Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

Partial title matches - talk section?

The WP:PTM section has a dispute tag pointing to the talk section "Appropriate use," but I cannot find any such section on this current talk page or its most recent archive. Is the dispute still active? Which current talk section, if any, is most relevant? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed the tag. It's related to Oicumayberight's objections in multiple sections above, but there's no change in the consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The section it's most related to is the section titled "Subjective CREEP". And it's still under dispute. I'm not convince that anyone has address the subjectivity, especially in regard to adjectives/adverbs in the language and special consideration when disambiguating adjectives. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the discussion has closed. I will chalk it up as a missed opportunity to improve wikipedia. PTM may improve some disambiguation pages. It may even do more good than harm. But the fact is PTM doesn't work as well with adjectives as it does with nouns or verbs. Facts are stubborn things. Hopefully that lesson won't go unnoticed despite the vagueness in the wording of PTM. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Knight RM Overturned

I was not involved in the The Dark Knight (film) → The Dark Knight RM discussion [1], and only learned of it, and the RM Review it spawned, yesterday. The review is now closed.

I bring it up here because I did not see very many "title experts" involved in either the original RM, or in the review. I suggest if it ever goes to RM again (and I suspect it will, as this was #5), I think the discussion would benefit with an injection of title policy understanding and knowledge, and probably will warrant a note of it on this talk page.

My view, as stated in the close review, is that this is yet another example of where moving per the WP:Yogurt Principle (determining consensus by evaluating the arguments in terms of their basis in policy rather than by counting !votes) despite the lack of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS will actually lead to a stable and non-controversial title supported by community consensus due to the title's consistency with applicable policy and guidelines. In fact, evaluating the arguments in terms of policy is exactly what the RM closer did to find consensus in support of the move, so I was disappointed to see it overturned. --B2C 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

B2C, now that your essay has been moved to User space as User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle it would help if you could please avoid the shortcut and type the full location. As far as "title experts" The Dark Knight is quite happily and sensibly redirecting to Dark Knight disambiguation. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how you're evaluating "happily and sensibly", but the RM history of that title,
suggests the Wikipedia community does not agree with your assessment. --B2C 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I stand by the comment. All I see from your list is repeated attempts to make a title ambiguous that have all been said 'no' to. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The repeated attempts you see did not spring from a vacuum. They demonstrate that a significant part of the community is not happy with the title, nor thinks it is sensible. --B2C 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
And the fact that every one of them has failed? —Frungi (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

One article, occupies 2 Primary Topics

Should we have a section to Wikipedia:Disambiguation to clarify what is already implied, that Primary Topic doesn't require that an article is titled with the Primary Topic to be Primary Topic, i.e. that a single article with 1 title can by its content occupy 2 or 3 or more Primary Topic claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In ictu oculi (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2013

You example is Danzig and Gdansk. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Table primarytopic

Shouldn't table join window, door, chair as primary topics? That's Table (furniture). RM proposal just to move the DAB and create a redirect (I'm being cautious as I feel it's too obvious) at Talk:Table#Requested move. Widefox; talk 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume that every title for every element of a particular set has to have the set topic as its primary topic. "Table" as in the "periodic table" and not furniture may be more common than the analogous (or non-existent analogous) topics for the other titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
100% agree. Making sets would be detrimental. It was an attempt at humour, as nom purely based on competing terms at table. Widefox; talk 23:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Issue with choosing a Primary Topic

After the discussion at Talk:America I have noticed that Primary Topics are influenced highly by editors personal views. Two situations that are almost identical are these:

Even though these two situations as per usage are almost identical, no argument has been made at Britain for making the UK the Primary Topic, and would most likely be highly opposed if suggested. This is because Great Britain is almost the same geographic entity as the UK, and the two topics are related whereas the the Americas is a completely different entity to the USA. Not sure if this is significant or not, but it does show inconsistency in reasons for or against choosing a Primary Topic. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it demonstrates the difficulties in making rules based on complicated criteria for the sake of consistency in cases that are never quite identical and which those making the rules may never have considered. If it is not obvious what is best for users in a particular instance then the community can discuss it and arrive at a solution; try to make abstract rules and you do not avoid arguments, you create them, because editors are not only consumed with debating the correct application of the guidelines but also in trying to change them to something that would fit the case better (and others less so). --AJHingston (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the difference comes in the fact that the frequency with which "Britain" is used to refer to the UK and to Great Britain is roughly equal, in part because of geographic confusion from people outside the British Isles (there's a reason this diagram and this article exist). Despite your insistence otherwise, "America" is used to refer to the United States much more often than it does the Americas; I feel the better comparison is Republic of Ireland (country) and Ireland (landmass), where the article naming, of course, has been the subject of considerable controversy. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Ireland is comparable at all. The current topic at Ireland is completely political and nothing to do with usage. I think Ireland is directed to the land mass firstly because many Irish Nationalists see the entire island as being a nation called 'Ireland', and the Republic of Ireland being a political entity in which the government of Ireland controls (with the rest being under 'occupation'), and secondly that Irish Loyalists don't like the fact that the Republic of Ireland is officially called 'Ireland' and so would prefer it being directed to the island regardless of the fact that many readers may be looking for the Republic of Ireland. This shows more inconsistency in reasons for or against choosing a Primary Topic. Regards, Rob (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not just about politics, though. The geographical entity long pre-dates the political divide and if we take a statement such as there are no snakes in Ireland its validity would sensibly be judged and understood as a reference to the island, not the state. Making rules, or slavishly following a precedent that may be different in ordinary usage, is not the way to come up with an answer that helps users, though. If you want a problematic case, wait until the outcome of the Scottish referendum - if there is a vote in favour of Scotland leaving the UK we will have a real headache in this regard, but it is not one that will be resolved by reference to the disambiguation guidelines. --AJHingston (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Although a topic pre-dating other topics is commonly used in deciding whether a Primary Topic exists, it's not currently a listed reason. I feel maybe more reasons for choosing a Primary Topic should be listed, or non at all, as currently editors see reasons listed as being most important and that therefore all other reasons are irrelevant, for example many of the editors at Talk:America. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt, though, that the process of deciding was done in such a formalised way. It was a reasonable decision, even though it may be different from what might have been done in different cases. A list could seek to impose abstract rules and so impose solutions that a consensus of involved editors agreed were sub-optimal in some cases, or it could merely demonstrate the range of considerations that had been employed in some instances. --AJHingston (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Max publication name disambiguation

Across three different Wikipedia language editions, we have articles about three different magazines titled Max:

It is likely that there are or have been other magazines titled Max. The article on the English Wikipedia, Max (magazine), is about the one established in 1991; there are no articles, as far as I can tell, about the other two.

So, then, what is the proper method of disambiguation in a case like this one? Should the article be preemptively disambiguated (e.g., to Max (German magazine)); or, as long as it is the only article on the English Wikipedia about a magazine titled Max, should it remain at its current title?

Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter, yes. We wait for there to be English Wikipedia ambiguity before trying to disambiguate it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a mess, as all the three foreign wiki articles mentioned above have interwiki links to the one English article, although it's only correct for the German wiki! It would be useful if "someone" felt inspired to create sourced stubs here for the other two... but I'm not volunteering. PamD 20:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That brings up a question. Should we allow dab pages when other language wikies have articles with the same name about different topics? If we did that, in this case, the inter language links could go to the dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
If other language versions have an article on a topic, then I think it's a candidate to be redlinked on a disambiguation page here. Powers T 01:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Not currently (and I hope not subsequently). Red links need blue links (not interwiki links), so the red links would only be candidates if the red link is used elsewhere on English Wikipedia. The interwiki problem should be fixed by updating (and removing some of) the interwiki data. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have imported the stubs, creating Max (French magazine) and Max (Italian magazine). I would recommend moving the current Max (magazine) to Max (German magazine), since I see nothing about it that would make it more prominent than the other two. bd2412 T 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Done the page move, redirected Max (magazine) to Max dab page, e/c'd with JHJ on the dab page, and now cleaning up the mess of incoming links to Max (magazine)! PamD 16:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, the more I look at this the messier it gets: do we assume that the link in Belén_Rodríguez to Max (magazine) was intended for the German title because that's the one we had at that title, or that it could be any of them? Then there's a reference to "the Bulgarian version of Max" in Jordan Todorov. PamD 16:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the lot in AWB: Italian links where clear from context, the others at German magazine even when in doubt as they won't be any more wrong than they were before all this. PamD 16:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The one that I fixed went to List of Mexican magazines, obviously not one of our existing options. The new articles have, of course, drawn every kind of maintenance tag. I'll try to get back to them within the next few days. bd2412 T 17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions and initiative. It's quite refreshing to see. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Primary topic for Page

I moved Page to Page (disambiguation) in order to promote Page (paper) as the primary topic, but got reverted by User:Bkonrad. I don't agree, so here we are. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like a proposal to be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. bd2412 T 13:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The present Page is certainly unhelpful to users. Irrespective of whether it should be the primary topic, for Page (paper) to be relegated to the bottom of a long list under 'other uses' is absurd, and makes a nonsense of the lead sentence 'may also refer to' when the 'also' presumably means other than Page (paper). Incidentally, when I search for 'page' in WP, Page is ranked ninth, and Page (paper) does not appear at all in the drop box (listing only the first 10). PAGE is first and does not appear at all in the list at Page. I am sympathetic to the proposal to make Page (paper) primary, but improving the disambiguation experience would be necessary anyway. --AJHingston (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No real opinion on article titling, but if you do post it at WP:RM, please use the instructions for multiple page moves because you would be moving Page to Page (disambiguation), and Page (paper) to Page. I also concur with AJHingston that the paper usage should be at the top of the dab page, under a heading by itself if necessary. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As I commented when I reverted the move, based on page traffic statistics, there is no obvious primary topic. As such, the claim that this was uncontroversial is false and whether there is a primary topic should be discussed. I agree with others that the page (paper) entry should be placed higher on the dab page than it currently is. older ≠ wiser 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
All right, I'm turning the page and changing venues. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

State space

needs to become a disambiguation page: there are at least a physical meaning, a mathematical one and different meanings in informatics--92.192.17.16 (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a title may have multiple meanings is not, by itself, reason enough to make that title a disambiguation page. Are the meanings unrelated, or is there some common relationship between their meanings that can be discussed in an article? Assuming the meanings are unrelated, are the other meanings used widely enough to prevent the current article from being the primary topic of the term? If not, then there should be a disambiguation page at State space (disambiguation) delineating those terms. bd2412 T 16:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Added a line to WP:DABCONCEPT

I have added the following line to WP:DABCONCEPT, which I believe to be uncontroversial:

  • The Nokia Lumia is a cell phone with many different design models. The fact that different models in the same series of product by the same manufacturer may have the same name, or the same combination of name and number, does not make them ambiguous. The relationship between these design models can and should be discussed on a page describing products created by or licensed by the same manufacturer.

Cheers! bd2412 T 14:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Precision of disambiguators

A recent RM resulted in the move of an article to Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain).

The problem I see is that the building concerned is not in New Britain, but rather in New Britain, Connecticut. There seems a consensus that the island is the primary meaning of New Britain. Assuming this to be true, the title we ended up with is not recognizable to readers, in that most readers seeing just the title will assume that the building is in New Britain rather than in New Britain, Connecticut.

But I'd like to step back and ask, irrespective of the particular merits of this case, has it shown a tweak that is needed in our documentation? In particular, how does WP:precision apply to disambiguators?

I believe (obviously) that the disambiguator should be sufficiently precise to make the whole title, well, unambiguous. And I'm coming to the conclusion that this is not clear from our current policies and guidelines.

But I'd like other opinions on both of these two points. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree that precision in disambiguation doesn't seem to be the primary concern of the effort if at all. Instead, fewer links on the disambiguation pages seems to be the priority. It's putting cleanliness and uniformity over function. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I closed that move based on the RM discussion and current policy and guidelines. However on a personal note I agree that "New Britain, Connecticut" would be more appropriate and that more generally when disambiguating with a place name the same form should be used as the title of the place's article. However given the lack of current policy or guideline to that effect a decision to move it to that location would have amounted to a supervote given that I thought, and still do think, that consensus of that particular discussion was slightly towards the title I moved it to. Dpmuk (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Exactly, and I think your close was quite correct. It's the current policy I'm questioning, and this result is a good example exactly because it does in my opinion comply. (The question of exactly when a supervote is to be discouraged is a hot topic elsewhere, but it's not the issue here.) Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, there seems a rough consensus above that under current policy, guidelines and practice, there's no need for a disambiguated title to have a recognizable disambiguator. Is that a fair summary? Or are there policies and guidelines that I've missed or misread?

And there seems to be a very rough consensus (in that it's more a consensus of silence) that this is not good. The longer and more precise disambiguator would have been better in the case of Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain), despite it being unsupported by current guidelines (except possibly WP:IAR of course). Is this also a fair summary?

And a third question then... Assuming that the longer and more precise disambiguator is to be preferred in this particular example, does this apply only to geographical disambiguators, or is there a more general principle we can apply? Andrewa (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A misleading disambiguator is not a good idea. Using a term that has a primary topic different from the intended meaning certainly seems misleading to me. So yes, adding the state would help. Or use just the state, if there's only one such in the state, perhaps. In this case, the Congregation B'nai Israel (Bridgeport, Connecticut) would appear to conflict, and is a useful precedent. I have no opinion about whether it's better to say Temple or Congregation or neither, but that would not be a good place to try to disambiguate. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any problem in moving the article in question to a better disambiguator, I'm even hopeful my suggestion there will get the nod eventually. But I think it may be an opportunity to improve our guidelines, so I'm pursuing that first. It may make the RM even easier. Or alternatively, it could have produced a consensus that no further move was necessary, but that looks unlikely now. Andrewa (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I was considering moving the article, but given the RM close, it would basically be me overruling the close. I asked the admin that did the close and their logic, while not producing the best result, was reasonable based on the guidelines. Hence the need for words to cover this case which is not unique. If a simple rename was done, leaving the dismabiguator alone, we should not have any discussion here. The problem is that both were changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)?
I think under the circumstances a new RM is appropriate, also given the discussion here and the closing comment. I further think this should be discussed at Talk:Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain)#Disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I will admit to probably erring in changing the disambiguator as well, it may well have been best to leave it as it was. Although that said it's debatable whether this discussion would ever have taken place if I'd done so, so maybe something good has come out of as this certainly involves wider issues than just this article. I think the move carried out by User:Dicklyon was somewhat premature as I'd have like to seen more consensus here first, but that said it would be pointy to move it back as unless the discussion here takes an unexpected turn it would have ended up at the title anyway. I was going to come here and comment that I didn't think another RM would be necessary if consensus here was clear but obviously I got over taken by events. Dpmuk (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll certainly admit to being wrong on at least one thing recently... [2]... but I still say, the place to discuss that specific case is the article talk page. Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, The article is the place for further discussion. The closer's reading of the policies and the consensus was correct in this case; "New Britain" is equally recognizable and obviously more concise than the longer title.--Cúchullain t/c 13:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The real issue as far as this guideline is concerned is that we seem to have different projects following different standards. Some projects seem to be following a "Name (city)" standard, while others are following a "Name (City, State)" standard. Now... we have a choice... on one hand we say that this is OK, and that different projects can set their own preferred disambiguation formats... or we can say that this is not OK, and that that all articles should do related disambiguation the same way. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The original article was probably from the NRHP faucet. Their standard is (city, state) which was on the old name. So why was this changed if it follows a project guideline? Or if two guidelines or standards apply, how do you choose? If one is already established should it be changed if a second project is involved? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm coming to the view that the longer disambiguator should be preferred by default, with leeway to use the shorter one in cases where there is clearly no confusion, and onus of proof on those who want to use the shorter one, to establish that there is no confusion possible. And I wish them luck! The overriding consideration should be utility to the reader. That is the whole reason we are here. Andrewa (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can continue to state that "New Britain" is equally recognizable, when the primary meaning of New Britain has been agreed to be a completely different place. I'm missing something here. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to guideline to eliminate ambiguity

I'm proposing that we add something like this to the guideline.

When adding a disambiguator, it should match any existing disambiguation. So you would not use Foo (place) when place is ambiguous, instead use Foo (place1) to match the existing titled article being used for disambiguation.

This would address the issue with New Briton above and provide needed guidance for clarity in article names. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That would IMO be an improvement. As it stands it doesn't quite match the New Britain case, as New Britain is not just ambiguous but positively misleading, but it would cover it well.
I think it needs a bit more work for other reasons. Maybe ...not use [[Foo (xyz)]] when "xyz" is ambiguous... and then spell out how we judge that xyz is ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that most disambiguators would be ambiguous on their own. This goes way too far in trying to fix a rare problem. Be careful what you ask for. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that is right. Hard cases make bad law - is it too bold to suggest invoking the Five Pillars here and change the solution, not the guideline? --AJHingston (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I note that, according to our article to which you link, some jurists regard hard cases make bad law as out of date at best. And I'm not even convinced that this is even a particularly hard case, or even unusual. See below.
Unsure of exactly what your proposed alternative would mean. Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. We need to be very clear of what ambiguous means in the case of a disambiguator. I tried to say that above, but perhaps didn't say it clearly.
In an extreme sense, author is ambiguous, as there's more than one author. That's doesn't pose any problem in using author as a disambiguator.
Perhaps we should focus instead on the problem of misleading disambiguators. We would not use railway as a disambiguator to distinguish between two famous businessmen, one famous for railways, the other for some other industry, because Joe Blogs (railway) sounds like the title of an article about a railway. This is commonsense, but so IMO was the case of New Britain.
It's not even a particularly hard case, but our imaginations do let us down at times. And that's one thing that good policies and guidelines help to address. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
My concern with this is where the "existing disambiguation" is already a parenthetical disambiguation as I'm not sure two sets of parentheses is very sensible. Although I can't think of an example I'm sure there are also cases where the combination of article title and disambiguation is very clear even when the disambiguation is itself disambiguated as the article title could only possibly apply to one of the disambiguation possibilities. Neither of these really applies in the case of place names so I would suggest a more hard and fast rule for place names and a more general statement that, for other cases, any possible confusion should be taken into account when deciding how to disambiguate. Dpmuk (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree that two sets of parentheses is not a good idea, and I don't think that was the intent at all. Is this used, anywhere? Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope not! But if your current wording got included I bet it's only a matter of time before someone tries it! Dpmuk (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, your imagination is ahead of mine on that. Point taken. How would you word it? Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"When adding a qualifier, the qualifier should be unambiguous (or at least have a primary topic). So you would not use Foo (Bar) because Bar is ambiguous and has no primary topic, but you might use Foo (Duchy of Bar) instead, if the duchy were the Bar in question." -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A definite improvement, I like it. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That would still produce the same result for Temple B'Nai Israel (New Britain) since we have a primary topic. I would drop (or at least have a primary topic). Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It would only produce the same result if a non-primary topic were used as the disambiguator. To avoid that possible interpretation, rephrase it as "When adding a qualifier, the qualifier should be unambiguous (or at least be the primary topic). older ≠ wiser 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Primary topics are often ambiguous and can be misused. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes. A primary topic where there are multiple topics with that name is by definition ambiguous. That primary topics are sometimes abused is a somewhat different topic. older ≠ wiser 20:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Walter Howells

Could those following this talk page help out with what to do with Sir Walter Howell and Walter Howell? The latter was created first, the former later (more recently). Both are of marginal notability (IMO), so I don't think either have claims to the primary topic name. Should both be at a disambiguation title (e.g. 'rower' and 'civil servant'), with 'Walter Howell' becoming a disambiguation page? Unless things have changed a lot, 'Sir' shouldn't be used as a disambiguator, IIRC. Or it is easier to leave the rower as the primary topic and just move the civil servant page? I've not checked to see if there are any other Walter Howells that might have a claim to the primary topic title. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Would "Sir Walter Howell" be the correct title for the civil servant article if there were no ambiguity? The rower is the current primary topic, so valid outcomes are to hatnote the civil servant (with whatever title it should have) or to demote the rower from primary topic by moving it to a qualified title and creating a dab at the base name; that decision can be made at Talk:Walter Howell. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
There is potentially another Walter Howell, a professor of history and mayor in the USA (I forget where). That would be a BLP like the one on the rower. I suspect it might be best to try and expand and improve the two existing articles and then come back to the issue of where the titles should be. That is my general rule of thumb (best to improve the core content of an article rather than spend time discussing style or naming issues), one I forgot to apply here! If you want to go ahead and carry on (on the article talk page) the discussion I started here, please do. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB

There was a discussion about the brand-new inclusion of WP:PDAB, which was archived due to lack of activity (it can be found in the archive here. In the discussion it was found this section is and I will cite : "uninformative and potentially confusing/misleading", "vague", and approved with a rare consensus (7-5) at VPP. It was also suggested that its addition is not relevant to WP:D but to WP:AT, and that its inclusion "overlap" and "[is] reduntant" with WP:INCDAB. Which have to be done with this section, rewritten, merged or removed? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Explanation

I know the explanation is really long, it lasts four pages in Microsoft Word. It was intended to be posted at WP:MRV rather than here, but I modified it for this RFC.

In my opinion, as some people have seen, is the inclusion of WP:PDAB is incorrect, not only for its content, but because in some occasion it is being used as a policy rather than a guideline. This sub guide was recently created under a really obscure discussion which managed to a consensus 7 in favor v. 5 against at VPP (linked to an archive above). The guide is badly written. First it says that if an already disambiguated term (from now “dabbed”) still being ambiguous it should have a further disambiguation, like in Party (album) as it cites, but at the same time it says and I cite: “With some naming conventions, it is appropriate to redirect a partially disambiguated term to an article. If so, a hatnote directing readers to other possible targets (or a disambiguation page) should be used.” This happens in redirects like Thriller (album) or Chicken Little (film) as two of some other examples I have found. Redirecting the articles to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) or Chicken Little (2005 film) is a WP:PRECISION violation, which at the same time is part of a policy, it is like if we move America to America (disambiguation) and left the redirect there, or it’s like if we move “Central Time Zone back to Central Time Zone (North America) just to avoid confusion with the Australian zone, but at the same time left the redirect at CTZ (NA) as it had happened until last May. The second reason why PDAB is misleading is that in the strict sense articles like Paris, United States are partial disambiguation like in Thriller (album). Oxford defines “disambiguate” as “remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit)”, while Webster “to establish a single semantic or grammatical interpretation for”. Please fill the gaps (for real):

  • Paris was ______ in ____.
  • The United States of _______ was founded in the 18th century.
  • The album Thriller is one of the most successful albums released by ___________________.

A normal person would have answered “founded, 250 BC, America, Michael Jackson”, but the correct answers are:

If there is no context the ambiguity is clear. One may argue that they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPICS and, therefore, what readers are searching the most, but why this can/does not apply to PDAB pages, Thriller (album) with a lot more of hits than any of the other two albums (or in fact any page titled “Thriller”, even when already dabbed “Thriller (album)” receives more hits than “Thriller (Michael Jackson album)”: [3] [4], and it is not because those readers are searching Eddie and the Hot Rods or Lambchop albums [5] [6] their hits would have increased since then. Something similar has happened with Psycho (1960 film). Since its move still receiving more hits than its remake, [7] which interestingly now receive less hits than in the past since 1960’s move: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Or Poison (American band) as I linked it Thriller (MJ album) talk page. The same has applied to “Thriller” which after the move still being the page readers searches the most of any other “Thriller”. In fact the only place MJ album should go is at Thriller, but the genre and maybe the MJ song, or its respective video, can be the primary topic. The supposed reason why these full DABs are performed is because of our readers, if this is for the readers, why are we making them go from page to page and not giving them what they are looking for easily and quickly? The best example I have found is Erotica (Madonna album) versus Erotica (The Darling Buds album). The first receives 500 daily hits, while the second receives from 5 to 15 visits,[12][13]. Are readers looking for the TDB album? Maybe or maybe not, but the lack of readers Wikistats and Google results tell us they arrive there maybe for curiosity or for probable information the article doesn’t has, but it is clear Madonna’s is searched many times more.

