak claim.
      NoeticaTea? 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The relevant question is not how many other cellophanes there are but how many scotches, of which there are 20 on the dab page, vs. 12 on the zamboni page. There are many primary topics that have a zillion others of that name, and how many are on the disambiguation page is not one of the criteria used in determining a primary topic, even though that is occasionally cited as if it was. The criteria is more searched for than any other, and a clincher, but I can not say a determinant, is more searched for than all others. There is only one topic that could be called scotch tape, and only two that could be called Zamboni. Apteva (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, I had forgotten your first allusion (in the earlier section) and focused only on this: "Zamboni is the Scotch Tape of ice resurfacing." But the analogy still fails. There are no other meanings for either "cellophane tape" or "Scotch Tape", so it's a simple titling decision and no one is left confused. But there are at least twenty (not twelve) meanings connected with Zamboni. Sixteen of those have articles directly relevant to them on Wikipedia. Anyway, for your analogy to be apt we would be moving Ice resurfacer to Zamboni (or to Zamboni machine). Like Scotch Tape as a base article, right? That is not the proposal here. NoeticaTea? 23:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it is. The words "and the disambiguation page displaced" imply that it be displaced with Zamboni as the new title for what is now at Ice resurfacer, as I read it. The page that is being moved is the disambiguation page, so that Zamboni can refer to the ice surfacing machine. Technically they are asking that Zamboni be a redirect to the ice surfacing machine, but moving that article too makes more sense. Apteva (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And move Photocopier to Xerox machine while we're at it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No. While Zamboni, bandaid, and scotchtape are ubiquitously used for their namesake, photocopier is used often enough to not warrant using Xerox as the title. There are some titles that have a primary topic which we are not recognizing, but Xerox, in my opinion, is not one of them. Zamboni is. Apteva (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apteva, that's all just confused. "Technically they are asking that Zamboni be a redirect to the ice surfacing machine, but moving that article too makes more sense." Moving what to where, and why and how? Get clear about the proposal, once and for all. If you want to alter the proposal, spell out exactly what you have in mind. Now note: Scotch Tape is not taken as a primary topic for anything but Scotch Tape. As the article says, it is a kind of pressure sensitive tape. So is Sellotape. Both are kinds of "cellophane tape", which does not have a base article; and of course both are kinds of Adhesive tape. NoeticaTea? 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still in favor of this, even after the pageview stats tabulated above seem to indicate the ice resurfacer doesn't even get half of all the Zamboni-related traffic? Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question does not require an answer and is quite frankly an example of wp:point to even ask. Apteva (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a good question. Editors ought really to have changed their opinions in response to what I revealed above, about the WP:RECENTISM masked by an enormous artificial spike in pageviews. NoeticaTea? 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surname holders in general are partial title matches. The only actually ambiguous topics here are the machine, the corporation, and the song. The machine is the primary topic for the title "Zamboni", even in light of what you revealed above. No one would expect to find an article on any of the people to be encyclopedically listed as just "Zamboni". Editors ought really to change their opinions in response to what I have revealed here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Partial title matches only count if it can be shown that people are searching for them with just the surname. You can't just look at the pageviews. Powers T 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:GLWC Homemade Zamboni.JPG
GLWC Zamboni
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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ice resurfacer which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it simple, per DABNOINCLUDE

[edit]

Adding this as an Edit request because I am involved in the current Move request at Ice resurfacer, which is linked from here.

In the first bullet, please change:

  • an ice resurfacer, commonly known as a "Zamboni machine" as a genericized trademark

to:

per WP:DABNOINCLUDE. No hurry. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 12-JAN-2019

[edit]

  COI not applicable  
"Adding this as an Edit request because I am involved in the current Move request at Ice resurfacer"

  • An editor who wishes to implement a policy or guideline in an article where another competing policy or guideline previously applied[a] does not have a COI.
  • A conflict of interest involves situations where an individual's role as a Wikipedia editor comes into conflict with another external role. The requesting editor's other role in this case is as a Wikipedia editor. Favoring one guideline over another does not constitute a COI, because both roles are still as a Wikipedia editor.[b]

Regards,  Spintendo  06:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spintendo: Thanks for that detailed explanation, I understand better about COI re editor roles now than I did before, and about non-conflicting internal roles in this particular case. This time around, even absent COI, I think I'll just let an uninvolved editor do the honors if they wish to, or not, as the case may be. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ In the circumstance involving the move request, the central issue revolves around which competing guidelines should apply — WP:PRECISION or WP:COMMONNAME.
  2. ^ There are situations where a Wikipedia editor would have an internal conflict of interest, such as the guideline that a GA reviewer ought not to have been a frequent editor of the article being reviewed. Currently, no such rules cover the situation at hand, that of prohibiting the making of changes to either articles' DAB page listings when those pages are involved in a WP:RM process.

Requested move 26 May 2023

[edit]
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) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zamboni → Zamboni (disambiguation) – so that Zamboni can redirect to ice resurfacer. This proposal is not to move ice resurfacer.

  • Previous discussions in 2013 and 2018 (different proposal) did not reach consensus.
  • I believe "ice resurfacer" is the primary topic for the following reasons:
    • WikiNav shows that 77.67% of users click "ice resurfacer", and 19.57% click "Zamboni Company".
    • Pageview analysis shows "ice resurfacer" as the most popular page, followed by this "Zamboni" (which spikes with "ice resurfacer") and Frank Zamboni.
    • "Zamboni Company" and "Frank Zamboni" are associated with "ice resurfacer" and prominently featured in the article ("Frank Zamboni" in the lead, and "Zamboni Company" in the hatnote.)

Steps to complete move:

  1. Zamboni → Zamboni (disambiguation)
  2. Zamboni redirects to ice resurfacer
  3. Edit hatnote at ice resurfacer to note Zamboni (disambiguation) Wracking 💬 03:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per nom—blindlynx 12:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, WikiNav shows that there were 856 incoming views of Zamboni and 393 outgoing views of ice resurfacer, so ~46%. Since this is the very first link in the article, and the formatting is otherwise conventional and generally comprehensible to an average English reader, this ratio is not actually typically indicative of a primary topic by usage. Rather it looks like the list is already appropriately informative to the average reader, about half of whom click through to read more, and we don't need to do anything. --Joy (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies, let me reword: 77.67% of outgoing clicks are to "ice resurfacer". That's how WikiNav calculates outgoing views; not by total pageviews of the disambiguation page, but by total outgoing clicks. The next most popular for outgoing clicks is "Zamboni Company" at 19.57% (or 13.11% of viewers). Pages unrelated to ice resurfacing machines and the Zamboni company are negligible.
See WP:PT1: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
Even using your calculation of outgoing clicks, "ice resurfacer" is the primary topic by virtue of being more sought-after than all other outgoing clicks combined. Wracking 💬 18:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find this a very odd approach to the primary topic guideline and WikiNav. None of these things are gospel, they're just tools, we're supposed to apply them judiciously. This strikes me as trying to find a interpretation that fits a pre-conceived notion, and to ignore any other interpretations. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamboni_(disambiguation)&oldid=1245717804"