In my opinion a reason to “support PDAB” is because confusion is intended to be avoided. And here comes a contradiction. If our readers are “confused” with our title style, that is “If I search ‘Thriller (album)’ in the search bar, why I am redirected to (before its move ‘why do I end at’) MJ album?” First of all a new reader or inexperienced reader will not search “Thriller (album)”, that’s something wiki sites use, but I don’t see the NYT or written encyclopedias using parenthesis; anyway Northwest proves this point. “North West” is the name of the daughter of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, when she did born, “Northwest”, one of its redirects is “North West”, and , therefore, increased its page views and ended semi-protected due to vandalism. If the problem is that “Thriller (album)” is ambiguous, why it is titled like this in the first place, why these pages are not titled “Thriller (album of ‘Insert artist or band here’)”? In the search bar this kind of titles avoid *any* kind of confusion. Also using years disambiguation create confusions. Examples like HMS Speedy (1782), Titanic (1997 film), Cinderella (1950 film), etc makes me wonder if they get the article they are looking for in with the first hit. With this it is assumed the reader already knows the date in which the subject was released/created. For example, if another film(s) titled “Sleepy Hollow” is released, “Sleepy Hollow (film) should be moved to Sleepy Hollow (1999 film); until last year I didn’t know it was released in 1999, do you think every person in the world already knows when the subject of the article was created? We can’t assume readers come here with already known information about what they came to read here. During multiple RM discussions I asked PDAB supporters any kind of evidence readers are getting confused with the PDAB titles, but it never was presented, even when we have WP:FEEDBACK. Readers have the ability to complain about what happens in Wikipedia asking within Wikipedia or any other place. I’ve seen people discussing Wikipedia, in positive and negative views elsewhere.

Another problem is that some of the PDAB supporters believe pages like WP:D or WP:NCM are policies and not guidelines,[14] in either case a violation of WP:BURO. They tend to cite WP:NCM, but that page a) used to contradict itself with WP:MOSALBUM until last month somebody removed that contradiction without consensus to do so.[15], b) NCM currently contradicts itself (in the Anthrax (band) part where another band with the same name exists), and c) the problem with NCM is that another user added this information about PDABs without consensus back in 2009.[16]. The problem is these people are using these guidelines as policies, and as such, they cannot be changed or questioned by users if they are listed there. Many of these NCX pages were created many years ago (WP:NCF was created possibly in 2002 and I doubt that with a great consensus to be created), and the creators may be retired, or there is no evidence these things were created with consensus, just that these guides have been edited since then and followed blindly creating a non-action consensus, like ...Baby One More Time (song) which was obviously the primary target of any “…Baby One More Time” article, but years ago editors were accustomed to create the album page as the primary target, and the title song under the DAB, for example the article Rudebox, which was about the song , was copy-pasted to Rudebox (song) and Rudebox (album) ended there, creating a copyvio mess. I’m not sure if pages like NCM were created with consensus or they were copied from another page (compare WP:NCM part to WP:NCF or WP:NCTV parts, they have a similar writing). Before all of this, it was a tendency that the argument “The Film uses a full dab, this album must follow its style,” but it is incorrect as trying to move a video game page not under WP:NCVG but under WP:NCMAC, each project exists for a reason.

These DABs are also affecting the editors. I found a double dabbed article, Corona de lágrimas (2012 telenovela), when Corona de lágrimas didn’t even has another article, why it had a year and a type of article disambiguation? Because the person who created it thought they were necessary. The same for Lifening which was at “Lifening (Snow Patrol song) with no other article to be disambiguated. The list of unnecessary further dabs is long (at least in what I’ve found). Or what about the current RM at Talk:All the Wrong Places (song), there is no other article in Wikipedia with this name, why is the internal disambiguation needed when All the Wrong Places (book) doesn’t exit and All the Wrong Places redirects to the song?

I also found Circle the Drain (song) when there wasn’t another article. I find interesting this case in particular, if you are an admin you can verify all of this. “Circle the Drain” was a disambiguation page which contained two items, one about a song by Katy Perry (located in the article Circle the Drain (song)) and one about a song by 36 Crazyfists from the album Bitterness the Star. In the strict sense “Circle the Drain (song)” still ambiguous as 36’s is also a song; under PDAB arguments it should have been located in the first place at Circle the Drain (Katy Perry song). The same case is being applied to Another Love’s RM, there aren’t other links, but commentators were more worried about having multiple non-article songs than checking simple WP:PRECISION stuff. Also the article Left Behind: The Movie still being ambiguous as the movie Left Behind: World at War exists, should the first be moved to Left Behind: The Movie (2000 film) to avoid ambiguity?

Moving pages like Thriller (album) to MJ album is that I, and other people, asked, asks or will ask: which is the sense of moving Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) if the redirect will lead there? That doesn’t solve the problem, it is moved from “Should this page be called “Thriller (album)”” to “Should “Thriller (album)” redirect here?” The title is not supposed to tell the reader what s/he is reading, that’s the function of the lead paragraph. Per PRECISION, we don’t move Energy to Energy (physics) and left a redirect of Energy to that page. It’s like moving Thriller to Thriller (disambiguation) and left the redirect there. There is no sense of disambiguate titles like these, as happended with Ohio District (LCMS) or Central Time Zone (North America), if their non-dabbed redirect page still redirecting there, why Revolver (album), Thriller (album) or The Wizard of Oz (film) are redirected to articles and not disambiguation pages? This is done under an argument “it is what they are searching”, but with a hidden message: “we want to inform the reader what s/he is reading with the article title”, why don’t we give them what they look for without redirects? They are readers, they have the ability of read.

According to In Oculi, items like “Primary albums, films, songs, plants, footballers*, cities (I put an asterisk mark to re-take it later)” has never existed in WPs, but who says they cannot be created? PDAB didn’t exist last May. First of all, as I asked before, was any of the WP:NCX created under consensus of their respective projects, or they were taken or copied from another project, or based upon WP:NC? When NC was created, common sense was applied? Because thanks to these guidelines people has lost its common sense as Deadmaus proved in its first move—yes, the “5” is an style, but it is pronounced anyway, it is not just a style, and people now believe WP:MOSTM is a policy.—Retaking the “footballers*”, if WP:FOOTY has not a primary topic about footballers, why Pelé and Pelé (footballer) are where they are when there are other three footballers with the same name, that’s a contradiction.

At Revolver (album) which was moved to Revolver (The Beatles album) when there was clearly no consensus to move, the moving admin, Tariq, cited PDAB as possibly the “consensus” to move the page regardless the RM decision, when in fact community consensus can override *any* existing policy or guideline (excepting WP:Copyrights, WP:Libel or any other policy that can bring problems to the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.). The evidence of this is Star Trek Into Darkness. “Into” is a four-letter preposition and per WP:CT the page should be called “Star Trek into Darkness”, but it was moved per WP:COMMONNAME (link), a situation ended being discussed in external references like The Independent. The policy WP:Username states that e-mail user names shouldn’t be used, then why accounts with e-mails still editing? Because we can’t obligate them to change their name, especially when this statement was added after their account creation.

Is it better to have pages like Revolver (album) (disambiguation)? I will notify users who have supported, opposed or commented in PDAB-related pages about this discussion (generally we are the same people who comment in similar situations), but also I will notify the projects affected by this, which are mostly those who have NCX pages. The intention of this survey is to see what's next for PDAB, if it is reworded, or merged, or removed with a real community participation bigger than a discussion of twelve users. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB survey

You can add modify (rewrite), merge or remove and a reason or explanation, or you simply add your comments.
  • Keep as Dicklyon says WP:PDAB is a concise statement of the editing community's longstanding consensus view about this topic. There will be exceptions, where a special case can be made, but agitation against this consensus (which already was enshrined in film and music guidelines) is coming from a very small cluster of editors on a very small number of articles. The rest of wikipedia doesn't play Billboard Charts or "Top of the Pops" to find John Brown (TOP footballer) vs John Brown (footballer, born 1962), or Trinidad (TOP town) vs Trinidad, Paraguay. The agitation for a "primary album" "primary song" "primary band" slot is disruptive in itself, and leads to needless and constantly changing competition for the "primary song" slot while providing no value and some inconvenience to the User. Let's hope this confirmation of that consensus puts an end to this. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Note that among several misunderstandings of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above Tbhotch asks "....footballers, why Pelé and Pelé (footballer) are where they are when there are other three footballers with the same name" the question being, why does Pelé (footballer) redirect to Pelé, not to Pelé (disambiguation). The reason is that Pelé is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of everything, Hungarian villages, asteroids, volcanos, he is not merely Pelé (TOP footballer) (as if TOP album, TOP song), but he is the absolute Pelé period, full stop. This is how disambiguation on en.wp works, Pelé is the primary topic, therefore he is not disambiguated. WP:FOOTY here is typical of films, music, and en.wp as a whole. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
And what about Paris when there are multiple "Paris" references or Pelé (footballer), when there are four footballers. I had told you and presented evidence why MJ Thriller is the "top of the pops" album titled Thriller (best selling album ever?), but you never explain why your examples, in this case "John Brown (footballer, born 1962)", is the primary topic, in this case why he should go at "John Brown (footballer)"? Also, this discussion is not to explain why Thriller MJ can be at "Thriller", nor "John Brown (footballer, born 1962)" at "John Brown" (in case somebody thinks this is the idea). Now what you said about the "which already was enshrined in film and music guidelines" part. WP:NFC since its creation explains these disambiguations, the question is, was it created with consensus? WP:NOPRO was a guideline created because Raul was tired of explaining people why WP:TFAs weren't protected, now it was removed because this was a polemical guide that preferred to have BLP violations just to keep the "everyone can edit" ideology. For WP:NCM, as you know as I have explained you at least twice, this was added without consensus, just was copy-pasted from another page. How the "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." part was respected?
Post (edit conflict). Well you say "The reason is that Pelé is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of everything, Hungarian villages, asteroids, volcanos, he is not merelyPelé (TOP footballer) (as if TOP album, TOP song), but he is the absolute Pelé period, full stop." Michael Jackson's Thriller is the only well-known album, and probably the most important in the world, not only because I say so, but because the legacy in the R&B, funk, pop, rock and other genres categories. We can't decide that something is primary when it is not dabbed, but something can't be primary when it is dabbed.Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Tbhotch
The difference is this:
  • Pelé is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of everything, Hungarian villages, asteroids, volcanos
  • Thriller is a dab. There is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, consequently every article will be Thriller (bracket something).
In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment My general impression of the support for the PDAB guideline was that it was intended to avoid disambiguators that don't actually disambiguate. A common thought process among supporters of the guideline is that it seems strange to provide a disambiguator (e.g. "(album)") when it doesn't actually disambiguate the title from all other titles. It may appear confusing, or at least odd, to see on, for example, a disambiguation page the word "(album)" next to one article title... and then two other albums listed below. I don't feel the continued redirection of Thriller (album) to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) obfuscates that point, nor do I think it's particularly relevant when it's obvious it shouldn't be redirected to Thriller while scores of articles still use that link.
At Revolver (album) which was moved to Revolver (The Beatles album) when there was clearly no consensus to move, the moving admin, Tariq, cited PDAB as possibly the “consensus” to move the page regardless the RM decision, when in fact community consensus can override *any* existing policy or guideline Yeah, ok. Given Tbhotch's gusto against this issue, it should come as no surprise that that's an inaccurate summary of what happened at that RM. What happened was that supporters of the move cited PDAB (or the reasons that led to PDAB), while opponents either claimed that it would be harder to find the articles (which wouldn't actually happen so long as the redirect is there) or, more pertinently, expressed their disgust that PDAB even exists. Tbhotch conveniently didn't link to the very similar RM for Revolution (song), where those motives where even more transparent (with people calling it "dumb" and "a joke"). Yes, local consensus can override guidelines and policies, but there's got to be a legitimate reason to do so; your indignation that the PDAB discussion wasn't closed the way you wanted it to is not a legitimate reason. -- tariqabjotu 10:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you have a different definition of "local consensus" than the policy that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS redirects to. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." That sounds pretty clear to me, and seems to directly contradict your opinion that "local consensus can override guidelines and policies." --BDD (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I think the problem was I didn't understand Tbhotch was talking about. If he's saying various guidelines and policies override the PDAB consensus, that's one thing, but I thought he was talking about the discussion at the Revolver RM overriding the consensus at PDAB.
My point about the latter stands, provided you don't take it out of context; what I said was "local consensus can override guidelines and policies, but there's got to be a legitimate reason to do so". Indeed, you'll find that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not as absolute as you say it is if you proceed to the sentence immediately after the one you quoted. But if we were to assume Tbhotch was talking about the former ("various guidelines and policies override the PDAB consensus"), I'd like to know what those policies and guidelines are; unfortunately, they were never cited during the Revolver (album) move request. On the contrary, during that RM discussion, Tbhotch pointed out WP:NCM and WP:NCF, which have long-standing guidelines discouraging partial disambiguation. He provided examples of WikiProjects deciding a guideline for their articles (pre-WP:PDAB) despite what is commonly accepted elsewhere -- and that's something permitted by the second sentence of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- tariqabjotu 18:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but clarify Formally support keeping PDAB. Everything I've read regarding this convinces me that partially disambiguated article titles are a bad idea. Policies (e.g. WP:NATURAL), certain WikiProject guidelines (e.g. WP:NCM and WP:NCF), and common practice (e.g. Chris Brown (running back, born 1981) and Chris Brown (running back, born 1987), instead of Chris Brown (running back) and Chris Brown (running back, born 1987)) point to a widespread understanding that disambiguators should actually, fully, disambiguate. Counterexamples like Kiss (band) appear to be exceptions already out of touch with their respective WikiProject guidelines, and they shouldn't obfuscate the general disadvantages of partially disambiguated titles. That being said, I believe PDAB should be (further) clarified to say a partially disambiguated title can redirect to a fully disambiguated title in cases where there is a clear "primary sub-topic". -- tariqabjotu 23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem of redirecting "Kiss (band)" to "Kiss (American band)", as happened with Thriller, "Revolution", The Wizard of Oz (film), etc., is that we enter in a contradiction, the reason why we move the articles is to avoid ambiguity for those readers that are not searching that article, in "KISS" case, the readers searching for the Korean band are not looking for the American band, but even if it is moved or not they will still being redirected to the American band, why is this productive to all readers? You cited two runners, but unlike IIO, who always cites similar examples, you missed to say "why Chris Brown (running back, born 1987) can't be at Chris Brown (running back) or even Chris Brown?". These examples only make me think if the year disambiguation is good. Both Browns born in the 80s with six years of difference, how can I know if I am searching the correct Chris? In Browns' case they are not particullary "important" outside American football world, they are not important enough in the sportpeople world, but when you have a popular topic like those cited and some others like Madonna (entertainer), Oasis (band), etc. This creates a problem in Wikipedia with PDAB, especially the "In ocassional exceptions it should be redirected to an article", as I explained before. First, what decides the primary subtopic? If it is popularity or common knowledge Titanic (film) or Psycho (film) shouldn't be redirected to a DAB page, but you know which articles they should. Also, where is the correct venue to do this, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? If the answer is yes, what an user needs to say to prove that REDIRECT should be redirected to ARTICLE and not to DAB? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Further to Tariqabjotu's comment above. According to Revolver (disambiguation) there are 4 albums in WP called Revolver. I have no doubt in my mind which is the most important, but we always forget that the article namespace is not, and cannot, always be a faithful replication of the name (which is why we have these guidelines!) - it is at best merely a search term to find the actual article we are interested in. To call the article Revolver (The Beatles album) does not detract from searching, in fact, it assists in finding the article. Not only does it assist those looking for the Beatles album, but also those NOT looking for the Beatles album. Where is the harm in that? let's make searching for articles simpler and if it means a couple more words in the article namespace, then so be it! If we don't view article namespace as a search tool, we are opening up for the ugliest form of fancruft, "my band is better than your band" and WP editors should be rising above that. FWIW I have commented purely is respect of music titles and by extension "popular culture" where "primarytopic" can change on all almost daily basis and there is no benefit whatsoever to the continual moving of articles. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow that's a long, unfocused, and not terribly well written proposal. I read it and I'm still not sure what it's actually proposing. Not that WP:PDAB or WP:INCDAB are much clearer. But as long as the garbage about requiring that Thriller (album) redirect to Thriller doesn't come back, I don't much care. (not watching for replies, {{ping}} me if you need me) Anomie⚔ 10:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Move WP:PDAB to the article naming guidelines, since it is about article titling, not about disambiguation page titling. For disambiguation, either allowing or permitting a "primary song" will work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Replace with a more sensible policy that takes into account the possibility that in some cases there is a "Foo (band)", "Foo (album)", etc., that is so overwhelmingly likely to be the search target as to make it an inconvenience to readers and disambiguators not to have that Foo disambiguated by that one word. An example would be Kiss (band). It would be absurd to have that title redirect to Kiss (disambiguation) merely because little-known Kiss (South Korean band) existed for two years. bd2412 T 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What? I'm trying but Tbhotch's grammar and writing style is nearly impenetrable -- especially in such a long passage. What is being proposed, and why? Concisely, if you could? Powers T 13:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Nothing specific is proposed. Instead, Tbhotch is asking what, if anything, should be done with WP:PDAB: rewrite, merge or remove?

      The rest is background material on the issue presumably to help us answer. --B2C 16:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Concern - Given that all the examples presented so far relate to music topics, I have to ask: Is this an attempt to respond to a subject specific issue (or dispute) by changing broad wiki-wide guidance? If so, I strongly urge caution. I think we need to explore potential unintended consequences... Because while a change to guidance might be beneficial in one specific topic area, it might create problems when applied to another topic area. So... Could we please discuss some examples that have nothing to do with music? Before we can approve or reject this proposal, we need to discuss how it might affect other topic areas that frequently need disambiguation. Blueboar (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom, and I don't see a great need to replace it with anything, although bd2412's suggestion is a sensible statement of the stable, commonsense status quo ante. Kiss is a great example of how things should work. The hypothetical reader searching for the South Korean band under "Kiss (band)" sees the page on the American band, and via the hatnote is one click away form his or her desired topic. It's just as many clicks, and almost certainly less time, than browsing Kiss (disambiguation).
As can plainly be seen, PDAB has proven quite controversial, and thus should never have been approved with such a narrow margin in support and such low turnout. I believe I asked some valid questions at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 39#Objection, though I didn't receive any answers there or anywhere else. Most importantly, was the PDAB discussion publicized? Like, in any way that would reach a single editor who doesn't watch this page?
Finally, PDAB has proven a trainwreck in implementation. Revolution (song) and Revolver (album) were particularly egregious, being moved to longer, PDAB-approved titles but with the older titles still redirecting there! Unsurprisingly, it was taken to move review, and it's still there. Kill this for now. If we must, create a new discussion and publicize it in all relevant fora. Centralized discussion, WT:RM, Film and Music WikiProjects, etc. If the idea really has broad community support, I'll shut up. I can accept consensus. Just not the paper-thin consensus that's driving PDAB right now. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per BDD. The PDAB idea contradicts longstanding conventions. Ambiguous titles can have primary topics whether they are wholly ambiguous (Let It Be) or partially ambiguous (Let It Be (album)). The idea that Let It Be has a primary topic, and it is the album, and therefore can be a title, but Let It Be (album) because there is another album with that name cannot be a title, is logically absurd. The controversial notion of PDAB does not have consensus support, never has, and could be justifiably removed on those grounds alone. --B2C 16:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • remove I don't see why we are treading a title with parenthesis different than a title without. In titles without parenthetical disambiguators, they sometimes lead to DAB pages (if there is no PRIMARY), and they sometimes lead to an article. The same should apply here to titles _with_ parenthetical disambiguators - sometimes we can determine that there is a PRIMARY meaning, in which case the article can live at that title, or if moved, the PDAB can redirect to the article in question.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Everyone calling for removal should be aware that the status quo ante was to require full disambiguation at all times, and to have things like Thriller (album) redirect to Thriller (disambiguation) (possibly to a Music section of that page). I don't think that's what you want. PDAB was developed as a compromise between the two positions (one, that disambiguation should always be complete, never partial; two, that ambiguous disambiguators are okay if the article is primary within that scope). What the people calling for "Remove" are essentially saying is that that compromise was a bad idea, and that their point of view should hold sway. Powers T 17:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Powers, I'm sorry, but that's completely untrue. Did titles like Revolver (album) and Revolution (song) exist only in my mind? Am I hallucinating even now when I look at Kiss (band)? If PDAB is a "compromise" between the two positions you describe, it's an odd compromise that crushes one position and enforces the other entirely. You could say the close of the RMs related to those Beatles titles was a compromise, though it doesn't seem to be one that many editors are happy with. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak to what the status quo ante was -- indeed, it doesn't look like Powers is correct on that. However, I think the two sides here are those partial disambiguators should redirect to disambiguation pages and articles should be allowed to have partial disambiguator titles. If that's the case, disallowing partial disambiguator titles while allowing them to redirect to articles is a compromise. With that in mind, pointing to my question in the Discussion below, I don't understand the opposition based on the inconvenience readers would experience by going through disambiguation pages; the PDAB guideline doesn't require them to if there is a primary sub-topic. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Modify, I think this situation should be handled case-by-case. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller is clearly the most prominent album under that title, and I would be alright with it having the plain "(album)" title. However, in the case of the title Circus, you have records by Britney Spears and Lenny Kravitz, both popular artists. In that situation, it wouldn't be helpful to create a "primary" disambiguation. These issues should be decided case-by-case, and can't always be thrown into a generic policy that doesn't consider how popular a work may be. If it remains, WP:PDAB should only be a guideline to suggest a possible solution in cases where a primary work can't be established. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:INCDAB should remain as it is. WP:PDAB, whether it remains in existence or no, should not restrict WP:INCDAB from serving its purpose of preventing incompletely (or partially) disambiguated titles from redirecting to articles (except in the case that the primary target for the subcategory is also the primary target in any category). Cases like Thriller (album) should not be made exceptions. I would be happy for WP:PDAB to be removed so long as WP:INCDAB remains in tact (and therefore prevents articles from being located at partially disambiguated titles). Neelix (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom and Obiwan Kenobi. Discussions elsewhere (such as Talk:Nirvana (band)#Requested move) and the existence of many article titles (such as Anthrax (band) and Qi (state)) suggest that most people treat what's in the parentheses as an extension of the article title, and apply the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC principle to the complete title. -Zanhe (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • remove, per nomination the current advice is contradictory and has resulted in multiple improper and unconventional naming practises. my biggest reason for removal is that this policy/guideline is cited as a reason for page disambiguation but the application of the principal is not uniform because the wording is ambiguous. as Tbhotch pointed out, where multiple songs exist of the same name (such as Circle the Drain) no such song should exist at the page 'Circle the Drain (song)'. All such articles should exist as 'Circle the Drain (artistname song)' and Circle rhe Drain should be an disambiguation page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    ...where multiple songs exist of the same name (such as Circle the Drain) no such song should exist at the page 'Circle the Drain (song)'. All such articles should exist as 'Circle the Drain (artistname song)' Given your example, it sounds like you actually support PDAB or at least a modification of it. Can you clarify? It doesn't sound like Tbhotch used that example for the same reason you have. -- tariqabjotu 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - to all those saying remove - do readers type brackets when searching? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
As I've said before, I'm fairly sure some of them do. If this is your first day on Wikipedia, no probably not. But if you've been around long enough to know how extremely common parenthetical disambiguation is, they probably do. And as one of my colleagues in the library is fond of reminding people, we're users too. In some of these discussions, we talk about readers as though they were a distinct group from editors, and that's just not the case. If users didn't type disambiguators, we could safely delete most {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} redirects. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Well I don't. I use the autocomplete box in top RH corner. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove there are obvious examples like Thriller (album) and Revolver (album) where the primary topic for those exact titles is not in dispute. The change to the guideline, initiated with a weak consensus, erased nearly a decade of precedent on Wikipedia and has since been used to ram through a number of requested moves. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Hot Stop, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Revolver is a gun. Thriller is a dab. And the guideline was already in WP:Naming conventions (music), the idea of "primary album" sat in MOS:ALBUM for several months, not a decade. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
HotStop's point is that the guideline has been followed in practice for a decade. For example, Anthrax (UK band) has been at that name since 2003 whereas Anthrax (band) has been about the US band since 2002. -Zanhe (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I see, okay but I would have thought what is written into a guideline and followed by 90% of articles is a better example of consensus than half a dozen outliers. Guidelines are meant to have exceptions, Kiss (band) vs a one-song Korean girl band with no English sources is a clear WP:COMMONSENSE, but the attitude taken to Nirvana (British band) and Anthrax (UK band) isn't because of lack of English sources but is nearer a case of playing Nirvana (TOP band) and Anthrax (TOP band) and represents a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among music editors, which is counter to the clear wording in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as to what constitutes the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC consensus for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. User:Zanhe, doesn't it concern you that examples are coming only from the songs/albums/bands area? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep there are already too many battles to determine what is primary topic of the actual name. Without this, we've had battles to determine every sublevel of disambiguation what is primary. That will get very arcane in some esoteric topics. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the PDAB guideline causes far more trouble than PRIMARYTOPIC debates. For example, if you have a popular topic like Thriller (album) with hundreds of incoming links, and a few years later some band releases a barely notable album with the same name. With the PDAB guideline we'll have to move the existing article and redirect Thriller (album) to the dab page Thriller, and as a result hundreds of pages which link to the Michael Jackson album will have to be edited to avoid linking to the dab page. It'll be a terrible waste of people's time. -Zanhe (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
No, because PDAB solves the problem, since you can point to it to stop arguments about what is primary at a disambiguated title, and restrict primarity arguments to the plain name only. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
By your logic, we can do away with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC altogether. That would get rid of all the arguments once and for all, wouldn't it? I don't see why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should only apply to titles that don't contain parentheses. -Zanhe (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove, per the examples given by Tbhotch. And per other comments on how applying WP:PDAB would cause titles like Thriller (album) or Kiss (band) to become confusing. It becomes obvious that's it's a bad idea as soon as you start applying it to more famous titles. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Those few cases can be handled with WP:IAR -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
      • IAR is appropriate for edge cases that are very rare exceptions for very special reasons, not for an entire class of common situations. --B2C 23:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
        • It is only a set of very special cases, not a common situation at all. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
          • The class can be easily described: Any topic that is clearly most famous among similar topics with the same name, whose name is also a commonly used term for another topic with an article on WP. We're not talking about a handful of cases. Probably hundreds if not thousands of films, books, places, concepts, etc. --B2C 20:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove and seek consensus. I don't accept that it describes the consensus view of what to do here (regardless of what that consensus might happen to be) because I don't understand what it says. My preference would be to allow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to apply to disambiguated names, so that e.g. "Thriller (album)" can refer to the Michael Jackson album even though there are other albums with that name. I can't tell whether PDAB is telling me that "Thriller (album)" should never be used (in which case I disagree) or that it can be used only for topics for which the partial disambiguation meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (what I would like it to mean, but if so it needs clarification). I don't think we can rewrite it to clarify these issues until we know what the current consensus is. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Corrected first wikilink reference: from WP:PRIMARY to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --B2C 20:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been requested to comment on this RFC through the RFCBot. However, as another user noted below, I find it very hard to understand what the actual point of this RFC is. The initial explanation is far too long and confusing. The text itself seems fairly innocuous and the RFC doesn't really explain what the problem is that this RFC is seeking to solve. For that reason, I'm afraid after spending some considerable time reading through I'm unable to contribute anything meaningful to the debate. I fear this RFC is unlikely to provide much of a way forward. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep, Clarify and Comment - I think that the spirit of the policy is good and that it works in the vast majority of cases. Otherwise, we can always use WP:IAR, yes? I realize that shouldn't be a general fallback, though, so I feel that the official policy should remain consensus but be more explicit in what to do for partially disambiguated pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 August 2013
  • Case-by-case basis - I don't care if it's kept or not, but if it is kept it should be clear that this is a subjective determination that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Thus, that this is a generally loose guidance and not a strict one. - jc37 00:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove (assuming I've understood the question correctly) - I believe that Thriller (album) should be the home of the Michael Jackson album. Pages with parentheses are still pages, and should be subject to the same rules as everything else. As an aside, I also don't like the part which states "Therefore, Party (album) has no primary topic and serves as a redirect to Party (disambiguation)". It's possible I'm a lone horse on this, but in my opinion in the scenario mentioned Party (album) should be a standalone disambiguation page containing just those usages of Party which are albums. i.e. it should contain a copied subset of Party (disambiguation), not be a redirect to it. I can see the argument that this creates redundancy and maintenance issues, (in a SQL database this would seem totally wrong!) but I also think that directing readers from a more specific topic to a page dealing with a more general one is wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB discussion

  • Looking at some of the remove comments, I'm a bit intrigued that some people (e.g. BD2412, BDD, Obiwankenobi) have noted pitfalls of partially disambiguated terms redirecting to disambiguation pages. However, the way I read it, PDAB -- even as written -- does not require partial disambiguators to redirect to disambiguation pages; in fact, it says With some naming conventions, it is appropriate to redirect a partially disambiguated term to an article. Kiss (band can still redirect to Kiss (American band) and Thriller (album) can still redirect to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). So, I'm not sure I understand that line of opposition. Is it just that the guideline, as written, is not clear enough about that? Or do you not see any value in eliminating partial disambiguators while allowing them to redirect to complete disambiguators? -- tariqabjotu 17:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's nonsense for Foo (band) to redirect to Foo (American band), just as it's nonsense for Foo (disambiguator) to redirect to Foo. Page titles, and especially their disambiguators, should be concise. If we're confident enough that Kiss is the primary topic for "Kiss (band)," why are we going to put it at a longer title anyway? I know this was your solution with the Beatles moves, but I don't see the problem it solves. You're siding with PDAB in form but against it in function. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with a PDAB going to a DAB; just that it doesn't always need to. Again, I don't think we should treat page names with parenthesis differently than page names without them unless we absolutely have to. This means, if we determine that the primary topic for Thriller (album) is indeed Thriller (Michael Jackson album), then it can redirect there. We make these decisions all the time with redirects - someone decides that "X" should redirect to "Y" or to "Y (disambiguation)". If OTOH there is no primary topic for a PDAB, then it should go to a DAB page. A different issue is whether, in cases where there is a clear primary topic, should the article itself live at that PDAB, or should the article still be *further* disambiguated? On that issue, I'm for now somewhat neutral, I'm not sure it makes a big difference, but apparently there was an uproar over the Beatles move, which I haven't read... I'm not sure we can have a final word on this, it's really case by case. The advantage of keeping the title at the PDAB is stability - e.g. less maintenance and moving-around-of-things which leads to broken links and perhaps editor confusion. Think of this - (1) Editor creates Thriller (album) (2) A new garage band comes out with a barely notable record called Thriller. (3) Result - Thriller (album) has to be moved, and all articles referencing it updated accordingly, even if search volumes are 100 to 1? That doesn't make sense. So I can see a strong argument for keeping primary articles at their PDAB. OTOH, if you're *creating* a new article, the incoming links and editor confusion-about-the-name isn't there, so you could more fully disambiguate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said, the PDAB guideline permits redirects, although that should probably be more prominent in the guideline. With that, I don't understand what broken links, editor confusion, maintenance, and updating you'd have; the references from other articles aren't broken. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that's against PDAB in function; PDAB currently says, again, that partial disambiguators can redirect to articles in some cases (although I believe this should be rewritten to be clearer). I've noted a couple points that seem to have been made in various PDAB-related discussions that put value in eliminating partial disambiguators while maintaining redirects. On the other hand, your declaration that the redirect is nonsense doesn't shed any light on why you don't see any value. I know you already think it's nonsense, but why? In other words, what harm is there to having an article at Kiss (American band) when Kiss (band) still redirects there? (That's, obviously, entirely different from Kiss (band) redirecting to Kiss (disambiguation), as evidenced by the number of people who think such a redirect inconveniences readers who have to make an extra click.) -- tariqabjotu 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't inconvenience readers to move Barack Obama to Barack Obama (politician) if the former still redirected there. But conciseness is one of our core WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Absent a compelling reason to do so, I don't know why we should ignore that when it comes to disambiguators. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Compelling, of course, is subjective, and I doubt one could be provided that you believe falls under that adjective. Among reasons already mentioned, though, was the potential confusion and oddity of seeing an article including "(song)" when there are two other songs listed below it on a disambiguation page. Another point raised is that this prevents discussions about primary sub-topics; this seems innocuous enough with films, songs, and albums, but I'm imagining Foo (basketball player) and Foo (Turkish basketball player) -- yikes. And that doesn't even mention pre-existing disambiguation guidelines (like under WP:NATURAL) that suggest that disambiguators actually disambiguate. -- tariqabjotu 19:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Until recently, this is how the Albums section on Revolver (disambiguation) looked[17]:
Albums
This is the kind of "potential confusion and oddity" to which you refer?

I don't see why using a pdab as a title "prevents discussions about primary sub-topics" any more than using an ambiguous term as the title of the article about that term's primary topic (i.e., none).

Nothing at WP:NATURAL indicates disambiguation needs to fully disambiguate, nor does anything there support the retention of WP:PDAB.

These are not compelling reasons to override conciseness; they're essentially not reasons to do so at all.

This goes back to my main problem with PDAB - it creates conflict (with conciseness) and ambiguity (which should reign?) for no reason whatsoever (much less for a good reason). --B2C 22:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges with Obama. We don't have Kiss (band) and Kiss because it's already used. Given that Kiss (band) is ambiguous and that there's no way to use it without disambiguation to denote the American band, Wikipedia:PRECISION should kick in and create an article name that unambiguously defines the topic. If you then want to use Kiss (band) as a redirect to help navigation, that's OK, but it shouldn't be the article title. Diego (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect, and exactly the reason why this policy is problematic. The statement that "Kiss (band) is ambiguous and that there's no way to use it without disambiguation to denote the American band" is nonsense. Imagine that the article had been written the day before the Korean band was created. There is no question that the appropriate title at that time would be Kiss (band). The creation of the Korean band would not by itself have made it notable, so perhaps a year later, when that band had its first local hit and for the first time scratched the surface of notability, it would have merited an article. Is there any sense in saying that this brand new K-Pop band with a single record out could cause the average English-language reader to have any confusion at all about the meaning of Kiss (band)? The Korean band ceased to exist the following year. The previously existing band continued (and continues) into its fourth decade of massive recognition and success. Its prominence and its primacy are no different today than they were the day before the Korean band came into existence. bd2412 T 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect. There is no question that the appropriate title at that time would be Kiss (band), because there weren't other articles for bands called Kiss at the time. Disambiguation depends on the existence of several articles with the same name, and the existence of two articles is what has changed and still requires a precise title for both, no matter their prominence. The string Kiss already has a primary topic and it's not the band, so the band requires a more precise title now because it's no longer the only "Kiss" band with an article at Wikipedia. The point of having precise titles is to signal that we have other articles that share the same base title; Kiss (band) wouldn't achieve that. Diego (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not arguing that Kiss (band) would have been incorrect at the time the article was created; I am arguing that Kiss (band) was and remains the primary topic for that title, and should not be moved based on the existence of one other entity which barely scratches the surface of notability. The South Korean pop trio may not even be a "band" under conventional definitions of that term, because there is no suggestion that any of the members played instruments. The implementation of such a move would most likely lead to the creation of lots of bad links and frustrated searches, because virtually no one will be looking for anything but the longstanding American rock group at this title. bd2412 T 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, BDD, but Tariq has a valid point in that user inconvenience is not a reasonable objection to PDAB in that PDAB does not say anything against the ambiguous disambiguated term redirecting to the fully disambiguated title.

However, I think the real concern regarding user inconvenience is that once something like Kiss (band) is a redirect rather than the article title it is more likely to be changed to redirect to a dab page, and such a change is likely to to be unnoticed for a long time, and can be a user inconvenience.

Indeed, Revolution (song) already has been changed to redirect to Revolution (disambiguation)#Songs [18]. While this is not explicitly endorsed by PDAB, it is certainly encouraged. That's a problem. --B2C 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Obi, some more reasons to keep it at the PDAB whenever possible:
  • If the PDAB is not the title, then the PDAB is a redirect which is easy and likely to be changed to redirect to a dab page like what happened with Revolution (song).
  • If our guidelines are not clear on this (i.e., WP:PDAB remains), then every single article with a PDAB title becomes perpetually controversial - with no guidance telling us which title it should have. The result? Endless pointless bickering with both sides reasonably claiming to have basis in policy. To what end?
--B2C 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
These are really weak objections. The first point can be assuaged by clarifying the guideline. Even still, people do things against policies and guidelines every day on Wikipedia, but we don't say the policies and guidelines themselves are flawed. The second point is a baseless slippery slope. One could reasonably argue that PDAB would actually result in fewer arguments about titles because one doesn't have to discern whether a particular song, album, film, etc. is the primary song, album, film, etc.
Repeating a point I mentioned to you at the move review, WP:NATURAL says According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. For example, it would be inappropriate to title an article "Queen (rock band)", as Queen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band from other uses of the term Queen. That seems to be in line with the idea behind PDAB. -- tariqabjotu 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
They are not weak objections. Solving the problem created by PDAB by removing PDAB is preferable to assuaging the problem through WP:CREEP. The same principle applies in traffic engineering - it's much more effective to design a road that causes its users to naturally behave safely (perhaps with traffic calming measures) than to try to dictatorially impose the behavior required for safety (posting a speed limit sign). Why move the title from the pdab with a primary topic to a fully disambiguated title, leaving the concise pdab out there as a redirect to the title of the primary topic article, tempting users to redirect it to a dab page, when leaving the pdab as the title would prevent the creation of that temptation and associated problems in the first place?

No, one can't reasonably argue that more ambiguity in guidance about naming titles will lead to more stable titles. One might argue that a more restrictive PDAB, one that clearly disallowed use of pdabs as titles, would eventually lead to more stability (less ambiguity, more clarity, fewer unanswered questions, more stability), but that's not what we're talking about.

Sure you can find statements in policy which PDAB happens to not contradict; that's hardly an argument for PDAB, much less a strong one. WP:PDAB is written as if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to pdabs. This is not WP:CONSENSUS. That's the problem, period. --B2C 21:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB is written as if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to pdabs. This is not WP:CONSENSUS.
So... I must say I find it quite surprising that you've quoted the move from Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) (which you supported in May) in your essay User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle. Your essay is all about moves that should be done because there would be no legitimate reason to reverse them and because doing so would end all arguments about articles' titles. Perhaps you didn't notice, but the thrust behind the move of the Independence Day (1996 film) article was the belief that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as corroborated by WP:NCF) was not meant to be applied to disambiguated titles. What has changed since then that has caused you to believe that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is actually applicable to disambiguated titles and that there would be policy reasons and controversy causing reversions of moves made according to PDAB? -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Nothing has changed. The case for that film being the primary topic was not made there. --B2C 17:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
What? Of course it was. That was virtually the only reason raised (and that could possibly be raised) by opponents of that move. Heck, you even made that point. (And there is little doubt, as you stated, that the internationally known 1996 film that grossed $817 million is primary to the barely known 1983 film that grossed just $151,000.) -- tariqabjotu 08:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
My bad. Indeed, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates that Independence Day (film) should be the title of, or redirect to, the article that is now at Independence Day (1983 film). The fact that it incorrectly redirects to the dab page demonstrates again a problem with PDAB. In practice, people forget or conveniently overlook the "or redirect to" part of Primary Topic - any ambiguous title, especially a partially disambiguated one, that is a redirect, is likely to be made to redirect to a dab page, even if it clearly meets primary topic criteria.

You're right, I shouldn't have supported that move, and I shouldn't have included it as an example in the WP:Yogurt Principle. I'll take it out. I'm not going to propose it, but the YP does not apply because a strong policy-based argument can be made to move Independence Day (1983 film) back to Independence Day (film). First, the current configuration does not properly treat this film as the primary topic for Independence Day (film), which it clearly is. Second, if it's going to redirect to the film, it should be the title of the film, per concision. --B2C 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates no such thing. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses whether the 1983 film should be at the base name "Independence Day" as the primary topic, or whether it should be at a qualified title. Once we determine that it is not the primary topic for its preferred title "Independence Day", other naming conventions and guidelines entirely separate from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determine what qualifier to use with the title to enable it to exists alongside the primary topic (or disambiguation page, if there's no primary topic). In this case, the film naming conventions, article naming conventions, and WP:PDAB should all agree on the qualifier to be used on this non-primary-topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think what several editors are saying here, and which we've seen in practice (remember, silence also = consensus, so the preponderance of articles living a PDABs suggests a broader community consensus for these names) is that PRIMARYTOPIC can also apply and be used to discuss PDABs. Again, imagine there aren't parenthesis - how would we treat it? With primary topic. We should do the same here. If there are parenthesis, we can still make a determination of PRIMARYTOPIC.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I (and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) have no issue with the use of (film) for the non-primary-topic 1996 film. I (and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have no issue with the use of (1983 film) for the non-primary-topic 1983 film. Since the 1996 film is not the primary topic for the title "Independence Day", the article naming conventions (general or specific to the topic area) are used to select an appropriate qualifier to add to the base title. Imagine there are parentheses, like "Independence Day (film)", and imagine we do pretend that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to that title; we would then move the other film to Independence Day (film) (1983 film) or Independence Day (film) (1983). Naming conventions might choose to use criteria similar to or inspired by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to decide when to use (film) vs. (1996 film), but that's not what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself says. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Then we should change WP:PRIMARYTOPIC! I find it amazing that "PRIMARYTOPIC" is proposed to apply to The Dark Knight Film Festival, but not to The Dark Knight (film festival). We're too obsessed by these parens. Ignore them, and then use primarytopic to decide where an article should live. Think of it as a recursive rule. A PDAB is simply an ambiguous title that happens to have parenthesis in it. Also I think Independence Day (film) (1983) is a really bad idea. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and one that is easily avoided by using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to determine what (if anything) is the primary topic for "Independence Day" and then the naming conventions (general or for films specifically) specify for using to qualifying films that aren't primary topics. Just like the established processes that they were written to encapsulate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, JHJ, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does say that. With the ambiguous term "Independence Day (film)" in mind, please read this PT guidance:

The title of the primary topic article may be different from the ambiguous term. This may happen when the topic is primary for more than one term, when the article covers a wider topical scope, or when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions. When this is the case, the term should redirect to the article...

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says something about the term "Independence Day". It also says something about the term "Independence Day (film)". Note that both terms are ambiguous, and so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to each.

In the first case, WP:CONSENSUS is that it says the primary topic for "Independence Day" is the list national independence days, and, so Independence Day redirects to List of national independence days. That tells us nothing about what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says about the term "Independence Day (film)". These are separate questions, and need to be answered independent of what we decide about the title for the article about the 1993 film, or any other title.

This is WP:D, not WP:AT. The guidance here is not about what titles should be. It's about how to deal with ambiguous terms. Ambiguous terms like "Independence Day" and "Independence Day (film)". It tells us whether such a term has a primary topic or not. If a term does have a primary topic, then it's a candidate to be used as a title for the article about that primary topic. Whether that term is used as the title, or a redirect to the title, is based on other WP:CRITERIA like concision. --B2C 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does say talk about redirects, indeed. However, the ambiguous term in your example is "Independence Day". Barring other topics, that's what each article would be titled (or Independence Day would redirect to that title, if the topic were better titled something else). Since none of the films is the primary topic, each of the films needs a qualifier appended to it. And the naming conventions (general or specific to films) can determine whether to use qualifier pairs "(film)/(1983 film)", "(1996 film)/(1983 film)", "(foo)/(bar)", etc. Pretending that the PT guidelines were written for topics that are already not the primary topic for their title is just wishful thinking, and not thought through, unless you are advocating for Independence Day (film) (1983 film) as the qualified version of the supposed ambiguous title "Independence Day (film)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
"Pretending that the PT guidelines were written for topics that are already not the primary topic for their title...". You have it backwards. PT guidelines were not written for topics. They were written for ambiguous terms. Ambiguous terms have more than one topic, one of which may be a primary topic. Ambiguous terms like "New York City" (New York City (disambiguation)), "New York (city)", "Independence Day". And "Independence Day (film)". Our job does not end with deciding whether "New York City" has a primary topic; we also have to decide if the term "New York (city)" has a primary topic (the answer is yes by the way, New York (city) redirects to New York City). Same with the term "Independence Day (film)". You can't pretend the question does not exist, or does not need to be answered. How we use the term is always an answer to that question. And if how we use it (redirect to dab page so has no primary topic) is different from our analysis (the 1983 film is clearly the primary topic of "Independence Day (film)"), we have an issue to resolve. --B2C 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If the issue is about redirects, that can be put in PDAB, and as the guideline is currently written, New York (city) can redirect to New York City and Independence Day (film) can also redirect to Independence Day (1996 film)(let's clarify here: it's the 1996 film, not the 1983 film, that's primary). That provision can be further clarified in the guideline.

But in terms of whether the move from Independence Day (film) to Independence Day (1996 film) should have taken place, I'm going to go with a resounding yes for the reasons made during the move request and reiterated by JHunterJ here. As stated by several people here, the idea of primary sub-topics is a minefield once you see what it allows. And I believe, despite what you've said, this has been understood across Wikipedia. In most fields, the idea of disambiguating topics like this wouldn't make sense. Could you imagine if there were a Scott Baker (pitcher) and Scott Baker (left-handed pitcher)? Or a Chris Brown (running back) [not as a redirect] and then a Chris Brown (running back, born 1987)? That's very confusing. And then in the few areas where partially disambiguated titles appear to be existent (music and films), these are against WikiProject guidelines (WP:NCF andWP:NCM). So, I don't think we're introducing anything novel here; rather, PDAB just clarifies matters and encourages uniformity. -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect primary topics are more likely in some categories (films, books) than others (athletes), which is why the conventions seem different. But I think the underlying mechanism, including recognizing pdabs with primary topics, is the same. It's just that it has more opportunity to be visible in some categories than others. --B2C 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say with this point. In case you didn't realize, Scott Baker (right-handed pitcher), Chris Brown (running back, born 1981), Scott Baker (left-handed pitcher), and Chris Brown (running back, born 1987) are all real articles. But even though the first two are still primary among pitchers named Scott Baker and running backs named Chris Brown, respectively, they aren't named Scott Baker (pitcher) and Chris Brown (running back). Yes, I think primary sub-topics are more likely in some fields. But that's why, I imagine, provisions discouraging primary sub-topics needed to be spelled out in those fields' guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's also worth noting that this clause about redirecting to articles was basically made up by one editor (and was re-inserted after reverting). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this was not part of the initial discussion that created PDAB. I guess it really caught on after Tariqabjotu's Beatles closes. Inasmuch as this undermines the initial thrust of PDAB, I really can't see—even though I'm trying really hard, as an opponent of it all—what PDAB in its current form is supposed to accomplish besides pedantry in titling. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    Considering that edit was made on June 22 and I didn't close those move requests until June 29, I highly doubt anything I did was to blame for that. -- tariqabjotu 19:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not a matter of blame. It's just that as far as I can see, there was a unilateral insertion in PDAB that might have faded away if it hadn't been implemented in those moves. I still disagree with the ultimate outcomes there, but you can hardly be expected to delve through the history of policies and guidelines every time you close a move request. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • comment I think it would help to build a matrix here, of the different end-result-for-the-user options on the table, outlining which pages would have no dab, which ones would, what the dab would be, and what about redirects. Anyone willing to give that a shot? Another general comment - my sense has always been that disambiguation is done on an as-needed basis - which is why John Kerry (MP) isn't John Kerry (16th-century English politician. This however introduces some natural drift, as new articles get created, pages need to sometimes be moved to accomodate. So John Smith (actor) may someday need to be moved if another John Smith comes along who is just as notable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, the number of permutations is getting confusing. There seem to be three distinct thoughts here, and no strong consensus for any of them:
    1. Disambiguated titles should be fully disambiguated; partial disambiguation is potentially confusing, and (while some cases may be obvious) the plethora of discussions needed to decide primacy within increasingly smaller scopes is a waste of editors' time.
    2. Disambiguators are just part of the title, and a topic's primacy for a particular title can be decided normally even if that title includes a disambiguator. People familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions will expect certain topics to be at names with simple disambiguators, and we should accommodate that.
    3. Both sides have a good point, so the compromise is to require titles to be fully disambiguated, but allow redirects from the partially disambiguated titles to the primary topic for those scopes.
    The third entry is the current state, under discussion here. I originally saw it as a good compromise, but now I fear it just incorporates the worst of both worlds. But is there another compromise position possible? Powers T 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Under such a system, the article on the American band, Kiss, would be titled Kiss (American band), and the title Kiss (band) would redirect there. I suppose a hatnote at Kiss (American band) would need to point either to Kiss (disambiguation) or to the one other meaning, Kiss (South Korean band). Furthermore, every band, film, album, song, book, etc., that is presently the only one by that name would sit at "Foo (disambiguator)" until another thing of the same kind became notable, at which point the initial "Foo (disambiguator)" would need to be moved to "Foo (disambiguated disambiguator)", with the redirect possibly pointing to a generic disambiguation page, or possibly to the moved article, which would then have a hatnote added to clear up the confusion. I think this is generally a bad idea. There is clearly such a thing as the overwhelmingly primary band among bands named Kiss and Nirvana, primary film among films named Avatar, and primary comic book character among comic book characters named Wolverine. Where there is not a clear primary band or book or film, the title should redirect to the disambiguation page. Where there is one, that band or book or film should be at that title. bd2412 T 14:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. THe advantage of this scheme is we don't treat these titles differently than titles without parenthesis. If someone wants to have Kiss (band) point to a dab page, they have to make a compelling argument based on Primarytopic, so we follow the old rules and there aren't special rules around PDABs.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412:, a hatnote is needed if the article is located at Kiss (band) or if Kiss (band) were a redirect to Kiss (American band). And I don't understand the objection based on page moves required if new articles are added. This is already standard practice for articles without disambiguators. Why should it any be different for titles with a disambiguating term that becomes imprecise? older ≠ wiser 15:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
agreed, but articles are *only* moved once a new one shows up if they are hence determined to be no longer the primary topic. In the case of Foo (x), the chance that a new Foo (xy) would make Foo (x) no longer the primary topic is scant, and would be the only time where we would need to move. (Foo (x) would then go to a DAB)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi: I think I agree more or less. I would not support using PDAB as the basis for automatic page moves. Editor discretion would apply. For instance, if there are two (or more bands) that are more or less equally notable, and one has the title Foo (band) solely by virtue of being the first article written, then it should be uncontroversial to move it to a fully disambiguated title and redirect the base name to the disambiguation page (and, this part is often overlooked, the person doing the move helps to fix the incoming links). In other cases, if one band is significantly more well known than the other(s), it should require some discussion before moving (or if moved without discussion, the move can be uncontroversially reverted pending outcome of discussion). older ≠ wiser 17:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you agree that this is more or less how we treat regular titles? Think about this - instead of Kiss (band), what if the title was "Kiss the rock band". Wouldn't we henceforth have "Kiss the rock band" and "Kiss the rock band (Japanese)". I just think it would make things much easier if we just treated these as we treat regular titles - even those with so-called "natural" disambiguation - and not have special rules for how primarytopic works just because there happens to be parens in the title.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I think there is a difference between "natural disambiguation" and parenthetical. This may be picking nits, but "Kiss the rock band" would not be a good title under any existing criteria unless the name of the band was literally "Kiss the rock band" (as in, for example, the S.S.T. Band, though even then the capitalization would be highly nonstandard and would likely be "Kiss the Rock Band" or some such). And playing along with the hypothetical, if there happened to be a Japanese band with the exact same name (where the name of the band includes the word "Band"), I personally would find Kiss the Rock Band (Japanese) to be an unsatisfactory disambiguator, though I suppose it might pass muster. I'd prefer either Kiss the Rock Band (Japanese band) or perhaps the genre, Kiss the Rock Band (boy band). But that is tangential to the current discussion. Natural disambiguation means the entity is commonly known in reliable sources by that title. Parenthetical disambiguation is an invention of Wikipedia purely for the purpose of differentiating similarly titled articles. older ≠ wiser 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


@Bkonrad, I would disagree with the proposition that Kiss (band) is imprecise. Compare an undisambiguated title, The Police. Suppose another band, let's say an Indonesian boy band, were to call themselves by that name, have some modest success with an album in their home country, and then disband after a year. Would we then need to move The Police to The Police (English band) and make The Police into a WP:TWODABS disambiguation page, in order to disambiguate the title? Or could we then merely title the briefly existing new band The Police (Indonesian band) with a hatnote at the existing The Police page, as WP:TWODABS would seem to require? bd2412 T 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If there are two bands with the same name, how is it not imprecise? As to your example, yes, I suppose someone might propose that it be moved and discussion would establish an appropriate disposition: which might be 1) move and redirect base name to the dab page; 2) move and redirect the base name to the fully disambiguated title; or 3) don't move. For both 2 and 3 a hatnote would be required. Some editors (given recent discussions at WT:Hatnote concerning WP:NAMB) would have a hatnote in 1 as well. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) That seems a pretty good summary LtPowers. My position tends towards #1, with some provision to IAR and allow redirects or perhaps even in some exceptional cases to allow a partially disambiguated title. Although fuzzy guidelines drive some editors batshit-crazy, I think guidelines that imply black-and-white, no exceptions-allowed application very rarely reflect reality. I'd prefer the guideline to represent a strong recommendation for best practice in how things should be titled. Exceptions would be expected, but any such exceptions should have to present a good rationale for the exception. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be your position, then, that Kiss (band) should be moved to Kiss (American band), and that the title, Kiss (band) should point to Kiss (disambiguation)? bd2412 T 14:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That is one solution or there may be fair case for an exception to leave it at Kiss (band). older ≠ wiser 15:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If there is a "fair case for an exception", then there must be rules stating when an exception is appropriate, and does it not seems intuitive that an exception would be appropriate wherever "Foo (band)" is the clear primary band for the name, "Foo"? bd2412 T 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
there must be rules stating when an exception is appropriate, no. It is a fool's errand to attempt to define rules in such a manner for an environment like Wikipedia. The basis for such exceptions is the same as everything else, discussion and rough consensus. We might say something to the effect of describing when exceptions might be appropriate, but rules for exceptions only give rise to wikilawyers and more splitting of hairs. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Then how do we know what makes "a fair case" for an exception? It sounds like this will depend on the happenstance of which editors notice a particular discussion and care enough to participate. On the other hand, if it is a fool's errand to attempt to define such rules, why define rules stating that for band names used by multiple bands, each of them must be at a "Foo (disambiguator band)" title? Isn't that just as well left open to "discussion and rough consensus" on a case by case basis? bd2412 T 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, I've no problem with providing some examples of past outcomes to provide some guidance as to what constitutes a "fair case". But it is foolhardy to think that any amount of rules will satisfactorily address every contingency. In my opinion, the best we can do is articulate some general principles and recommend best practices and allow exceptional cases to be decided on a case-by-case basis. I don't follow the second part of your comment. I believe I have left the possibility you describe as an option. What I advocate is that PDAB not be interpreted as a hard-and-fact absolute rule, but a general principle with a number of possible outcomes based on discussion and consensus. One possible outcome is to leave an article at "Foo (band)". older ≠ wiser 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do we need PDAB at all, then? Why not just allow every case to be decided on the general principles of article titling and disambiguation that already existed prior to PDAB being proposed? bd2412 T 22:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That's a fair question. We got along reasonably well without it for some time now. But I think it is sound as a general recommendation (i.e., that in general, where disambiguation is required, any parenthetical disambiguation used should be unambiguous unless there are compelling reasons for an ambiguous term to be used). older ≠ wiser 22:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed (and I said so before). There's no need for PDAB here. If it's the consensus, it's part of the naming conventions for articles. Prior to the change, some content-specific naming conventions prohibited some qualifier pairs analogous to (film)/(1983 film), and some allowed it. After the change (if it's consensus), the general naming conventions would be updated to reflect the consensus, or (if it's not the consensus) continue to leave it to the topic projects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
the problem with #1 is that the phrase 'fully disambiguated' has no static meaning - it is dynamic, not based on reliable sources or anything in the outside world, but rather on the determination by Wikipedia editors that a given article should exist. Secondly, there is the issue that in the case where a new Kiss band is created, it would then require editing hundreds of articles - and potentially confusing editors. I think the only time the status quo should change is if a new article gets created that is itself determined to be more primary than the old one. This is a rare case, and would require us to have missed something so important. I suppose #2 would be my preference. But we should wait a bit and see if there are other permutations proposed, it's a good start but I still feel like we're missing some edge cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwankenobi (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 July 2013
In my opinion Bkonrad underestimates the disruption created by adopting #1 with his IAR caveat for situations like Kiss (band). This opens Pandora's box for endless ambiguous situations without any applicable guideline directing us towards stability.

Bkonrad writes, " Although fuzzy guidelines drive some editors batshit-crazy, I think guidelines that imply black-and-white, no exceptions-allowed application very rarely reflect reality." I suggest this presents a false dichotomy. The choice is not between "fuzzy guidelines" and "black-and white, no exceptions-allowed".

Whenever we're discussing guideline changes or proposals, the real choice is often between "guidelines that provide more ambiguous guidance" and "guidelines that provide less ambiguous guidance". Some of us strongly believe that WP would be greatly improved, at least in the area of title stability, if we tended towards the latter choice whenever reasonably possible. That approach suggests favoring #2 in Powers' summary. --B2C 17:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Born2cycle underestimates the ability of editors to find ambiguity and loopholes in guidelines that give the illusion of being definitive and unambiguous. I have no problem with providing some examples to illustrate various possible outcomes, but the fundamental basis for deciding such outcomes is discussion and consensus, not rules. older ≠ wiser 17:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
If the fundamental basis for deciding such outcomes with discussion and consensus is not rules tending towards stability, then it is WP:JDLI meandering aimlessly and endlessly. That is a true dichotomy. --B2C 18:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you've many times over made your preference clear for rules that could be applied by a robot. Unfortunately most decisions on Wikipedia are not amenable to such rules (or it would be next-to-impossible to reach agreement on what those rules should be that would not alienate many editors who value discussion and consensus for determining edge cases). That doesn't equate to WP:JDLI meandering aimlessly and endlessly. Talk about a false dichotomy. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, what is "the discussion and consensus for determining edge cases" based on, if it's neither "rules" (meaning pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice) nor JDLI opinion? --B2C 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think it necessarily excludes pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice? Simply because there is not a "rule" that addresses every eventuality doesn't equate to chaos. Often the "rules" conflict in these edge cases and what you derisively refer to as JDLI is pretty much how things operate (both on Wikipedia and in the world at large). People make arguments supporting their positions and other people respond to those arguments (and some people deride the arguments of others as being JDLI). So it goes. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Since rules includes pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice, anything not based on rules excludes being based on pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice. Arguments not based on rules (so defined) are statements that are not based on pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice. These are commonly referred to as JDLI arguments.

When the applicable rules conflict we have a situation where arguments on both sides can be made that are based on the rules. Since the rules conflict, the outcomes of any such discussions are often not much better nor more predictable or stable than decisions made by tossing a coin. This is why many of us favor improving the polices and guidelines by removing or at least reducing conflicts and ambiguities where reasonably possible - so more titles can be decided in a way that is likely to be uncontroversial and stable. --B2C 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're perhaps confusing different senses of "rules". Pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice are collectively considered a set of "rules" (as, for instance, in ignore all rules. That doesn't mean these "rules" are an all-encompassing, closed, deterministic system. They are the best approximations of what is considered best practices at any given point. Very few of these "rules" can be applied with as computational algorithms. And in many cases, as in what title an article should have, there is no absolute right or wrong answer and informed editorial opinions are as important and valid as any formulation or interpretation of rules. While I have no objection to improving the guidelines, I expect that we disagree in many respects on what that improvement might look like. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You refer to two sense of "rules", but specify only one (Pillars/policy/guidelines/conventional practice are collectively considered a set of "rules" (as, for instance, in ignore all rules). What is the other?

Of course the are not all-encompassing, closed, deterministic system... for special cases we have IAR, WP:COMMON, etc. But that's for special cases. In general, the rules in the one sense that you specified should and do give good guidance on what to do. Every instance where these rules don't give us a clear guidance on what title to use is a likely opportunity to improve the rules; improve them by addressing the holes, conflicts or ambiguities that are causing the lack of clear guidance. When there is a clear opportunity to make the rules more clear, what's the reason to not? The fact that you specified only one sense of the rules suggests there is no other sense (please correct me if I'm wrong). Putting aside the rare special cases (especially with regard to title issues) where IAR is invoked, for better or for worse, the rules is all we have to go on. So, let's make them as good, clear, and unambiguous as we can. Okay? That's all I'm saying. --B2C 21:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but from the way you talk about them it appears that your sense is that rules are part of an all-encompassing, closed, deterministic system. In so many cases where there actually is no single answer that is correct or incorrect in any absolute sense, it makes no sense to pretend that some rule-based algorithm will determine what is best in any given situation better than informed discussion among editors. And such discussions may result in apparently contradictory outcomes in various contexts. As there is no absolute right or wrong in such cases, there is no actual problem in allowing discussions to determine the outcomes rather than making WP:CREEPy expansions to the rules. older ≠ wiser 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's very difficult to have a coherent discussion with someone who is not addressing what is being said in this discussion, but some impression he has in his head about what he believes the other has said and meant elsewhere in the past. Let's try to avoid that, okay?

My positions are well documented, even on my own user page. If we want to expand the scope of this discussion please feel free to quote me from there or anywhere else and address that as well as what I'm saying here. But if you're going to argue with some impression you have of what you believe my position is or has been ("rules are part of an all-encompassing, closed, deterministic system"), that's not going to work.

That said, let's look at this statement, "In so many cases where there actually is no single answer that is correct or incorrect in any absolute sense, it makes no sense to pretend that some rule-based algorithm will determine what is best in any given situation better than informed discussion among editors". If the rules don't provide a single answer in a given situation, then of course no algorithm based on those rules will determine what is best in that situation. However, it might be possible to improve the rules so that they do provide one clear answer. What's the alternative? You call it, "informed discussion among editors", begging the same question, again: informed discussion based on what (if not JDLI)? What is this mysterious basis-for-title-decision-making to which you seem to keep referring ("confusing different senses of 'rules'"; "informed discussion among editors") without specifying, and how is it different from JDLI? --B2C 22:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think one point we fundamentally differ on is that you see is as not only possible, but highly desirable to maximize the number of titles that can be mechanistically determined. My opinion is that many of the cases you'd want to mechanistically determine can only be and are best resolved by informed discussion among editors and that quite unlike your derisive dismissal of this as JDLI, it is in fact fundamental to Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying to read through this RfC and discussion and find myself having a hard time to understand it. I do not think the opening is neutral and brief as it should be and the following explanation is way too long to be much of an explanation. Then the survey section stating "You can add modify (rewrite), merge or remove and a reason or explanation, or you simply add your comments." is not neutral by eliminating options for editors who think there is no change needed. Overall, a briefer, more concise explanation would probably help attract more editors to this discussion because I think people seeing a wall of text will not bother reading through it to figure out what is going on to give their opinion. Aspects (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. Read WP:PDAB
  2. In the survey, tell us what you think should be done with it, if anything, and why. --B2C 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Domination of RFC by one voice

As usual, one editor, being unaware of what an RFC is for, attempts to dominate the discussion, with almost as many edits as everyone else put together. per contributors tool. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Like some have commented, a self imposed limit supported by community consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean failing to abide by... Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the concerns being voiced here, it may be relevant to note this warning given in May... ╠╣uw [talk] 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, admin Gatoclass downgraded the result there from a topic to just another warning, sadly. The prior warning is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned, which says "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." I'm not seeing that here. Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Not only that, but multiple debates get opened in parallel, and he dominates them all. In the past, he has suggested that those that do not wish to keep arguing should just walk away; if one cares about Wikipedia, then one cannot do that, yet it can be difficult to keep up with the sheer volume of response on multiple pages on multiple, but related, subjects. Omnedon (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested on non-dab parenthetical explanations

Is a parenthetical explanation for purposes other than title disambiguation allowed? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume this query is in reference to this. As a general rule, use of parenthetical terms for disambiguation when there is no ambiguity with the base name is discouraged (e.g., an article at Foo (term) where there is no other article that is ambiguous with "Foo"). However, the disambiguation guidelines are largely silent on what form article title should have. There are naming conventions which specify that a particular form be used, regardless of the need for disambiguation. And these conventions are not without vociferous detractors. For example, the convention for U.S. place names suggests the title should always include the state name. So, if there is an established naming convention that indicates "(gens)" should always be included in the title, I think that would be fine with respect to disambiguation, so long as there was always a redirect from the base name to the conventional title. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was looking for a specific MOS guideline that would say "no, you can't do that". But notice that the use of (gens) is regarded as an explanatory amplification to clarify article scope and to prevent confusion because of the feminine form of the name, not a disambiguating term. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that preventing confusion is what disambiguation is all about. bd2412 T 18:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because the form is feminine, it will look like a woman's name to readers of English, and actually was the name of women of the gens, who might appear on these prosopographical lists. The problems with other titling options are outlined at the link given above. Roman nomenclature is a fairly obscure and specialized topic, which is why (as with scientific nomenclature) consistency is a driving concern. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, I agree that this is an appropriate, common sense use of a parenthetical. bd2412 T 19:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At least several non-redirect examples exist:
Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
At first glance those seem to be instances where the parenthetical is part of the actual name of the thing. bd2412 T 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think they look more like things that would be better off with natural disambiguation, like 103rd Street–Rosemoor Metra station, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I worked on a couple of them. Comments? Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the moves you have made. As for the Metra stations, on the Metra system website, the parentheses appear to be included in the location names, e.g. "103rd Street (Rosemoor)" or "211th Street (Lincoln Highway)". I see no reason for "Metra" to be in parentheses in these titles, particularly when a title like 103rd Street (Rosemoor) Metra station would make clear that the parenthetical was part of the placename, and not set off to distinguish it from another. bd2412 T 12:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe parentheses should only appear in titles of articles about titled works, when those works include parentheses: "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)". If the topic doesn't include parentheses, Wikipedia titles should only include them for disambiguation (WP:PRECISION). If the title-without-the-parenthetical isn't good enough to be the article title, a better title-without-parenthetical should be identified. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
+1 Certain WikiProjects have adopted the practice of disambiguating all titles, even when doing so is unnecessary due to a lack of title conflicts. This should not be permitted. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Before forbidding it, can we look at it? What projects? Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place to forbid it. The naming conventions would be the place, and they already do in the recognizability, naturalness, precision, and conciseness guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to happen especially with transit articles. For example, there's Grosvenor–Strathmore (WMATA station), where Grosvenor–Strathmore is a redlink. I'm generally all for consistency in titles, but that does not extend to unnecessary disambiguation just because a bunch of similar articles need disambiguators. --BDD (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how those wouldn't all be better at Grosvenor–Strathmore WMATA station titles. With respect to the Metra stations, I am inclined to propose a mass move to change "(Metra)" to "Metra station" in all of those titles; "WMATA" might merit the same treatment. bd2412 T 17:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That's an artificial construction though. If you were giving someone directions in DC, you wouldn't say, "Get off at Grosvenor–Strathmore WMATA station." You'd just say, "Get off Grosvenor–Strathmore," because that's the actual name of the station. I know we don't necessarily go by official names, but they sure beat unnatural disambiguation when there's no title conflict. Adding "station" might help in the names of heavy rail stations, which are often named after whole cities, but with uniquely named stations in local transit, it's just results in a wordier, less natural title. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Those parts are already in the title. I am merely proposing to take them out of the parenthesis, which (as used in Wikipedia) imply that the material is included to avoid confusion between subjects with the same name. bd2412 T 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
They're parts of the title (of the article), but not the name (of the subject). I could propose moving Henry McBride (politician) to Henry McBride, politician, but that would be a monumental shift in disambiguation practices. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Grosvenor–Strathmore WMATA station seems far more natural to me than Henry McBride, politician. If I saw the former as an article title, or in a government document or newspaper article, I would be inclined to think that it was the formal, official name of the place. bd2412 T 19:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually you would probably just say "Get off at Grosvenor". In any event, I imagine "Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro station" would be the most natural. This seems to already be applied to London stations (e.g. Baker Street tube station), so I don't see why this couldn't be applied elsewhere, with disambiguation where needed (e.g. Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro station (WMATA)). [But, yes, this isn't the right place for this proposal.] Also, to clarify, BDD, "heavy rail" refers to metro and subway systems as well in the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 19:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I recently found myself asking "why the parenthetical" when I tried, unsuccessfully, to move Anna Graceman (entertainer) to Anna Graceman. I gathered something about suspect writing and dubious notability regarding a minor, which may no longer be the case.
Here's another thing. Hopefully, one of these days, I can get back to identifying and starting articles on notable people from my hometown, since the collection of names found in that article is somewhat of a joke, any good intentions notwithstanding. From what I've seen, the primary topic for "Harold Gillam" would be the elder Harold Gillam, the bush pilot. As for the younger Harold Gillam, the mayor, I'm not sure that Harold Gillam, Jr. would work in this case, since his father died during his early teens, and resultantly, he was only rarely known as "Junior". Harold Gillam (mayor) or Harold Gillam (politician) would make more sense. Given that the coverage of Alaska aviation is in far more of a shambles than coverage of Alaska politics, what happens if an article for the younger Gillam is written first? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 23:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In the Graceman case, there was just a technical restriction; the proposed title had been SALTed. I've gone ahead and made the move. If you ever run into similar cases in the future, you can request the move at WP:RM/TR. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
JHunterJ, BDD, et al are correct that per WP:PRECISION, parentheses should only be used for disambiguation (unless it's in the title of the work). A parenthetical disambiguator should never be added if the base name is available, as appears to be the case with some of the Roman articles mentioned above. If this guideline isn't clear on that point, it needs to be remedied so that it flushes with the policy.
It does appear that transit articles are particularly out of line, apparently because one or more Wikiprojects try to enforce an internal style preference that conflicts with the WP:AT policy. I ran into this when trying to update articles on Jacksonville Skyway stations; at least one transit-focused editor was much more adamant about enforcing consistency to their Wikiproject's idiosyncratic internal norm than they were about actually updating the articles (cf here). However, consistency within a group of articles and the potential side benefits of parentheticals for reasons other than disambiguation don't trump following the project-wide policy that titles should be natural, recognizable, and no longer than necessary.--Cúchullain t/c 13:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Long before I got involved in this, it was recognized that Roman nomenclature poses specific difficulties: WP:ROMANS was created in 2004. (Perusal of Category:Prosopography of Ancient Rome may indicate something of the issues of naming.) WP:PRECISION applies: a gens name is given in the feminine, creating the need to clarify that it isn't the name of a Roman woman: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article is exactly the issue we're dealing with. I've gone to two different MOS pages looking for input, and am well aware of the general guidelines. I would compare this to scientific nomenclature: when I look up scarlet pimpernel, I arrive at Anagallis arvensis. Scientific nomenclature trumps "common name" practices, because consistency prevents taxonomic chaos. The nature of Roman prosopography requires a similarly clear and useful consistency in naming the 200+ gentes articles. Anyone who's interested is (I reiterate) encouraged and warmly welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Naming gens articles. A solution is sought that addresses the specifics of the problem. So far, I haven't seen anyone say "this is what these articles should be named," and why. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's really not enough that such an article could look like it's the name of a Roman woman. You're taking recognizability too far; there's no end to the number of articles that could be more recognizable by their titles alone if we just made longer titles, either with parenthetical disambiguators or otherwise. But conciseness is no less important in titles, and policies like WP:NATURAL recognize that it's good to avoid parenthetical disambiguation when possible. Disambiguation is only necessary when there are titling conflicts. (Incidentally, I'm taking scarlet pimpernel on an overdue trip to WP:RFD for retargeting.) --BDD (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, please review the issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Naming gens articles and make a specific suggestion about how these article titles should be handled. No offense, but your statement that such a title "could 'look like'" the name of a Roman woman just indicates to me that you don't understand Roman naming conventions for females: the gens name in the feminine actually was the name of any Roman woman from that gens. A list of the options we've thought of for titling gens articles is given at the link above, with a summary of pros and cons. If input wasn't welcome, I wouldn't be here, but I've already said repeatedly that the guidelines don't really answer the questions raised. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let's review the facts. We have, for example, an article Digitia (gens). We don't have an article at Digitia. I don't care if a hypothetical Roman woman from that gens would also be named Digitia; if we don't have an article on her, we should not disambiguate in anticipation in such an article. I don't know what that discussion section has to do with anything. There are at least two suggestions there which would avoid this issue. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of only two participants in that discussion, and I don't know what two suggestions you mean. Could you comment there as to which solution you prefer? Cynwolfe (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The two suggestions I was referring to are the formats Gens Foo and Foo gens. I would prefer one of those, so as to avoid this business of unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
It makes little difference to me whether the format is Foo (gens) or Foo gens or Gens Foo. In all cases, if the gens is the only thing known by that name, then Foo should redirect to the article on the gens and if Foo is ambiguous, then there will either be a disambiguation page or a hatnote. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
No arguments there. Foo can redirect to Foo bar, but should not redirect to Foo (bar). --BDD (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Right. All I'm saying is IMO it makes little difference whether the title is disambiguated by parens or by other means. If there is a reasonable basis for consistent titling with parens, I see no basis for objecting. But on the other hand, if Foo gens or Gens Foo are acceptable alternatives, it might be best not to yank on the chains of the hounds guarding article titling practices. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I would say that if a parenthetical explanation is absolutely forbidden, that needs to be spelled out somewhere as a MOS guideline. One problem is that these names are not Foo (indeclinable), they are Fooia, Fooius, and Fooii, which is why there is an inherent ambiguity, not a potential ambiguity, unless the scope/title is delimited with the word gens. I think everyone agrees that the word gens must be included in the title, because otherwise, it's a woman's name. I brought the issue here because someone had moved Annaea (gens) to Annaea, on the grounds that no disambiguation was required. But gens is part of the article title/scope, not a disambiguating phrase. So the issue is not disambiguation per se; it's that dab policy was used as the basis for a move that, if carried out randomly on some gens articles and not others, would cause taxonomical chaos. Since the naming of the gens articles is based on consistent nomenclature within a taxonomy, just as in scientific nomenclature, I've been in search of a way to title these articles that (a) can be used with taxonomical consistency throughout; (b) provides the most efficient access for users; and (c) doesn't make us look like illiterati in matters of Latinity. In an alphabetical index in a modern work of scholarship, an entry on a gens would appear as Fooia, gens (like "Shakespeare, William"). We don't do that for article titles. But because there are 200+ articles, using the correct Latin form (gens Fooia) would result in a search-box drop-down menu of little use to users, who are far more likely to be typing in the gens name first. That's the dilemma, because Fooia gens is not standard Latin. The current Fooia (gens) is meant to provide the accessibility of Fooia, gens as found in an index, without resorting to the non-standard Latin of Fooia gens. So here's where I'm going to leave it: there are about 230 articles titled Fooia (gens). There are two or three that are inconsistently titled, and need to made consistent. I, alas, lack the stomach for moving all these articles to the non-standard Latin Fooia gens, let alone the sheer stamina to move so many articles and fix any attendant problems. If it's important to make the moves to Fooia gens instead of Fooia (gens), lest the world of MOS come to an end, I applaud the diligence of any editor who takes on the job. If no one is willing to go to that trouble, then I read that as "no consensus" on the necessity of a move for all these titles, since if it's important and necessary, someone will do it. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is referred to in reliable sources as "Annaea (gens)" (with the parentheses) then it's part of the title. If it's not how it's referred to in reliable sources, then it's not part of the title (although it might relate to the scope, which is irrelevant). No chaos would ensue. If it needs to be titled Annaea, gens or gens Annaea, then it needs to be titled Annaea, gens or gens Annaea, and redirects will handles the search-box menu utility. Also, it is not necessary to fix everything before one can fix anything, so the moves can be made piecemeal, and the world will not end. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
To see the way the drop-down menu population does not dictate article titles, see All pages with titles beginning with Pope. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the moves can't usefully be made piecemeal: this would indeed be chaotic, and would undo the enormous effort and care taken in creating a system for addressing the taxonomy of Roman nomenclature. I don't know where you're getting the title with the comma: I said a gens would appear in an alphabetical index that way, but we don't use Shakespeare, William in article titles, so I don't see why we would use that form. To be clear, I didn't do all this work: the series of gentes articles was reorganized and vastly improved by P Aculeius, who has expertise in the area. He's OK, as others seem to be, with simply removing the parentheses, so that the titles are Fooia gens, and that seems to be the easiest way to go about it. But if the articles are to be moved, they need to be moved systematically en masse: please see Category:Roman gentes to view the degree of useful consistency that's been achieved. With apologies, I must be blunt: I consider it highly detrimental to the goal of building an encyclopedia, and to encouraging competent content editing, for editors to impose trivial rules on bodies of content about which they know and care little, while not being willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work of fixes. The fix requires no expertise; it requires tedious work, and I'm not willing to do it. (Some might have to be done over redirects, and histories merged.) If it's necessary to fix these titles, then those who think it's necessary should do it. I don't see the necessity, but have sought opinions in good faith in order to achieve article title stability for the purpose of illuminating the complexities of Roman prosopography and naming. I'm not opposed to having the article titles changed, but am adamantly opposed to inconsistent moves that result in titling confusion. All the gentes articles need to have consistent titles that can be codified at WP:ROMANS. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the moves can usefully be made piecemeal. That is no more chaotic that every other single improvement on Wikipedia. I don't know where you got the title with the comma, but I copied it from your comment. If the piecemeal approach seems too chaotic to you, you are of course welcome to swing in and complete the improvement en masse. To be blunt, I consider it detrimental for editors to try to impose artificial roadblocks to the improvement of the encyclopedia by burdening editors making those improvements with made-up burdens of all-or-nothing approaches. I am perfectly willing to continue to do tedious work throughout the encyclopedia, and have been doing so for years, but you might as well say "unless you're going to copyedit every article tagged for copyediting, please do not copyedit any of them!" -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Parallels and meridians.

Currently, pages like 10th meridian and 10th parallel are disambiguation pages. There are hundreds of these, each showing two links accompanied by two maps, noting for example the 10th parallel north and 10th parallel south, or 10th meridian east and 10th meridian west. I am dubious about these being disambiguation pages at all, as I think that it is arguable that a "10th parallel", for example, is any parallel that varies by ten degrees from the equator, and that these are simply WP:DABCONCEPT to that definition. Thoughts? bd2412 T 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That the north/south and east/west pages be combined under a single title -- else what would the content of the article be if not essentially what the current dab pages state? Or that if it becomes a dab concept page that links to parallels or meridians that do not specify a hemisphere should not be disambiguated? Neither seems a desirable outcome. older ≠ wiser 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm thinking about merging them all into a sort of list of parallels and meridians (or maybe two lists, one of each). bd2412 T 22:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Some parallels and meridians are highly significant, so merging them all would be a bad idea. There is already list of parallels in circle of latitude. The 38th parallel is a good example, as it has more than just the 2 parallels in it, and 38th parallel north is probably primary topic. That said, do we need articles on the insignificant ones?
Meridians are more complex - the Washington Meridian and Paris Meridian are significant but aren't whole numbers from Greenwich. As an aside, parallels can be said to be a line of latitude from an equator (so the Moon, Mars etc).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, for what it's worth, there are disambiguation pages for every whole-number meridian, but only for every tenth parallel (10th, 20th, 30th, etc.). bd2412 T 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether we need articles on the insignificant ones or not, we have them. How about merging the ones that are not significant into a single article? bd2412 T 18:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

DABCONCEPT and PTOPIC

Could someone clarify the meaning of WP:DABCONCEPT in relation to WP:PTOPIC? For a body of works under a single owner, should the main incoming link be the broad-overview of the whole or should it be the most popular work/character bearing that name? For Star Trek this would result in the original series being Star Trek instead of the topic overview of what Star Trek is and contains. Currently, two disputes are ongoing with implications to switch the topic level to the "most popular" material or "original" material when the work contains numerous entries of the same exact name, similarly prefixed or directly related by ownership. This seems illogical and confusing to the uninformed readers and probably not the purpose of DISAMB. Specifically, PTOPIC appears to be for ambiguous, but unrelated terms that cannot be served by DABCONCEPT and sufficiently rare and limited that a disambiguation page is not necessary for organizational purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

  • (I recommend editing your post to link to the guidelines in question.) It seems to me that WP:DABCONCEPT is subsidiary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the article about the general concept should be at the base name if the general concept is deemed to be the primary topic. If I understand correctly, you're suggesting it's the other way around: that if there's a general topic, it should be assumed to be the primary topic. But WP:DABCONCEPT indicates it applies "if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept" and "where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics". To me the question would be, if someone searches for "Star Trek", are they likely to be better served by going to the article about the original series or the concept article or a dab page? (And I'd probably say the concept article. But I'm not sure that's always the case, and I don't think WP:DABCONCEPT suggests it's always the case.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a better way of putting it. What conditions should be given to the make the primary topic the overview rather than a specific work which bears the same name or even multiple works or adaptations which bear the same name? In this case it is the franchise which bears the same name as the original media, and both unique or similar adaptations. In practice the same name refers to 3 different media and also the franchise whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:TOPIC tells us that primary topics, that are usually associated with "usage" and "long term significance", have to be decided by consensus discussions on a case-by-case basis, with the help of factors such as incoming wikilinks, traffic stats, and usage in reliable sources. I agree with Theoldsparkle, it's not because there is a broad-coverage article that it will always be the primary topic, it's all up to long-term significance, and to consensus. In some cases it will be impossible to determine a specific topic to be particularly significant (and that's what happened for Star Trek and its numerous series), in some others, there will be one use of particular significance above all the other similarly-named topics. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Covered by"

I just noticed the comment from B2C on Talk:On My Way (Charlie Brown song) that "ambiguity [on WP] has no meaning other than WP article name conflict", as stated in the first sentence of WP:D. --B2C 06:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)"

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles.

Perhaps we should expand "covered by Wikipedia articles" to "covered by the text of Wikipedia articles" since B2C (a self proclaimed "title expert") is reading "covered by Wikipedia articles" as "covered by the title of Wikipedia articles" - ? Seriously. Is this sentence open to this misunderstanding? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if that sounds catty against B2C, he's not the only one misciting this by any means In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Many of us would dispute that it is indeed a misunderstanding. On the specific subject of songs, it just doesn't make sense to displace an actual article in favor of a dab that lists song titles linking to, at best, an album page. While there are occasional exceptions, standalone articles generally get preference over list items (cf. the semi-recent Larry the Lobster RM). And indeed, "list item" is probably the best we can call most album tracks. If essentially all we can say about a song is that it exists, again, why make it harder for readers to find an actual article on a song of the same name? If I want to find out about, say, DJ Khaled's "On My Way", I'm going to find out there isn't an article, and I'll be disappointed. Short of creating an article (if it meets notability standards), there's nothing really we can do about that. But we can choose to streamline the experience for readers searching for songs that we do cover.
What I don't know is where MOS:DABMENTION comes into play. Should a song only be mentioned on a dab if there's a reasonable expectation that it will have an article? That seems extreme, but might actually be an area of compromise on this issue. Personally, I think such listing are still useful as navigational aids. --BDD (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the way we usually do it - having a line for the song with a link to the album where it is covered - is signal enough that we don't have an article on the song. Anyone who is going to be disappointed by that will be disappointed whether they learn of it on the disambiguation page, or in further fruitless searching. I support having those links on a disambiguation page if one exists, but would not bump a song out of the primary topic spot to create one, nor would I bother to create one if we only had one article whose title was the song. bd2412 T 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
BDD, hi, if you think that B2C is understanding the guideline correctly, shall we put it to an RfC?
Re songs it's a particular problem with songs because we have two forms of article handling songs, single articles and album articles; constantly notable album tracks by notable artists will have no article. Then we get left with Example (unknown artist single) vs. Example (Rolling Stones album song). WP:DAB ... an alternative to an RfC would be to enshrine a Example (unknown artist single) vs. Example (Rolling Stones album song) in WP:DAB to show we don't require standalone articles for songs to be notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know the original intention of the text or whether many people believe it, but I think the language use is a very bad idea. It is a bad idea to redefine common words for Wikipedia purposes. Doing so hurts the accessibility of the project to newcomers. Ambiguity is most likely to be understood as real-world ambiguity to a newcomer. If the intent is to describe technical article titling ambiguity, then describe it as technical article titling ambiguity and don't redefine dictionary words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no redefining here... Only an understanding of context.

      Contrary to what In ictu oculi thinks I think, I know "covered by WP" does not mean "covered by the title of Wikipedia articles". Some topics are covered in subsections of articles. WP's process of disambiguation applies when a term can be used to refer to more than one topic covered by WP, whether that topic is the main topic of an article or a sub-topic of an article.

      For example, we don't have an article about the kidnapper named James Dimaggio, but he is a sub-topic of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson. Therefore, if we we ever need to cover another James DiMaggio, that name will be subject to our process of disambiguation. But, for now, despite the known existence of many other James DiMaggio's, as long as none have sufficient notability for coverage on notability, this James DiMaggio remains the primary topic, and James DiMaggio redirects to the article that covers him as a sub-topic.

      To clarify this, we could change the current wording to say the following:

    Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles (either as the main or a secondary topic of an article). Terms that are ambiguous only with uses not sufficiently notable to have coverage on Wikipedia are not subject to Wikipedia's process of disambiguation.

--B2C 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SmokeyJoe that redefining "ambiguity" to refer only to a restricted subset of its English meaning is a bad idea. I like the addition in parentheses, that clarifies that ambiguity is not something restricted to article titles. The second sentence, though, is contrary to common (and quite recent) practice at DAB discussions, and B2C knows that this line of reasoning has been strongly opposed by several editors. So let's keep definitions short and allow editors to apply guidelines a they see fit for each particular case, and reduce WP:CREEP by making guidelines that are descriptive instead of prescriptive. Diego Moya (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia redefined "ambiguity" long ago, much like Wikipedia redefined "consensus" long ago. Nothing inherently good or bad about the ideas. And we can (and do, I think) avoid the (English) ambiguity by normally referring to the (Wikipedia) ambiguity as "Wikipedia ambiguity". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the phrase "the main or a secondary topic of an article"; what is a secondary topic? How about "as the subject of an article, or discussed in an article"? I think the second sentence is fine. As a matter of practice and good policy, we do not list terms on disambiguation pages unless they are in Wikipedia, or clearly belong in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I gave an example of a secondary topic above.... James DiMaggio is covered as a secondary topic of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (of which the main topic is the kidnapping itself). But your wording is clearer. --B2C 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the ships have sailed on redefining "consensus" and "ambiguity" long ago. There are countless words written with these redefined meanings implied by the uses of these terms, in comments as well as in policy and guidelines. I don't know where or how we would even begin to change this.

I should note that almost every endeavor, from science to politics to law to engineering, requires specialized terminology that includes "redefining" commonly used words to have specific narrow meanings in the relevant contexts. Remember, this is not terminology that readers encounter - it's terminology for efficient communication among the editors. Insisting on using the dictionary definitions of these words rather than the specialized WP meanings in WP editorial discussions is not helpful. --B2C 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Redefining common words is inherently bad in terms of accessibility of Wikipedia to new editors. Requiring enculturation is bad, as should be minimised. Ambiguity and consensus are not lost, B2C in particular is particularly wrong about WP:Consensus. The ship may have sailed for WP:Notability, but the precedent is no justification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It stills seems there is a problem here MOS:DABMENTION allows mention of e.g. album tracks, but then when it comes to titles we count those MOS:DABMENTION as if they don't exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not about pretending they don't exist; it's about not giving them primacy. Once we resort to parenthetical disambiguation, naming becomes a matter of real estate, constrained by the inability to have two articles with the same name. So when deciding those titles, it's entirely right and proper to only compare against other titles. We shouldn't have an article Foo (Bar song) without an article Foo (song), any more than we should have an article Foo (topic) without an article Foo. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
BDD says "We shouldn't have an article Foo (Bar song) without an article Foo (song), ...." So if I understand this correctly, you are saying at least one song must remain ambiguous before you can disambiguate other songs? That doesn't make sense. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just plainly wrong, BDD. Any topic may be the primary topic for a number of different terms. Only one of those terms can be the title for the article about that topic - all the other terms for which that topic is the primary topic must redirect to that article. For example, New York City is the title, but the primary topic of "New York, New York" is also that article, and so New York, New York redirects to New York City despite the existence of many other uses of "New York, New York". If it were true that "We shouldn't have an article Foo (topic) without an article Foo", then we couldn't have New York, New York (film) since we don't have an article at New York, New York. --B2C 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But Why? Doesn't the first line of WP:DAB say exactly that that we don't disambiguate by titles. We could have Eric Blair (Ontario politician) (in fact it's also a redirect) with no Eric Blair article, for obvious reasons. So why can't we have Under the Sun (Cheryl Cole song) (before moved by Unreal7) when the other 9 songs are only mentioned on albums? We can and do have articles Foo (topic) without an article Foo. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Petitio principii, my friend. I don't read the first line of WP:DAB that way, nor am I alone in not doing so. With the Eric Blair example, I half feel like you've tricked me, but really it's my fault for making too sweeping a statement. Of course as a matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we can have a Foo (bar) if the primary topic for Foo is the article Bar (I believe there are editors out there who may disagree with that, though they are decidedly a minority). I don't see the relevance of this sort of case to song articles, however. --BDD (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean now. We should not have an article at Foo (disambiguation) if we do not have at least one other use on WP for 'Foo'" (whether that use is represented as an article title, one of several on the dab page for "Foo", or as a redirect, does not matter). Similarly, we should not have an article with title Foo (Bar song) without an article or redirect at Foo (song). If that's what you meant, I agree.

By the way, the relevance of your sweeping statement error to song articles is that we have New York, New York (Moby song) even though we have no article at New York, New York (song) (it's a redirect to the Music section of New York, New York (disambiguation)). --B2C 06:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think part of what In ictu oculi may be getting at is there appears to be a bias among some editors that if there is only one "article" about a song, that by default becomes the "primary topic" for the title Foo (song) regardless of whether there are other songs with that title on the Foo dab page (and without any discussion about primacy). older ≠ wiser 11:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we can and do have articles titled disambiguated as Foo (disambiguation) without an article at Foo, as long as Foo is a redirect to the primary topic for the term "Foo", or "Foo" has no primary topic and so the Foo dab page is at Foo. --B2C 05:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In my view, if a subject is listed on a dab page (e.g., the title of a song) with a link to where an article is found that discusses that subject in any depth whatsoever (even just one sentence within a larger article that provides a context for the subject, and perhaps even just identifying the subject explicitly without further elaborating on it), or (similarly) if a redirect exists for a subject that points to an article that discusses that subject in any depth whatsoever, then that subject is "covered" on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's what B2C means by "a secondary topic of an article" or not. The sentence "Terms that are ambiguous only with uses not sufficiently ..." seems wordy and unnecessary. I really hate the phenomenon where someone claims that one particular song or album should be considered the primary song (or primary album) with a particular title and should therefore be moved to the ambiguous title "My Favorite (song)" instead of residing permanently at "My Favorite (Particular Artist's Name song)", when there are several other songs or albums listed somewhere on Wikipedia that have the same title (especially when the candidate primary article has little depth or was recently released). That just creates an unending churn of arguments about whose song is the most important and is why it is a generally good idea to avoid partial disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, if a subject is discussed "in any depth whatsoever (even just one sentence within a larger article that provides a context for the subject, and perhaps even just identifying the subject explicitly without further elaborating on it)", as demonstrated by a dab page link, redirect, or hatlink to that discussion... that's what I mean by "a secondary topic of an article". The only reasonable interpretation of "topic covered by WP" I can fathom is any topic which is either a main or secondary topic of an article (using "main" instead of "primary" here to avoid confusion of "primary topic" of an article with "primary topic" of a term). --B2C 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I have added a foot note clarification regarding what "topic covered by Wikipedia" means. It follows the first sentence of the page. The text of the note "hovers" over the cursor when the cursor is moved over the foot note. I hope that addresses the issue initially raised in this section --B2C 06:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this should fix the main problem. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So let's get on and add it? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The footnote's already there. To me, it seems fine. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I knew that but forgot, I guess that illustrates User:Cuchullain's comment in relation to Talk:Good for Me (song) that the footnote is both recent and not very visible. It seems to me that songs represent a special challenge for WP:DAB in that for few other prolific subjects we have the (standalone song) (song on a collection of songs) divide. We don't have to disambiguate [Village Z (standalone)] from [Village Z (mentioned in a album of villages)] for example. Doesn't happen for bios much, though in theory I guess it could : [John Smith (standalone musician)] vs [John Smith (musician in a band article)], [John Smith (standalone hockey player)] vs [John Smith (hockey player in a team article)]. Less of a perennial problem than for songs though, given that most songs, by far, don't have articles, but still have Google Book and iTunes hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Now it is part of the page it seems reasonable to add into the main text, rather than hiding away as a footnote. After all it's addition has already been debated above. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
@Richhoncho: please go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(entertainer)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) as suggested.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The questions for this RfC are: 1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent months have seen a number of requested moves to replace the "(entertainer)" disambiguator. Results have been mixed. Each individual RM has had relatively limited participation, so it would be nice to see if we can come to wider consensus on the issue, or if going case-by-case is necessary.

Why drop (entertainer)? It can be a vague, ambiguous catchall that in itself is not very descriptive. It's often only used sparingly in sources to describe a given person. One editor has suggested that the term only rightly applies to jesters, vaudevillians, burlesque acts and the like.

Why keep (entertainer)? In the case where a person is notable across multiple areas of entertainment (i.e., as a singer and a dancer), choosing one of those areas to disambiguate may be misleading or less accurate than using an umbrella term.

There are two fundamental questions to answer first. One is the definition of the word itself. One definition of "entertainer" is "a singer, comedian, dancer, reciter, or the like, especially a professional one". This would seem to at least allow for the possibility of its use on WP. The second question is how important WP:AT is in choosing a disambiguator. We rely heavily on sources for the actual name of a subject. Is that reliance lessened when we choose disambiguation? Does "entertainer" itself need to be found in sources, or can it be used to disambiguate when it makes sense otherwise?

What are the options?

  1. Eliminate (or strongly discourage) "(entertainer)". There is (almost) always a better option.
  2. Use "(entertainer)" only in the rare case where a person is most often referred to as an entertainer, or where no other reasonable alternative exists.
  3. Allow "(entertainer)" only in cases where no particular area of entertainment predominates over another.
  4. Allow "(entertainer)" whenever a person is notable for more than one area of entertainment.
  5. Allow "(entertainer)" even when a person is notable for only one area of entertainment.
  6. Disambiguate using each area for which a person is notable (i.e., "(singer/actress)" or "(comedian/musician)").

Please feel free to alert the relevant WikiProjects or others. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate the number(s) of your preferred options here, along with a brief explanation if you wish.

Incidentally we do have some "and" dabs already on en.wp Junaid Khan (actor and singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wrong project. The naming conventions for articles determine the titles (including qualifiers, if the desired title is ambiguous and not primary). The disambiguation guidelines determine the titles of disambiguation pages. This should go to WP:NCP or similar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Needed: a simple "how to create a disambiguation page" section

I spent a few minutes googling "how to create a disambiguation page" and variations thereof. There's no simple, easy-to-follow guide for how to figure out how to change an old redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britten&redirect=no to a simple disambiguation page that also includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britten and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten_Motorcycle_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten_V1000 If we on Wikipedia want more and new users, these arcane and complicated information pages really need to be streamlined and user-friendly and convenient. Spending half an hour learning intricate syntax is fine if you want an exclusive boys club, but not terribly convenient for the amateurs. Could also start with automatic signing of posts like this one, lest I forget the four tildes. Pär Larsson (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. We might be able to set up a "preloaded" disambiguation page template, along the lines of:

Foo may refer to:

  • [[Foo (bar)]], a bar
  • [[Foo (yang)]], a yang in Ruritaria
  • [[Foo (album)|''Foo'' (album)]], an album by the Ruritarians

{{disambig}}

I have asked whether this is possible at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Creating a form to make a new disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you asked WT:WPDAB? They are likely to have considered such matters before. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412: excellent, do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yunak (disambiguation)

Second opinion and action requested on this from experts in MOSDAB. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're probably right for the time being. Since the term isn't mentioned anywhere at Slavic mythology, the Slavic word isn't a very useful inclusion there, and since dabs don't have reference sections, information included there should be backed up by article content. I can't read Bulgarian, so for all I know, the whole thing is a hoax. Perhaps Bigzteve should create a sourced stub for Yunak (mythology), which could be listed much more elegantly on the dab anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB

An attempt to modify, keep, or remove the partial guideline would have resulted no consensus, especially since no one closed it. Also, I tried to rename The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), but the proposal failed. This calls for further discussion before we can make a survey. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It was archived automatically due to nobody wrote in the section for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean we can't re-post it here. Also, it was requested to be formally closed but no one has done so. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". There is no differing guideline for the addition of policy without consensus; therefore, a lack of consensus as to this policy means that it gets removed. I will do so now. bd2412 T 01:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • User:BD2412, there was a large majority supporting saying clearly what the WP:DAB guideline already said anyway. Removing it is an invitation to the same old nonsense about WP:PRIMARYCHEESE, WP:PRIMARYICEHOCKEYPLAYER starting again... except it won't start because it is only pop music where the agitation for ambiguous disambiguation is happening. Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_4. This nonsense could be killed quickly by someone submitting a RM for selecting one of dozen footballer at John Smith to be WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Removing the name of an artist from the title of an article about the artist's song or album seems exceptionally unhelpful to me. Most readers would probably actually rather see the title "Arbitrary Phrase (Dohn Joe song)" than "Arbitrary Phrase (song)". Not including the artist's name makes the whole thing rather confusing and generally less recognizable, and dooms us to perpetual future discussions, instability, and broken cross-references when different artists have songs of the same name and when new songs appear as time moves forward. The ebbs and flows of popularity guarantee that any identification of a "primary song" will be impermanent and will be challenged with each new release. (The "primary cheese" example gave me a bit of a giggle – thanks for that.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    • @In ictu oculi, I would be delighted if you could give me a headcount showing this "large majority". bd2412 T 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has moved around all over the place, I'd be delighted also if I knew where it was. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, if you claim to have support for the proposition, it is your burden to demonstrate this support. I have not seen it. Perhaps a new discussion is in order. bd2412 T 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought this discussion at the village pump inserted PDAB and although there is much disagreement there is no consensus to remove. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It is, quite frankly, not at all clear what there is consensus for from that discussion, since the parameters of the discussion changed while it was ongoing. For example, it remains unclear from that discussion whether Kiss (band) would need to be renamed, and if so whether that title would have to be redirected to Kiss (disambiguation), or to the renamed American band. It is impossible to say that consensus was achieved if the question can not be answered from reading the entire discussion as to what consensus was achieved. Furthermore, in the follow-up discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 40#WP:PDAB, which received much broader participation and is therefore a fairer reading of community consensus, only three editors supported keeping PDAB as it was at the time (Dicklyon, In ictu oculi, and 76.65.128.222); nine editors supported removal of PDAB (Tbhotch, BDD, B2C, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Zanhe, Lil-unique1, Enric Naval, David Eppstein, and Amakuru); another editor (Neelix) stated, "I would be happy for WP:PDAB to be removed so long as WP:INCDAB remains in tact"; and six editors proposed that PDAB be revise, clarified, or modified to allow titles like Kiss (band) and Thriller (album) to remain the titles of the best known users of those names, which would effectively reverse what PDAB said at the time - JHunterJ wrote "For disambiguation, either allowing or permitting a "primary song" will work"; I, BD2412, supported replacing it with a policy that would allow Kiss (band) to stay where it is; WikiRedactor propose that "this situation should be handled case-by-case", and that "If it remains, WP:PDAB should only be a guideline to suggest a possible solution"; Jackson Peebles suggested that we could use IAR, but that the policy needs clarification as to "what to do for partially disambiguated pages", and jc37 stated "this is a subjective determination that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis". If anything, there is a clear consensus from the last discussion to remove PDAB. Again, a new and clearer discussion is needed before we make so sweeping a policy change, one for which proper notice is given to affected projects. bd2412 T 16:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
←

Where should the WP:PDAB shortcut be retargeted now that the section no longer exists in the guideline? Should it point to the archived discussion? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have retargeted it to the section on partial title matches for now, since I think that is a reasonable target for a link titled "PDAB". I am not philosophically opposed to having a policy on partial disambiguation, but we should hammer out something that does not immediately draw howls of protest and get overriden in move discussions. There is a fairly obvious difference between truly ambiguous song title like Mother, where no one song can claim to be primary, and no one song should have the title, and Thriller, for which one song is overwhelmingly famous, but for which another song merely exists. bd2412 T 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
User:BD2412, sorry, but please see the last lengthy discussion, and the last half dozen times Kiss (band) was cited as justification for WP:PRIMARYBAND, WP:PRIMARYSONG and WP:PRIMARYALBUM. It's an outlier, an exception, an extreme case: 키스 Kisu were active for 18 months in South Korea, the article doesn't even have a single English source. In cases like this we expect editors to use their brains. The cases we are discussing are not mega-notable English topics vs obscure non-English topics but for every single band, album, and song picking the [Nirvana (TOP band)] vs [Nirvana (English band)], [Thriller (TOP album)] vs 4 other albums, [Run for cover (TOP song)] vs 6 other songs.. and so on. This is already disruptive and potentially massively disruptive. What if all the other WikiProjects were to start doing what Tbhotch and Wikiredactor want and we have (TOP river) (TOP cricketer) (TOP film)? ...unlikely I know since Billboard doesn't have a hit parade of rivers or cricketers.
What is the point of all the previous discussion if it's going to be ignored simply because it was dispersed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The Kiss (band) question is the most important question, because the policy as written does not allow for it. We should not implement policies without exceptions, but with the idea that people will ignore them where they don't make sense. We should instead implement policies that have those exceptions built in, because if Kiss (band) is allowed despite the policy, then why wouldn't Nirvana (band) be allowed despite the policy? bd2412 T 01:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Just my two cents: both Kiss (band) and Nirvana (band) can very well be allowed per WP:IAR (since the benefits are self-evident). Doing so, however, does not mean that a "primary band" absolutely must be established for all eponymous bands or that bureaucratic nonsense of the likes of WP:PRIMARYBAND, WP:PRIMARYSONG, WP:PRIMARYALBUM, and WP:PRIMARYCRICKETPLAYERFROMANONCOMMONWEALTHCOUNTRY should be developed and enforced; User:In ictu oculi's position has my full support in that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 25, 2013; 01:45 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I gree with BD2412. Kiss (band) is an important example. It's no outlier. It's typical of exactly what PDAB is about. When one use of a common word is very well known, then it's almost certainly the primary topic within its topic area. --B2C 01:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@bd2412 - it is an outlier, it outlies so far out that it's lying out in non-English sources hangul websites. Nirvana isn't an outlier because both Nirvana bands exist in English sources and the US Nirvana band had to pay the UK Nirvana band's lawyers for use of the name. That is different from Kiss vs 키스 Kisu a Korean girl band with no English sources. If an argument is made let it be from Nirvana, comparing Kiss with 키스 Kisu isn't the argument the editors pushing for "Primary band" are making, and if Kiss is a concern a simple footnote in the guideline not to count non-Latin alphabet bands with 1 single can cover it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to the ongoing saga of partial disambiguation, there is a discussion at Talk:Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)#Requested move which may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Required link to the other non-primary article in TWODABS

As someone who was around when TWODABS was drafted, I know that the intention to write the guideline was to avoid removing the link to the non-primary article from the primary one. Thus inserting in the text that the DAB page can exist "instead of a link directly to the other article" would reverse the very reason why the guideline exist. The link to the other article should not be removed. Diego (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, the text you're writing would have the effect of allowing the link to the other article to be removed even when there are only two articles. This was not the intention of the guideline. In the case of Sexual harassment, the link to Sexual Harassment (The Office) could be removed precisely because Sexual harassment (disambiguation) is not a TWODAB anymore. The text should be rewritten to clarify that removing the link to the other page can be done only after expanding the DAB. Diego (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As someone who was also around and actively participated in discussions that led to TWODABS, I respectfully disagree with your recollection of the intention. One of the initial impetus for TWODABS arose out of discusion of the santorum rule and Trivial hatnote links where a number of editors wanted to avoid linking directly to what they considered a "trivial" topic in the hatnote of a primary topic and instead link to a disambiguation page. Prior to this, I think the guidance was much clearer that such disambiguation pages could be speedily deleted on sight. The {{Only-two-dabs}} template and a since deleted {{Consider disambiguation}} were intended to allow some flexibility in the delete on sight rule. And current practice shows considerable variation. On the one hand, if there is no link to a twodab disambiguation page from the primary topic hatnote, the disambiguation page is effectively useless and should be speedily deleted (IMO). Yes, the Sexual Harassment disambiguation has since been updated, but it was recently given as an example by another editor, which is why I mentioned it. There are variations in current practice.
Now granted, some of these obviously need to be fixed and are not necessarily illustrations of best practices, but in looking over the archived discussions, it seems pretty clear that a significant number of editors wanted the option to in effect obfuscate what they considered as trivial hatnote links behind a disambiguation page, even if the page contained only two links. I didn't agree with the reasoning, and it was pretty well shouted down at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 3#Trivial hatnote links, but the notion appears to have some residual viability such as in discussions about hatnotes for Santorum, or Sexual Harassment, or Johnny Cash -- all of which ultimately resulted in expanding the disambiguation page beyond the TWODAB threshold (although TBH, Santorum (disambiguation) is pretty marginal as Santorum Amendment is really an unambiguous partial title match that is already addressed in the main article. Johnny Cash (disambiguation) is also pretty marginal.
Now, if I'm wrong and there is consensus that a hatnote at the primary topic for a TWODAB does not need to link to the disambiguation page, then I'm confused as to why these TWODABS should not simply be speedily deleted as completely useless.
As a side note, there is at least one pretty remarkable SINGLE TOPIC disambiguation page at Season 4 which has been kept by consensus a couple of times now. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Some thoughts. First, for pages with a next-most-likely topic, I like the presentation of Apple and Mouse, each of which has a link to the number two topic, and then a link to the disambiguation page. Obviously these don't apply to a TWODABS situation, but they might were a third link is added to the disambig page. Second, Apparent retrograde motion is not ambiguous to Retrograde motion, at least no more than Penrose stairs is to Stairs. Celcius (disambiguation) should be deleted or redirected to Celsius (disambiguation). We have no indication that the redlink is notable. bd2412 T 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Bkonrad, please read what I'm actually saying because we're not in disagreement, and you're misunderstanding my position. Of course you should always have a direct link to the "trivial" non-primary article when the DAB has only two links. And I'm also one of the guys to defended keeping a link to the DAB instead of deleting it, allowing it to grow instead of just deleting it in place. My reverting of your edit is because I agree with everything you've said in the talk page and the edit summary, but you're actually writing the opposite in policy of what you defend here.
Your sentence "an about hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article)" means that it's OK to have the link to the two-dab page ONLY, and remove the direct link to the other article. If you mean that both the direct link and the link to the DAB need to exist, you should write just that. Instead what you've written allows for all the following, elevating them to common possibilities:
See the pattern? This is what you say is allowed; none of those possibilities are current community practices.
(Jalt is a weird case, as the DAB contains only one "ambiguous" article - the other link is to a section; I've added a "redirects here" note, although it could be the rare exception to the "include a direct link" rule).
If you really want to say that the above changes should be commonly allowed, then say so, and present arguments to defend that; but I still think it's a change of the previous policy, and certainly is not what you're defending in the talk page and summary edits (heck, with this edit you say that readers should not be forced to the DAB page to reach the other article, but that's just what the text you included allows). Diego (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This language an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page, in addition to a link directly to the other article. suggests that is is OK if the hatnote does not link to the disambiguation page. It seems completely pointless to me to have a disambiguation page that is not linked from the primary topic. We'd be better off suggesting that these be speedily deleted. While my preference would be to only have a direct link to the alternate topic in the hatnote, if there is a disambiguation page and there is consensus (for whatever reasons), I don't think it is so terrible to have the hatnote link only to the disambiguation page. Of course, if after some time the dab page is still only two dabs, it should IMO be deleted and a direct link to the alternate article placed in the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's contextual. In some cases a link to topic #2 + the dab should be in hatnote; in others just the dab suffices - indeed it was the hiding of 'trivial' links that inspired the compromise of two dabs template. If the dab can't be expanded after a certain time, then it can be deleted. We should however always have at least a link to the dab page from the primary topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is another case: Nagina Masjid (disambiguation). Nagina Masjid only links the disambiguation page in the hatnote, which seems pointless to me. bd2412 T 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup; that would be a case where you could just remove the dab page entirely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, examining the history, I saw there was another entry that had been deleted, although there it is mentioned in another article, so TWODABS might not apply in this case either. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Some TWODABS statistics.

Thanks to User:R'n'B, we now have a more precise grasp of how much of this project involved WP:TWODABS pages. Per R'n'B, "User:RussBot/Two-link disambiguation pages/001 is the beginning of a list of over 43,000 pages. That is, out of 235,400 total disambiguation pages, almost 20% contain only two (or fewer) links". That is quite a lot, in my opinion. bd2412 T 16:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting fact. The discussion (above) is pretty intense and too much for a newcomer to take in. Thanks keeping it brief! Liz Read! Talk! 23:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Russ has also done us the favor of marking with an * those pages which actually only contain one link. There are a few. bd2412 T 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
But why is it interesting? I'd say it is interesting that so many ordinary editors create such pages, suggesting that so many editors think they are reasonable for so many cases. No one should go wiping them out in a bit-like manner. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of these pages, such as 16th parallel, are quite useful and friendly, are far superior to ugly hot notes, trying to explain in few words that the earth has a Southern Hemisphere, on the two linked pages. Anyone searching for 16th parallel will go to the dab page, and if north or South is also entered, you'll be taken to the respective north/south article. I imitations that many arriving at the dab page will have found what they wanted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that parallels are a truly ambiguous concept. Suppose a scientist wants to say that some atmospheric phenomenon occurs at the 16th parallels? It is entirely possible to refer to the topic of a 16th parallel without intending either one in particular. A Foo parallel is merely a parallel that is Foo degrees from the equator. I therefore think that all of these pages on parallels should be merged into a list of parallels, with section redirects for each individual number (and the same for meridians). The information would be retained, but presented in a way that would make it useful for someone wanting to refer to the general concept of a Foo parallel, rather than one of the specific instances. bd2412 T 13:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Many of these pages are perfectly reasonable disambiguations where there is no obvious primary topic, like AAADC. The ones with titles in "... (disambiguation)" are likely to be unnecessary, like AIHL (disambiguation) and should be replaced by hatnotes - the list combines the two categories. PamD 07:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • AAADC is exactly the kind of thing I find problematic. I would say that the enzyme is inherently the topic of greater longstanding significance and historical and educational value. As a side note, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee says that the organization is abbreviated as "ADC", but it would make no difference to my analysis if it were actually abbreviated as "AAADC". bd2412 T 14:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Interesting. The enzyme article likewise has no mention of being known as "AAADC", only as "AAAD" As things currently stand, both entries fail WP:DABMENTION and the disambiguation page is useless. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Since any TWODABS page with one bad link (i.e. a redlink for a non-notable topic, a link that fails DABMENTION) is useless by definition, I think that all of our TWODABS pages bear extra scrutiny. A page with more links is less likely by an order of magnitude for each additional link to be useless. bd2412 T 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
          • True, although the scrutiny should also include checking for other uses. This in particular is true of letter-number combination pages, as such abbreviations are commonplace. In cases where entries fail dabmention, scrutiny might also include doing some off-wiki checking and if appropriate, updating the article. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another issue that irks me: ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction. There is a comic book, and there is a film based on the comic book. I do not consider these to be "ambiguous". I consider the original media introducing the story to be the primary topic, and the adaptation of that story into other media to be an extension of that topic. bd2412 T 15:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction, the film is unrelated to the comic series (and FWIW, the film appears to clearly qualify as the primary topic based on traffic). But there is something to consider in your point nonetheless. In truly marginal cases where there is no other basis for picking one or the other as primary, I would tend to agree that placing the "original" at the unmarked title makes sense. But in some cases, a derivative work may completely eclipse the original, so I think any attempt to write a rule about this would need to have caveats and qualifications. older ≠ wiser 15:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a binary distinction. Either the original is primary, or the adaptation has overtaken it to become primary. I find them to be unambiguous to each other because both are merely variations of "the story being told". bd2412 T 16:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, though determining when a derivative work has become primary may be contentious at times. While not a twodab situation, I think The Wizard of Oz illustrates some of the difficulties when sorting out primary topics and derivative works. older ≠ wiser 16:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no "considering" something ambiguous on Wikipedia. Either the title is ambiguous for N topics (N > 1) and therefore at least N-1 topics need to be qualified or placed at a different title, or the title is not ambiguous and no titles of the form "Title (qualifier)" exist. There are two topics on Wikipedia whose articles could have been titled "ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction", therefore "ZMD: Zombies of Mass Destruction" is ambiguous on Wikipedia. I don't care how closely related the two articles are, they can't both have the same title; the only way to remove the ambiguity is to delete and/or merge N-1 of the articles, leaving only one article for the title. If there are only two topics and one of them is primary, then a dab isn't needed, but being the original isn't the determinant of being the primary (e.g., A Good Man in Africa). There's no need for a separate rule for this, since the existing rules for disambiguating and determining a primary topic work just as well for 2 topics as for 200. The distinction is trinary: either the original is primary, or the adaptation has overtaken it, or the adaptation has tied it we can't determine whether the adaptation has overtaken it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
A Good Man in Africa is an excellent example of an adaptation that has exceeded the notability of the original, and thereby displaced the original as the primary topic. Unfortunately, we are not well structured to merge the book and the film, because there are categories exclusive to each type of work. I would contend that this type of article would usually be stronger for combining the two, since the real topic is not merely "the book" or "the film" but "the story", no matter which medium it is conveyed in. If we can not determine whether an adaptation has overtaken the original, then the adaptation can not displace it as the primary topic. As for The Wizard of Oz, I would treat that as a franchise article, like Star Wars, which covers the original work and all adaptations.
By the way, A Good Man in Africa also illustrates another point that I have been making, which is that these kinds of works invariably mention adaptations prominently in the article on the original, and the original prominently in articles on the adaptations. The first line of a A Good Man in Africa describes and links to the originating novel. bd2412 T 19:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) If the original is at the base name and the adaptation topic is later covered by an article, true, we cannot move the original from the base name without consensus: consensus that the adaptation is the primary topic or consensus that neither is the primary topic -- and consensus that neither is the primary topic can occur if we can no longer tell that the original is primary. We do not have to determine that the adaptation has overtaken the original in order to determine that the original is no longer primary. Covering multiple topics in a franchise article is fine, if done (and doing it is not part of the disambiguation project). If not done, ambiguity remains. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've had this matter before; where the original work overtook the entire franchise at Neon Genesis Evangelion. The argument boiled down to a set index or topic article like Star Wars versus the main work first with a link to a disamb or a franchise. The thing is still rather messed up and the inquiry here failed to garner interest. A two way DAB can be difficult with PTOPIC because the organization of a franchise versus the original work results in a general versus specific use for an ambiguous term. The main article serves as an overview on an ambigious form, but a specific work out of many can result in misinformation for the reader who wants to learn of the topic, because they may read the wrong article, unknowingly. Consider Star Trek about the first series versus all the similiarly named media. A two-way DAB in this case to the "Franchise" is useless and creates more difficulties for the general reader who arrived at the ambiguous title - this reader is most likely to be negatively impacted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Homophones

I can't see anything here about homophones, e.g. whether we would expect to see "knap" added to the see also section of Nap (disambiguation). It would be good to have a guideline on this as I'm not sure whether to make this type of edit or not. --Jameboy (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's good to include. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#"See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, that seems to fit. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk)

TWODABS needs an example


  • Someone familiar (musician), American jazz singer
  • Someone familiar (footballer), English footballer

This would help Users read and understand what TWODABS is saying. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But then I think that the advice against dab pages in this case is too strong. Why should we not want dab pages with only two entries? How many 2 entry dab pages will never be expanded? And what are we hurting? If we change that section, maybe we can clarify this comment, roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page. What is a standard page and what is a line? Do we have a standard line? Do I test this full screen on my 27 inch display or my 10 inch display? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the guiding principles behind titles and dabbing is getting readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. In the two dab situation, if you go with a dab page 100% of those searching with the base name will need 2 clicks to get to the article they seek. Without a dab page, as long as the more likely target is at the base name, more than 50% will get to the article they seek in 1 click, and the remainder will get to their article in 2 clicks. Hence the preference to avoid a dab page when there are only two uses.

Personally, I disagree with the primary topic requirement. If there is no primary topic, and even if we put the wrong topic at the base name, it's still no worse than the dab page situation (2 clicks).

Now, if a third use arises, that can change everything, but we should wait until we actually have a third use on WP to address that in each case. --B2C 00:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. If one use is likely to get 51% of the traffic, then we basically move the navigational function otherwise served by the disambiguation page to the top of the article that gets 51% of the traffic. In a sense, the "disambiguation page" is still there, it's just handily condensed into a hatnote. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
So let's change TWODABS to say that! --B2C 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you need more than just the two of you agreeing on this. I think the importance of the number of clicks argument is vastly overrated. IMO, it's vastly less confusing to have a disambiguation page than flipping a coin. For one, mistaken links to the wrong page are vastly easier to identify. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a legitimate concern, but it is as much of a concern for Mouse and Apple, and even George Washington, which have many possible uses but (to varying degrees) clear primary topics. bd2412 T 02:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is a problem with primary topics (and is one reason I prefer having a relatively high bar for a primary topic). But I don't agree it is as much of a concern. When there is a relatively clear primary topic, most links will be for the primary topic, and even for those that are not, the element of surprise should be minimal. When it is a toss of the coin, a significant number will arrive at the wrong page and scratch their heads. Some might even be ticked off that "their" topic has been dissed. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
For a coin flip, I don't imagine there's much more head-scratching at landing on the "wrong" page than at landing on a disambiguation page. If the reader is looking for Joe Blogs (janitor) and ends up on Joe Blogs (plumber) with a hatnote saying they might be looking for the janitor, it is no less wrong for that reader than looking for Joe Blogs (janitor) and ending up at Joe Blogs (disambiguation), with pretty much the same note saying you may mean (among other things) the janitor. The disambiguation page still tells the reader their guy is not the number one topic. However, it is telling everyone that, including the people for whom their guy really is the number one topic. bd2412 T 02:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Except that many readers will see one marginal topic being primary as an insult to the other marginal topic (despite repeated remonstrations by various disambiguation regulars that this isn't actually what being primary topic signifies). While some might still be miffed that "their" topic is not primary, at least a disambiguation page indicates neutral treatment. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you believe capitulating to misunderstanding is good policy? That's what you seem to be advocating here. Or do you believe that being at a base name signifies greater importance over other uses? --B2C 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that in cases where there is no basis for determining a primary topic, we should not pretend that there is one by flipping a coin. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Bkonrad, what about the Shropshire cricket fan who is incensed that some American judge is given precedence over John Roberts (Shropshire cricketer)? What about the Bob's Burgers fan who thinks that John Roberts (actor) should be primary? Granted, a WP:TWODABS situation is a much smaller universe of choices, and usually a much lower threshold of notability, but we can't let the devotion of fans of person "A" overrule evidence that between the two possibilities, person "B" is more likely to be the subject readers are searching for. bd2412 T 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is an clear and obvious case for a siting Chief Justice of the United States to be the primary topic, so I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to illustrate. Some editors are upset that Americans is about residents of the United States. Nothing that we can do about that since discussion has repeatedly established that there is a primary topic for the term. TWODABS only applies in cases where there is not a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in re-reading WP:TWODABS, I find the last paragraph to be almost unintelligible.
If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two articles with the same title (one of them a primary topic), but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future, the {{about}} hatnote should be used to link to the disambiguation page. At the same time, the {{Only-two-dabs}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, and may be deleted if, after a period of time to allow readers and editors the opportunity to expand the disambiguation page, additional disambiguating terms are not found. The {{Only-two-dabs}} template will also list the article in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic, allowing other editors to locate these pages and help in expanding them.
So, to paraphrase, if a disambiguation page is not needed ... the {{about}} hatnote should be used to link to the disambiguation page? Huh? older ≠ wiser 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need {{Only-two-dabs}}? I'd vote to remove it given how little usage of it we have and the fact that it probably does not serve a useful purpose. I guess using {{about}} to list the dab page when it has only 2 entries could be confusing. But the flip side is that once you set up about it works no matter how many entries there are on the dab page. Also I could argue that for many of these two dab cases, we have not really determined if there is really and truly is a primary topic, in which case the dab page should be at the main namespace. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
{{Only-two-dabs}} was a compromise arrived at after a long discussion; on one side, you had those arguing if there are only two topics, you MUST use hatnotes; on the other side were those arguing that Sexual harassment should not have a hatnote pointing to Sexual Harassment (The Office). {{Only-two-dabs}} was a solution that lets us create a DAB page in these (rare) cases, which will hopefully attract additional/useful DABs allowing the DAB page to be kept; if none are found, then you go back to hatnotes. If the explanation in the policy is confusing I'd be happy to help redraft it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I think I confused myself and perhaps others in misremembering or conflating previous discussions about TWODABS. It appears that in fact it only applies when there IS a primary topic and only one other non-primary topic. I think I was thrown off by the mention of 51% -- which is at best an extremely minimalist criteria for a primary topic when there are only two topics. If there is not a clear primary topic, I think a disambiguation page is the best option. Of course, editors are completely free to be BOLD and make a claim that one topic is primary, but if challenged, I think only 51% more traffic without any other supporting evidence would be viewed as rather flimsy. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've already said too much, but just to clarify -- much of what I wrote seems more relevant for determining whether there is a primary topic rather than what to do if there is a primary topic AND only one other topic. For the latter, I agree that in most cases a disambiguation page is unnecessary and a simple hatnote to the other topic is all that is needed. There are some cases where it might be of some benefit to a disambiguation page, such as cognates, homophones, or to facilitate searches for partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Bkonrad, you say: "in cases where there is no basis for determining a primary topic, we should not pretend that there is one by flipping a coin". May I reword that without using the term "primary topic"?
In cases where we cannot determine which of two topics is most likely to be sought by readers searching with the name the two topics have in common, we should not place either at the base name.
This is your position, yes? If so, why? Why should we not place either topic at the base name in such a situation? Why not allow roughly half to land on their desired topic without having to go through a dab page, while still leaving the other rough half one more click away from their destination, just as they would all be with a dab page at the base name? --B2C 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is. I think the reason why is self-explanatory. If there is no primary topic, then why pretend that there is one? It simply makes a mess of things. Page traffic for the pseudo-primary topic becomes meaningless as there is no way to tell how many were actually intending that page or just landed there by mistake. This can make subsequent page move more complicated as well. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
What if it is not "a coin flip"? What if, based on Google hits and page views while the pages are both at disambiguated titles and other measures like that, we can discern a clear 55%-45% split in favor of one topic? Or a 60%-40% split? Or a 67%-33% split? At what point does it make more sense to have a hatnote rather than a separate page? Surely we can not require the same dominance for a two-way split as we would for a ten-way split? bd2412 T 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If it is not a coin flip, then it seems like there is a primary topic. Like I said, editors are free to be BOLD and assert a primary topic, but if challenged they need to back up such claims. And if consensus determines there is not a primary topic we shouldn't let the non-primary remain simply because it happened to be the first topic or because some editor long ago thought there was a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I know this might sound pedantic, but can you explain your reasoning without using the term, "primary topic"? So instead of saying, "if there is no primary topic, why pretend there is one?", you would ask: "if there is no topic that is most likely to be sought, why pretend there is one?" We can answer that: Because then seekers of that topic get to their desired article right away, without any cost to others.

I don't buy the page traffic complication argument. That assumes significant numbers of people seeking topic B give up when they reach the article for topic A, rather than click on the hatlink to the article they are seeking. --B2C 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, traffic statistics are not very reliable even in the best of circumstances. When a non-primary topic occupies an undisambiguated name, their value approaches nil. As for picking a primary topic by chance, I'm sorry but IMO it is simply nonsensical to do so. We are an encyclopedia and we should not be choosing article titles based on chance. And I don't agree that there is no cost to having a non-primary topic at the undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"One of the guiding principles behind titles and dabbing is getting readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks"
It is foolish for this to be a "guiding principle". It amounts to adjusting titles to optimise search engine success rates on a simple numbers basis at the expense of logical structure. It sound like people don't know that search engine algorithms are clever and continually learning. The search engines (google/yahoo/Wikipedia) learns what people are searching for, and if out of (1)Joe Blogs (janitor), (2) Joe Blogs (plumber), & (3) Joe Blogs (disambiguation), a large majority want the plumber, then a dumb "Joe Blogs" search will take them to the plumber's pages.
In an encyclopedia, people expect a logical structure. Finding Joe Blogs (plumber) at Joe Blogs implies that there is only one on-esoteric subject titleable as Joe Blogs. If that is true, than that's fine, but if there are many reasons people might search "Joe Blogs", and if these people aren't familiar with the plumber, then the non-use of a disambiguation is a confusing disservice.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Suppose that rather than saying "the fewest number of clicks" it said "with the shortest search process"? bd2412 T 22:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"Shorten the search processes" is a far superior guiding principle than "reduce the number of on-Wikipedia clicks".
Less ambiguous titles mean that search engines work better, and that when a search engine returns a list of page titles, more descriptive titles greatly facilitate a shorter search process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Or take the other approach, and say that the guiding principal is to not send a significant number of readers to the wrong page. The number of clicks does not matter if too many readers are getting to the wrong article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The dab page is always the wrong article. --B2C 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
No, it isn't. The DAB pages contains a very nice summary. I often find DAB pages useful to the point that I don't need the articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Then what does it matter if that "very nice summary" is tucked into the hatnote of the more likely search target? bd2412 T 00:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There are many reasons why a DAB page is better than showing a wrong article when there's not a primary topic, but two are directly relevant to this discussion:
  • DAB pages have shorter load and render times than whole articles. This is invaluable for people accessing from older computers with limited resources, from mobile, or from countries with bad internet connections.
  • DAB pages are optimized for, well, disambiguation. It's much easier to locate the article you're looking from from a short, well-classified navigation list that compares all existing topics that use the name than from a cramped hatnote that is displayed as secondary content in an article. Diego (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
We are, however, talking about WP:TWODABS situations here. In my experience, where two topics share the same name, if both are obscure (even if one is clearly better known), both articles will be short and have fast load times. If one is obscure and the other is the clear primary topic, the primary topic will tend to be much longer, and to have a longer load time (and to be the page that the reader was searching for). Also, since the hatnote is the first thing the reader will see on the page, if there is only one other topic, it will be easy to find, as it will be the only thing there. The proposition that it's easier to locate what you are looking for from a dab page is false if the article you are looking for is, in fact, the primary topic. To give a very clear example, there are two articles on men named Barack Obama; one is the President of the United States; the other is his father, Barack Obama, Sr. Under your formula, Barack Obama would be a disambiguation page, so that editors looking for the Sr. Barack Obama could find that article after a shorter page load time. bd2412 T 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
"if the article you are looking for is, in fact, the primary topic" - Nobody is suggesting to put a DAB at the base name when there's a primary topic. TWODABS is about having DAB pages in addition to the hatnote in the primary topic article (instead of replacing the hatnote). "since the hatnote is the first thing the reader will see on the page" - That's a very strong assumption to make. Hatnotes are small, italicized/low contrast, separate from the main article body of text, shifted to the right, and located right under the huge title in bold. All those visual make them hard to spot; the natural starting reading point after scanning the page is the beginning of the article text, as it should be; i.e. hatnotes are made deliberately hard to read, so that they don't distract from the content. Having a DAB is all about the principle of least surprise: if there's a primary topic, the reader should be expecting it (by definition) even if it's not the one they're looking for. Though if the article in the base name is not a primary topic, readers still would have to read the first sentences to notice that they are not at the article they're not looking for, which is worse than noticing they've arrived to a navigation DAB page. Diego (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
That returns us to the question of what constitutes a primary topic. Is it the article that 51% of readers are likely to be looking for? 60%? 70%? bd2412 T 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Page view stats are only one criteria (and the quality is far from precise enough to make decisions based on small differences). Even if you had a 60/40 split, if other criteria indicated there were no primary topic, then we would need consensus to place one ambiguous topic as primary over another. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Smokey, titles are irrelevant to searches done via search engines. We could move an article to a random string and Google will find it. If you Google for "Samuel Clemens" the first search result is Mark Twain (as it should be). In terms of choosing titles to improve user search experience, the only searches that matter are those done via the WP Find/Go box. While modern browsers display the early search results, this is not always the case, especially if using a mobile device or any browser without java script. That's the user we need to have in mind when we are trying to help get readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. And that has nothing to do with "adjusting titles to optimise search engine success rates". --B2C 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"titles are irrelevant to searches done" What? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
If you search via a search engine like Google, the search engine will find the article without regard to what its title is. Therefore, it is pointless to consider search engines when deciding titles. Titles are irrelevant to searches done via search engines. In fact, dab pages are largely irrelevant to such searches. For example, if you Google for "Washington", the search results will show all relevant WP articles, and you can click on which you want. You'd never get to the dab page (which explains why dab page view counts are so law, even when they are at a base name).

However, when searching via the WP Find/GO feature, especially without autosearch enabled for some reason, then titles are critical to helping users find the articles they seek. Those are the users we want to help find the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. This is absolutely critical to understanding and appreciating how we choose titles, dab pages and redirects on WP. --B2C 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I actually agree with you that it is pointless to consider external search engines when deciding titles, as whatever process they use to produce results are essentially a black box and we are not in the search engine optimization business. However, the internal search is good reason why it is a bad practice for an non-primary topic to sit on an undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, search engine results can be useful for determining relative likelihood of anyone searching for a given topic with a certain term. It's just that a person using a search engine is not the theoretical user whom we consider when deciding how to title, link, dab, etc.

As to whether it's a "bad" practice for a non-primary topic to sit on an undisambiguated title, let's remember that it's common practice for WP articles to be at ambiguous titles. That is, anyone using internal search to find a non-primary topic, and searches with that topic's ambiguous name, is going to end up at the wrong article. So when this happens, we don't consider it "bad". At worst, it's non-optimal for those users, but for everyone involved, it's the most optimal configuration. We consider it better than sending everyone to the dab page at the ambiguous base name, because if we have the primary topic article at the base name, at least most users will get to their article with one click, while others will be two clicks from the dab page, and three clicks from their desired article. We consider that acceptable, not bad. But a TWODAB situation is different, because there the worst case is everyone being two clicks from their desired article (one click to dab page; second click to their article). So it's already better than the acceptable situation for the non-primary topics where an ambiguous title has more than two uses and a primary topic. What we're talking about is whether this already better-than-acceptable situation can be even better. What if we cause everyone to go to one of the two articles? At worst, that's identical to landing on the wrong article when searching for a non-primary topic. In fact, it's better, because the person landing on the wrong article is one click (on a hatnote link) from being at their desired article; no worse than they would be if they landed on a dab page. How is that "bad"? --B2C 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

anyone using internal search to find a non-primary topic, and searches with that topic's ambiguous name, is going to end up at the wrong article. Well, not necessarily. Unless they have the drop-down listing disabled for some reason, they will see a listing of articles with the title. Now if there is an obvious primary topic, most people will realize this and won't expect some other article at the base name. The parenthetical disambiguating terms will help in selecting the desired article. Also if I understand correctly, these articles are displayed in a ranked order by popularity, not by simple alpha sorting. In most cases, this means the disambiguation page appears lower in the listings, even when it is at the base name. Counting clicks, is in my opinion a completely misleading criteria for titling articles in an encyclopedia. I remain convinced that if there is no basis for choosing a primary topic we are doing readers a disservice by pretending that there is one. older ≠ wiser 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We can ignore the user who sees the drop down too, especially in the context of TWODABS. Either way he'll see two choices, at least one of which is or is not clearly the one being sought.

I just don't see how it's any more of a disservice to take someone to an article with a hat note link to their desired article than it is to take them to a dab page with a link to their desired article. Fundamentally, why is the latter preferred at all, much less enough to warrant taking everyone to the dab page? --B2C 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because by choosing one as the primary topic we are in effect violating neutrality. older ≠ wiser 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well here's a real example stumbled on by chance two days ago:

There's no way one of these can claim to be primary, primary depends on whether you like Broadway or opera, and I thought (and judging by edits so did other editors) that they were the same person. Why shouldn't this, or something like this, be in the guideline to show that we do use twodabs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha! John Quested.

John Quested may refer to:

Both are moderately substantial articles on people of limited notability confined to a single field. There is no likely primary topic between them. bd2412 T 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Good coin toss example. So, currently, anyone searching for "John Quested" will not be taken to the article they seek, but instead to the TWODAB dab page, from where they have to select which one they want, and click on it, before they get to the article they seek. If we move either article to John Quested, then at least the users seeking that John Quested will get there immediately, while the others will still be one hatnote link click away from their article. Seems like an improvement, regardless of which one is moved to the base name, over the current situation.

Bkonrad, I don't understand how putting either at the base name is a violation of neutrality, since putting an article at a base name is not a statement conveying relative importance or anything else we need to be neutral about. Besides, we can do the "coin toss" alphabetically (aviator comes before producer), which of course would be totally neutral. --B2C 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What if they were changed to "filmmaker" and "pilot"? I actually think that this is an example of TWODABS situation where the base pagename should indeed be the disambiguation page. However, I think that these are relatively rare. bd2412 T 21:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, going alphabetical is just one suggestion. Chronological is another. Anyway, putting aside how we decide which one is at the base name, isn't it better to have one at the base name, rather than none? --B2C 21:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) Tentatively agree with BD2412 and disagree with B2C. Yes, you can claim that putting an article at a base name is not a statement conveying relative importance or anything else we need to be neutral about but that is not how many people see it. I think it is inappropriate to simply pick one as the primary topic with no basis whatsoever. Persons looking for this name with the internal search will see the entries for the disambiguated names listed before the disambiguation page. Most external searches will display a snippet of the article to provide context as to what the article contains. I see no reason not to leave the disambiguation page where it is. It may be that better disambiguating terms could be chosen, but that is a different matter. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
We agree some people (not sure about "many") see "putting an article at a base name as a statement conveying relative importance". What I'm not clear about is whether you, Bkonrad, are one of those people. Assuming you're not, you're essentially advocating capitulation to a view based on a misunderstanding. Isn't capitulating to, and choosing titles based on, that misunderstanding perpetuate that misunderstanding? --B2C 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them. older ≠ wiser 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, I would also say that if there is even a discernible 55/45 split favoring the importance of one subject over another, that subject should be the primary topic of the title. bd2412 T 23:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what? Your precision of measurement is only as precise as the markings on your stick. In this case,, we don't have such precision available to us, by any means. I think you can only determine a "primary" topic when one is overwhelmingly more likely to be #1. Eking it out shouldn't count.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Which is kind of why I way that page hit/counts should be used to show why something should not be the primary topic rather then the other way around. Using raw numbers to show that they are is simply full of problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bkonrad, oh! No wonder you hold the view that you do. Okay, let me ask you this...

Since you think placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them...

Because if you do really think that placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them, these examples are just the tip of the ice berg of countless instances in our titling that, according to your belief, suggest "some relative difference in importance between [two topics]" when, actually, there is none. How shall we address this? --B2C 23:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. You're comparing apples to oranges. If you need the obvious to be stated, then to be precise, I'll amend my comment that placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another with the same base name at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them. older ≠ wiser 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought you might limit your general statement to this special case. But that begs the question: why does this strong suggestion about importance apply only to topics that share the same base name?

I mean, if the lack of parenthetic disambiguation in John Quested would strongly suggest that that John Quested is more important than John Quested (aviator), why doesn't the lack of parenthetic disambigution in Nicholas Campbell strongly suggest that that Canadian actor with surname Campbell is more important than Douglas Campbell (actor)? Why doesn't the lack of parenthetic disambiguation in Britz strongly suggest that that Berlin locality is more important than Spandau (locality)? --B2C 00:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty self-evident, IMO. The lack of parenthetical disambguation Nicholas Campbell has no relevance whatsoever in comparison to a person with a different name, such as Douglas Campbell (actor). That Douglas Campbell (actor) has a parenthetical disambiguation only implies that there is at least one other person with that name of equal or greater relative importance. The same applies for localities and most any other case. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me give you a concrete example. How would you resolve Talk:Jerome Frank (lawyer)‎#Requested move? bd2412 T 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) That is a pretty good case for consideration. I had been watching the discussion but hadn't !voted yet. From what I've seen so far, the balance is tipped in favor of the lawyer being the primary topic, but it is not a slam-dunk. That is a case where personally I would be fine with the either the lawyer or the disambiguation page being at the base name. While the lawyer is marginally more notable than the psychiatrist, it is not so overwhelming that the lawyer can be presumed to be THE Jerome Frank. Leaving the "(lawyer)" appended to the name would help searchers to distinguish between the two. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This is what I don't understand about your reasoning. The argument - Leaving the "(lawyer)" appended to the name would help searchers to distinguish between the two - (i.e., making the topic more recognizable from the title alone) - applies just the same whether the lawyer is actually the primary topic or not. In fact, it applies, and is relevant, to titles of the vast majority of our articles - articles about topics that are not widely known - whether the titles are ambiguous or not. Why do you feel it's somehow relevant and important in the TWODABS case, but not, apparently, in other cases? --B2C 04:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
When there is an actual primary topic, we can expect that most readers are not unduly surprised to see that particular topic is located at the base name. Same applies in distinguishing between a primary and non-primary topic. Where there are ONLY non-primary topics, the parentheticals help readers to distinguish the topics. older ≠ wiser 11:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
When there is an actual primary topic, we can expect that most readers are not unduly surprised to see that particular topic is located at the base name. That is true in cases where the primary topic is broadly known. But there are countless relatively obscure "primary topics" like Lorca, a Spanish town with fewer than 100,000 people. So people searching for Lorca (album) will not be "unduly surprised" to find the town at Lorca (the album is named after Federico Garcia Lorca, not the town), but they will be "unduly surprised" to find one of the two Jerome Frank's at Jerome Frank? I don't get it. --B2C 23:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly many such marginal primary topics. Whether they are truly a primary topic or simply an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might need some community discussion to determine. That there may be some inappropriately placed marginal primary topics does not mean we shouldn't care in other marginal cases if a non-primary topic is posing as a primary topic. Lorca is a moderately sized municipality with a long history in a western European country. Hard to say whether readers would be unduly surprised that it is the primary topic rather than the poet. That would be a matter for discussion. How commonly is the poet referred to as simply "Lorca"? How commonly does the municipality turn up in a variety of reliable sources? older ≠ wiser 00:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The point is that it doesn't matter much, in terms of the problem caused by undue surprise, in any of the countless arguably marginal cases like Lorca, whether the topic at the base name is bonafide primary or not, and it matters even less, a negligible amount, in TWODABS cases, because the one and only other topic is as easily accessed via the hatnote link as it would be if the dab page was at the base name. --B2C 17:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. If Lorca is not the primary topic, it should be moved. Similarly, if there is no basis for placing one article of two as primary, we should not. older ≠ wiser 17:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
But in a marginal case (like perhaps Lorca is), it may or may not be the primary topic, by definition. We simply don't know whether people are more likely to search for that topic than the others. If it is more likely (to a sufficient degree), or if it meets the historical significance criteria, then it should be at the base name. So, in such a case, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "totally inconsequential" and 10 is BLP-violation critical, how much does it matter if we get it wrong? In particular, in a marginal case, where does it fall on the "matter scale" if it's not the primary topic but is at the base name anyway? Whatever it is, I suggest it's pretty far down the scale, much closer to 1 than to 10, and, more importantly, in a TWODABS case, how much "getting it wrong" (non primary topic is at base name) matters is even lower on that scale... pretty much a 1. --B2C 18:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again, it is a matter of principle. Where there is no basis for choosing a primary topic, we should not pretend that there is one and present a bias to readers. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is where my concern comes in. I agree that in a TWODABS situation "where there is no basis for choosing a primary topic", we should not assert one. However, I would say that where there is just about any for choosing one, then we should choose that one. I would contend, for example, that a 57/43 split in average page views or Google hits favoring one over the other is sufficient. bd2412 T 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, although personally I would opt for a higher threshold. But I have no real problem if an editor is bold and adjusts pages on such a basis. However, if that arrangement is questioned, there may be factors to consider other than simply traffic stats and consensus may determine there is no primary topic. older ≠ wiser
(edit conflict)BD2412, a 57/43 split arguably does not support a claim of primary topic per our primary topic criterion. However, I agree that that does not mean the dab page should be at the base name. Why? Because it's helpful if one of the articles is at the base name, and it doesn't matter if people land on a dab page or another article when either one leaves them one click from where they would like to go. Putting one of the two articles at the base name, instead of the dab page at the base name, even if neither is the primary topic, might not be win/win, but it's win/tie... a plus overall.

So, more generally, in a case of TWODABS, either article, not the dab page, should be at the base name, regardless of whether either actually meets the primary topic criteria.

A while ago we seem to achieve consensus that an article at a base name does not necessarily mean the article's topic is the "primary topic" of that base name, most notably in the "only topic" case. For example, the topic of Thomism is not the primary topic of "Thomism" even though its article is at Thomism - because that use is the only use of "Thomism". So we already have countless precedents of articles about topics that are not primary being at the base name. So let's not get hung up on that. Being at a base name title does not necessarily means that article's topic is the primary topic. It might be the only topic, or it might be the winner of a 57/43 TWODABS situation, or it might be the winner of a coin toss 50/50 TWODABS situation.

Bkonrad, saying "it's a matter of principle" is evading the question. How much, quantified on the 1-10 "matter scale" I presented above, does it matter if we present this "bias" to readers? How much does it matter? --B2C 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I stand by the principle that if there is no basis for choosing a primary topic, we should not do so. You seem to feel that there is something inherently bad about having a disambiguation page at the base name where there is no primary topic. I don't agree. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
You're still evading the question. What exactly is the principle, and how much does it matter if we break it?

I don't feel "that there is something inherently bad about having a disambiguation page at the base name where there is no primary topic"! I'm saying that when there is just one other topic, it's better to have either topic at the base name, then a TWODAB dab page at the base name. It's better for two reasons:

  1. Mysterious principles notwithstanding, practically speaking, it's no worse for anyone to any significant degree to have either article, rather than the dab page, at the base name. Even in a 10/90 case, those seeking the much more likely-to-be-sought article are not worse off if the unlikely-to-be-sought article is at the base name, than if the dab page is at the base name.
  2. It's definitely better by a significant degree for those seeking either of the two articles to have it at the base name.
Of course, it's even better to have the one of the two that is more likely to be sought at the base name, but the law of diminishing returns applies with respect to which one of the two is at the base name as the likelihood of each being sought approaches the other. The main point is that either at the base name is better than the dab page at the base name, for the reasons just stated. --B2C 20:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to be too blunt, but I didn't answer your question because I have no interest in following you down a rabbit-hole of phantasmagorical thought exercises. The principle, I've already said, is that if there is no basis for choosing a primary topic, then we should not do so. We are not in the business of page traffic optimization. To only consider the imagined inconvenience of those arriving at a disambiguation page is missing the point. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we're going to be blunt, what you're avoiding is not going "down a rabbit-hole of phantasmagorical thought exercises", but discovering the vacuity of your argument. You're presenting your principle as a Golden Principle which Shall Not Be Violated, and the only reasoning to support it that you've provided is a vague reference to supposedly avoiding the subjecting of readers to undue surprise. What you're unwilling to do is quantify the cost of violating "the principle" that "if there is no basis for choosing a primary topic, then we should not do so". Assigning a 1-10 value to how much it matters if we violate that principle would clarify your position - which is what you are apparently choosing to avoid. And that's understandable. Keeping a position vague makes it easier to defend. --B2C 22:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, show that you have a consensus that agrees with you and I'll defer, but I won't apologize for refusing to dance to the tune you choose. The value is that we are not capriciously selecting article titles. If you cannot understand that, then then I don't know what else to say. older ≠ wiser 00:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I get the value of pointlessly capriciously selecting article titles. But I don't agree capriciously choosing one of two articles to be at the base name in order to avoid putting a dab page at the base is pointless.

Do you get the value of landing directly on the article which you seek rather than on a dab page with a link to the article you seek? Rather than on an article with a hatnote link to the article you seek? These are the values at conflict here. Now, unless these values are quantified somehow (hence the Matter Scale and question), how can we make a reasoned decision? --B2C 00:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you get that there is more to an encyclopedia that helping half of the persons looking for a page? Do you understand that including the disambiguating term in such marginal cases does help readers avoid landing at the dab page and get to the article they want? Overemphasis on quantification of values that have no actual numerical correlate is fallacy, much like precision bias. Reasoned decisions are made all the time without resorting to quantification of qualitative data in ways that completely miss the point. older ≠ wiser 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
You're still not answering my questions, and you're characterizing a modicum of attention to quantification of values as "overemphasis". The point is to estimate value to WP on 1-10 "Matter Scale" for the purpose of relative comparisons. It's easy to say "A is important", and "No, B is important". But until you introduce a method by which to quantify "importance" you have no reasonable way to ascertain which is more important.

As to your questions, yes, of course I get "that there is more to an encyclopedia that helping half of the persons looking for a page?". That's why I want to make sure those other things are not significantly compromised.

And, of course I "understand that including the disambiguating term in such marginal cases does help readers avoid landing at the dab page and get to the article they want?" But that's irrelevant because the disambiguated term can exist as a redirect and will thus be just as helpful as when it's part of a title. --B2C 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Bkonrad, that distinction is indeed self-evident to us WP title wonks. But not to anyone else. To others, the distinction is artificial. Either parenthetical disambiguation diminishes importance, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. --B2C 00:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you're making unreasonable artificial assumptions. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the usage of the term WP:COINTOSS and that would make a good shortcut to the section of WP:TWODABS dealing with 60/40 situations. A real example in a grey box John Quested would still be visually helpful. I don't see any substantive reason above for not giving an example, nor against this example. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Born2cycle, landing on the article I want, despite it being imprecisely titled and my search terms being imprecise, on the statistical basis that most people searching imprecise things want popular articles, is a good way to sell junk food to customers who don't know what they want, but a bad justification for stacking the popular things at the front if it confuses the existence of the full, comprehensive set of products. If a popular article is disambiguated, people wanting the popular article will still land on it. The disambiguated title will be explicitly linked. The search engines, external and internal, will continue to do a good job, statistically, guess what is wanted from imprecise search terms. This drive to shorten titles, at the expense of recognizability to the unfamiliar, and the occasional cost to unusual readers, has no supposed benefit with any reasonable justification (and that's having read your userpages). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Strawman? I'm not saying you're intentionally arguing for changes to titles such as those I've listed above. I'm saying such changes are a logical outcome of your argument.

You referred to improving "recognizability to the unfamiliar" as a good thing, yes? If that's not acceptance and outright advocacy for "the argument that a title could be 'improved' by making the title more recognizable" (which would lead to title changes such as those listed above), then please explain... for I misunderstood. I don't see where or how you draw the line. --B2C 01:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Recognizability to the unfamiliar. I am thinking of readers familiar with a less popular topic, who are not familiar with the more popular topic, and where the two are ambiguous at their natural titles. Recognizability is good. More recognizability is not necessarily better as per your strawmen. A title that is mistakenly recognized as something else by a reasonable set of readers familiar with the something else, is bad.
You like lines. But trying to artificially invent bright lines creates trouble. I suggest one line for you: Your "a better recognizable title is better title argument leads to ridiculously long titles" argument is never a justification for shortening a reasonable title. It is like "straw men exist that way so we have to run in the other direction". I am not frequently advocating changes to lengthen titles, but you are frequently advocating changes to shorten titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, I was going to say much the same. Glad someone else did. It looks to me like a rather improbable slippery slope. older ≠ wiser 02:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"A title that is mistakenly recognized as something else by a reasonable set of readers familiar with the something else, is bad." But, then, aren't most primary topic titles, excluding the ones about widely known topics like Paris, "bad"? I mean, given that the term is ambiguous, won't it be recognized as one of the other uses by a "reasonable set of readers familiar with" one of the other uses?

Yes, I like bright lines. Bright lines are the antidote to bickering about issues that ultimately don't matter. When a bright line is possible, I prefer that to vague and ambiguous guidance, for that reason. --B2C 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

An undisambiguated title for a topic A, unrecognized by most readers, that is mistakenly recognized as topic B by a reasonable set of readers unfamiliar with topic A but familiar topic B, is bad.

In other words, a primary topic should be recognizable to most readers, or at least recognizable to most readers who recognize the similarly titleable other topics.

Paris is (or should be) recognizable to all educated people in an international context, so there is no astonishment in someone searching an international encyclopedia for "paris" to upload the article Paris.

Welland is a better example of bad. The Ontario city is obscure and unrecognized to an international audience. Many readers will be familiar with a competing Welland, yet have no knowledge or interest in the Ontario city. The people of Adelaide may very well assume that their Welland is unique, and will be astonished to upload the link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welland and be astonished that they have uploaded a large article on a completely unrelated place. Possibly, they wouldn't be astonished, due to familiarity with Wikipedia's North America bias, but this bias is bad.

Neither Someone familiar (musician), American jazz singer, nor Someone familiar (footballer), English footballer, are presumably broadly internationally recognized, so neither should be presumed to be primary, regardless of the ratio of their respective negligible non-local recognizabilities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for being clear about your position. I wish Bkonrad would follow suit.

Welland is not atypical. It is but one in a myriad of such examples. Your position is that primary topics should not be at base names unless they are "recognizable to most readers". If adopted in policy, this position would require renaming most titles of primary topic articles (since most primary topics are like Welland... not "recognizable to most readers". Thankfully, there is no consensus support for your view. --B2C 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No. Not "recognizable to most readers", but "recognizable to most readers who recognize the title". That is, it is, a topic is not a primary topic if it is prone to be misrecognized as something unrelated. This is a direct application of the Principle of least astonishment. It will have no effect on advanced search engines because they are very good and qucikly adaptable at finding maximum likelihood solutions. "recognizable to most readers" is an absurdity and it looks to be another case of you exaggerating opponent positions into strawmen.

Welland is indeed a common inocuous example, looking just at Welland, Ontario and Welland, South Australia, ignoring the other significant related and unrelated Wellands. Millions of South Australians are likely to encounter mention of Welland in reference to Welland SA, and should they have reason, if they go to Wikipedia, they'll be astonished to find themselves taken to Welland ON, a largish page, downloading for them at backwater speed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So if you like bright lines, why do you like muddying matters by creating a pretense of a primary topic where there is no basis for one? If you really prefer bright lines, it is by far simpler have a disambiguation page at the base name where there is no basis for choosing a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Just because there is no basis for a primary topic does not mean there is no basis for putting either article at the base name. Here are the three bright lines for a TWODABS situation I suggest:
  1. If either use is primary, that use is at the base name.
  2. If neither use is primary, but one use is more likely to be sought, that use is at the base name.
  3. If neither is more likely to be sought, whichever was created first is at the base name.
No mud. Very clear. --B2C 21:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Seems unnecessarily complicated and open to various misinterpretations and potential for dissension. Even simpler, if there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name. older ≠ wiser 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Even simpler: If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name. --B2C 23:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Or simpler and more accurate, if there is no primary topic the disambiguation page goes at the base name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not any simpler. The wording is no simpler, and it requires three entities (dab page + 2 articles) instead of just two entities. That's more complex.

How is it more accurate? Accurate with respect to what? --B2C 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's simpler because it minimizes contentiousness. Under your simplistic alternative, an article on some backwater hamlet would remain at the primary topic even if another article came along of equal significance. That does not make sense. It is not accurate to suggest that there is a primary topic when there is none. older ≠ wiser 11:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
What does "remain at the primary topic" mean? Let's not conflate a characteristic of a topic with an article place or title. Articles cannot be at topics, primary or not.

Contentiousness about what, exactly? The original use would remain at the base name unless and until another use was the primary topic, or there was a total of three or more uses. Let's take a closer look at #A hypothetical TWODABS example. --B2C 15:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you know perfectly well what I meant by "remain at the primary topic". Perhaps it would be more precise to say "remain at the base title", but your objection is obtuse pedantry. Contentiousness is a very possible outcome if the two topics are of comparatively equal status. Why should one be allowed to hold the undisambiguated title when there is no basis for choosing between the two? older ≠ wiser 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I knew what you meant, and I knew you knew I knew what you meant. But I still had a valid point: we should not conflate the terms, for that conflates the concepts, concepts for which the distinction is quite relevant to this discussion. Yes, "remain at the base title" is more accurate. Or, perhaps, "remain at the undisambiguated title".

No basis for choosing between the two? Excuse me? "Whichever was created first" is the basis. You may not like it, but it is a valid basis for choosing which one of two articles should be located at the undisambiguated title. Not only is it valid, but it is contention-proof, since only one of the two can possibly meet the created first criterion. --B2C 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that it being first created is a valid basis. Fortunately, it appears to be solely your opinion at present. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Why does everything have to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT? It's simpler and more accurate since it does not force a primary topic when none exists. Bottom line is that DAB PAGES ARE GOOD. Your goal to bring every decision to a back or white choice does not work in our grey world. There are a number of two dab pages out there for technical terms that the average reader runs into. How do we know which one applies? Generally I have to tag those links for disambiguation needed because the only editors who can figure these our are individuals with a medical degree or a science degree in that area. I will oppose any efforts to force readers to the wrong page simply to satisfy a solution that is not the best for the encyclopedia or its readers. And yes, I consider forcing 49% too high of a number! Just remember that most topics are ambiguous and that is the real world we should acknowledge. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposition that "DAB PAGES ARE GOOD". They're more like an appendectomy - a good thing to have if your appendix is about to burst, but you wouldn't want to have one if it wasn't necessary. bd2412 T 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and I would add to that: "LANDING ON AN ARTICLE PAGE WITH A HAT LINK TO THE SOUGHT ARTICLE IS NO WORSE THAN LANDING ON A DAB PAGE WITH A LINK TO THE SOUGHT ARTICLE". --B2C 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That I definitely don't agree with. Hatnotes have often been criticized as being too easy to miss. Further, when you have to wait for a big page to load instead of a comparatively lightweight dab page, the dab page is preferable. older ≠ wiser 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Not all links are created equal. Articles are optimized for reading its content, not for finding the hatnote; readers will naturally start reading the content, and only after discovering that they're reading the wrong target they'll look after the link. DAB pages are optimized for navigation, so it's clear from the onset that the right action is scan and find the link. So no, they're not comparable; the hatnote is objectively worse even if it contains the same information. As people are not computers, presentation matters. Diego (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Your arguments are all based on your opinion that we should always be able to determine a primary topic, even if we do so by rule or by assumption. That is simply not reasonable for readers since it produces too many bad links and as Diego points out and was raised in previous discussions, linking to a dab page gets more eyes on the link and it gets disambiguated to the correct link. Bad links to a primary article especially when a primary topic is hazy do not get the review needed to have them fixed to point to the correct article. So what is wrong when we have a target that tells editors that they are not linked to the correct article? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Vegaswikian wrote: Your arguments are all based on your opinion that we should always be able to determine a primary topic,
How anyone could think that it is my opinion that "we should always be able to determine a primary topic" when I've been abundantly and repeatedly clear that I'm talking about TWODABS cases where there is no primary topic is beyond me. If that is truly your understanding of my opinion after all this, then reasonable discussion is not possible.

But perhaps you too are conflating "primary topic" with "title is base name" (why do people do that?).

My position is this: we are certainly able to determine which of two articles that share the same common name was created first. There can be no dispute about our ability to determine this. We can also agree that we can determine whether we have consensus about either of TWODABS topics being the primary topic, and, that if consensus about that is in the affirmative, then that topic should be at the base name.

The only dispute is about what to do if neither topic is primary. In that case your position is that both titles should be disambiguated and there should be a dab page. And my position is that the article that was created first should be at the base name, and the article created later should be the one and only one that is at a disambiguated title (and that there is no need for a DAB page). We also disagree on the "cost" of landing on the "wrong" article, the "cost" of landing on a dab page, the benefit of landing on the sought article instead of on a dab page, and the benefit of landing on the sought article instead of landing on the "wrong" article. At any rate, I certainly do not hold that opinion "that we should always be able to determine a primary topic". --B2C 06:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

  • DAB pages are good. They are a navigation aid, and a very successful one. People only arrive at DAB pages for one of these reasons: (1) They want the DAB page, wheter because they are looking for something and are not exactly what what it is or some other reason; (2) They entered inadequate information as a search query; (3) It has been mislinked, and this needs fixing.

    If people would do search queries with reasonable information input, the search engines (internal or external) wouldn't send them to DAB pages. This practice, of assuming that most inadequate searchers want the most popular page serves as bad confirmation bias. Inadequate searchers should learn to search a little better. Placing the ambiguous but most popular page at the undisambiguated title defeats the search engine's cleverer algoriths because our default search box will take you to the title of exact match by default. It confuses external searchers because they look first at the list of returned page titles. If the most popular topic were at a disambiguated title, a search for that title would take the searcher there if the search algorithms and current data supported it, and if the decision is a mistake, modern search engines can detect that, and learn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The original TWODABS

Before there was a TWODABS shortcut this is what the relevant paragraph said[19]:

If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only.

I'm not sure when that got usurped by the current much more restrictive language, by I am not aware of a single case where anyone would be better served by a dab page than by a variant on the alternative described here (the variant is: put either of the two articles at the term; a hatnote link to the other at a disambiguated title). --B2C 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you bring it up, I looked a bit further into the history. It was added 09:21, 21 August 2008 by Kotniski as part of a massive rewrite attempting to harmonize WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. The edit summary indicated additional section on an important subject which was hidden away on MOSDAB; however, at that point in time, I could find no exact correlate on MOSDAB. The closest I could find was here, though the content is quite different. A short time after Kotniski's edits, there was a very relevant discussion of that specific text. That discussion referenced an earlier, inconclusive discussion here (which by the way has an interesting statistical analysis based on some informal usability testing). Also, precipitating the former discussion, the text was modified 14:13, 22 September 2008 by JHunterJ to require a disambiguation page if there is no primary topic. Shortly after, Kotniski reverted and flagged the section as disputed. A few days later, Kotniski revised the text to However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used. older ≠ wiser 02:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Right. And my edit simply brought it into line with the rest of the disambiguation guidelines: if there's no primary topic (for two or two hundred ambiguous topics), the dab goes at the base name; if there's a primary topic (for two or two hundred topics), the primary topic goes at the base name. Making it consistent didn't make it more restrictive; the restriction was always there in the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would dispute, however, that a topic must be well known to be primary. I would say that it merely must be significantly better known than the other, or significantly more important. That is part of the reason why I would say that if there happens to be a plant sharing a name with a little-known song, the plant should always be primary in that pair. bd2412 T 19:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I kind of agree with you except for your comment about the plant and song. These cases need to be determined based on fact. So there will be cases where if we do have a primary topic it would be the song. Of course in most cases like this there will not be a topic that is significantly more important or better know to the point what we can prove it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with JHunterJ over bd2412. If there's no primary topic (for two or two hundred ambiguous topics), the dab goes at the base name. So simple. I can't see any real drawbacks. Non-ambiguous search queries will lead straight to the disambiguated article. BD2412's "significantly better known" includes cares such as where A(1) is known to 0.001% of readers, and A(2) is known to 0.0001%, which is significantly less. Assuming necessarily that the two are unrelated, it is likely that only 0.001% of the 0.0001% familiar with A(2) are also familiar with A(1), and similarly vice versa. Defining a case of PrimaryTopic based on relative significance is silly. And unexpected. And disconcerting to editors trying to understand with PrimaryTopic means. An obscure ambiguous topic should not be ascribed primacy over unrelated independently notable topics.

On the other hand, I am open to the idea that plant names should be presumed PT over song titles (natural world topics over human commercial products). However, exceptions would be where a plant is named after a song. A plant may be a new designer hybrid, a commercial product, and named after a song for marketing purposes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

DAB pages and primary topics

I essentially concur with SmokeyJoe's reasoning, and I find it a very reasonable interpretation of "highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term": if there are different significant audiences around the world and one of them is likely to have never heard about the primary topic, it can't be a primary topic - as those readers are not looking for it with any probability. I think distinguishing between "primary topics" (those recognizable by almost anyone that knows the name) and "high volume topics" (those looked for by many people, but that a significant number of readers would recognize as a different topic). The first could safely be placed at the base name; for the latter, I think the optimum would be achieved by having disambiguation pages ordered by number of visitors - thus the high volume topic is easy to spot, but those looking for other topics still get a helpful navigation page (instead of the wrong article plus a tiny hat note). Diego (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, audiences should not be sent to a topic when they were expecting to find a different a different topic. However, where all competing topics derive from a parent topic, such as Avatar, it is fine for the parent topic to be undisambiguated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A hypothetical TWODABS example

Building on the discussion above, let's consider the effect of the two TWODABS approaches being discussed,

  • If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name.
  • If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name.

on the following hypothetical but realistic situation:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation), as it's so obscure the plant remains the primary topic.
  3. Some time later, as the size and notability of the corporation grows, there is no primary topic.
  4. Eventually the corporation meets the primary topic criteria

Under If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name, we would have:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation), as it's so obscure the plant remains the primary topic.
  3. Some time later, as the size and notability of the corporation grows, there is no primary topic.
    • The plant article is moved to Climpaton (plant)
    • A new TWODAB dab page is created at Climpaton
    • The corporation article remains at Climpaton (corporation).
  4. Eventually the corporation achieves primary topic status
    • The plant article remains at Climpaton (plant)
    • The TWODAB dab page is moved to Climpaton (disambiguation)
    • The corporation article is moved to Climpaton.

Under If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name, we would have:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation), as it's so obscure the plant remains the primary topic.
  3. Some time later, as the size and notability of the corporation grows, there is no primary topic.
    • As the original use the plant article remains at Climpaton.
    • The corporation article remains at Climpaton (corporation).
  4. Eventually the corporation achieves primary topic status
    • The plant article is moved to Climpaton (plant)
    • The corporation article is moved to Climpaton.

Now, which scenario is simple, more stable and less contentious? Which is more complex, less stable and more likely to foster contention?

Consider that under If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name, nothing changes between stages 2 and 3, so there is no need for the community to even evaluate when that happens. But under If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name, the community is required to ascertain that point, to decide when to disambiguate the title of the plant article to make room for the dab page at the base name.

--B2C 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You've demonstrated you're quite adept at constructing hypotheticals that favor your position. Consider the equally likely scenario in which the second Climpaton is out of the box of comparable notability to the first. Does it really make sense to leave the first created at the base name instead of a disambiguation page? Or consider the possibility that the first article might have some long-standing and stable, though minor, position in its knowledge domain. Then suppose the newly created second article has some flash-in-the-pan spike. Some editors would want to immediately move the second article to be the primary topic. Other editors would want to see if it passes WP:ONEEVENT or WP:RECENTISM. In any case, your hypotheticals depend on an eventual outcome which might elapse over a period of days, months or years. If the two topics are of comparable notability for more than a few weeks or months, I think placing the disambiguation page at the base name would be a more encyclopedic approach than inertia. older ≠ wiser
(edit conflict) I fail to see anything undesirable in the first scenario; in fact, I regard it as providing the optimum balance for each of the intermediate states of notoriety for both the plant and the corporation. (Also I don't see why "stability" should be a value to consider; this is a wiki, it's assumed that things change).
At the third step (when the size and notability of the corporation grows), you're assuming that the corporation has grown so popular that it's a contender against the long term significance previously held by the plant (otherwise, it wouldn't dethrone it as primary topic). This means that more visitors will be interested in the company than in the plant, but not enough to make its article primary. In that situation, the disambiguation page is a better compromise than sending many visitors to the plant article.
Most likely, the progression wouldn't cause any contention - for low traffic articles, both the company article and the DAB will likely be created by respective editors that wanted to learn about the corporation, and found the plant article at the base name - the first editor at step 2 placing a hat note to the new company article, and the second editor at step 3 creating a DAB when noticing that the plant shouldn't be primary. If any of those steps create any controversy at all, then the default (placing a DAB at the base name) should be triggered, as controversy means that neither topic is primary, unless a consensus can be achieved.. Diego (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Diego, well put. The scenario you describe seems quite common to me. And, as I've said elsewhere, I think it would also be quite OK if the editor(s) creating or editing the second article were BOLD and moved the second article to be primary, if they had some reasonable basis to do so. If other editors questioned that move, then discussion might result in determining there is no primary topic and a disambiguation page is placed at the base name. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the proposal is too haphazard. Rather than going solely by what is made first, I would prefer some predetermined order of encyclopedic precedence. For example, if there were two things having the same name, but neither of them being particularly notable (and therefore having no primary topic), then biological genera would always take precedence over place names, which would always take precedence over company names. If there are two people or companies with the same name, always go with the earliest in time (first born or first founded). If there are two biological genera with the same name, always go with mammals over birds over reptiles over fish over arthropods over plants over fungi over protazoa. That said, I am fine with having a TWODABS disambiguation page unless there is some indication of a more important topic. bd2412 T 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with this notion of order of encyclopedic precedence. It is already at play in places, it is natural, and it is expected by new readers. Examples include counting numbers a presumed to be calendar years. Natural world topics are usually taken to have encyclopedic precedence over commercial products. Parent topics (like Avatar) having precedence over conceptual spinouts feels logical. The idea fits well with the category system. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Have fun trying to get agreement about such an order of precedence. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Still, the project has ironed out disputes of that nature before, and I think the kinds of thing I specified above are generally common sense. bd2412 T 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting idea, and my first thought was the same: "good luck trying to get consensus". It may be easier for some categories than others, though; I can see it applied to topics from living things and natural sciences taking precedence upon company names, but not between topics in the same group, or for people from different epochs. Diego (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I concede, it wouldn't work so well for individual people. There are clearer contrasts, I think, between something like the title of a song of borderline notability on the one hand, and a biological species or a molecular formula on the other hand. bd2412 T 17:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It is practically impossible to create two articles simultaneously. I submit that for every single term that is an undisambiguated title of an article or dab page, there was an original article at that term when no other article with that name existed on WP. When an article about a second use is created, there needs to be consensus that the first use is not the primary topic before its title is disambiguated. This isn't haphazard, BD2412 (talk · contribs); the default claim on the base name for its title by the original article is implicit in WP:TITLECHANGES and the status quo reigns rule. --B2C 16:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The rule isn't haphazard, but the result is. It should be the other way around, a consistent result, no matter which article happens to have been first created. bd2412 T 17:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) It isn't quite accurate to say there needs to be consensus that the first use is not the primary topic before its title is disambiguated. Any admin can make such an evaluation and BOLDly move the articles (or non-admins can as well, if the new name doesn't already exist). Or non-admins might make a technical request if it appears uncontroversial. Unless you're suggesting that any change of primary topic is automatically controversial and therefore must be discussed before moving. Of course, such BOLDness might be challenged (or if it happened some time ago, someone might question whether circumstances have changed. Point is, that whomever creates the second page has to consider what sort of disambiguation to use, and in that process is very likely to consider whether the second topic is equal to or surpasses the first article. It need not be a big production. Consideration of the applicability of TWODABS by the community only really arises when the existing arrangement is questioned. WP:STATUSQUO (which is an essay, BTW, only really applies in the context of reversions) and it DOES NOT mean change does not happen -- it quite explicitly calls for discussion to establish consensus. Similarly, WP:TITLECHANGES primarily applies to controversial title changes. Many would consider that the need to disambiguate a title because there is another article that could have the same title and no obvious primary topic would be a good reason to change the title. I think the clearest, most readily comprehensible guidance to editors is that if there is no primary topic, use a disambiguation page at the base name. older ≠ wiser 17:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A formal discussion is not the (crucial missing words added in red. Sorry! --B2C 04:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)) only way to reach WP:CONSENSUS, Bkonrad, and it's not even the most common way. BOLD editing (and renaming) is also consensus supported, and much more common than consensus reached or established through discussion. --B2C 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
*Absolute nonsense. Formal discussion in practice means constrained discussion is suited for dispute resolution. Articles are not built and improved by formal discussion. One of our most useful and consensus-reflecting policy pages, WP:5P, was not built by formal discussion, go review it history. You appear to again promoting confusion between consensus and closing discussions. Formal discussion places like the US legislature are a current example of how formal process does make for consensus. You don't sort out marital problems in a court room. AfD and RM produce respected results because consensus is the the results of the processes are to be respected. Very rarely have I seen anything close to a contested formal RM discussion lead to compromise, negotiation and consensus building. No. Formal discussions are much more likely to entrench initial positions, contrary to consensus building. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed the initial statements was nonsense... due to a typo (now fixed... in red). I presume that's what you're referring to as "nonsense". Sorry about that! --B2C 04:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Unclear what your point is. Your comment made the need for consensus out to be a big deal. I was pointing out that title changes happen all the time based on judgement of individual editors. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You wrote: It isn't quite accurate to say there needs to be consensus that the first use is not the primary topic before its title is disambiguated.
My point is that it is accurate. Just because the title is disambiguated by a bold move based on the judgement of an individual editor doesn't mean consensus does not support it. Consensus is still needed before the title is disambiguated; whether the title change is made unilaterally or after discussion is irrelevant. If consensus support is unclear (the change is potentially controversial), then it's not supposed to be changed without discussion. There is nothing inaccurate about "there needs to be consensus that the first use is not the primary topic before its title is disambiguated. That's the point. Is that clear? --B2C 04:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not accurate to say that consensus is required before a title is disambiguated. Consensus may support actions of an individual, but any individual editor can disambiguate a title. It is a perversion of language to call the actions of a individual editor consensus. Consensus can be assumed if there are no objections, but such acquiescence may last only until there is awareness of the changes. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Semantics, but, the quote is not accurate. If disambiguation is required, any editor can do it. This especially applies to new articles written by the editor who is now adjusting the titles. If you were to write a handful of articles today, and then submit requests for renames, you would deserve a trout, or at least a link to Help:Move. Where your wrong is that you imply that consensus exists before anyone has even looked. WP:Silence does not stretch that far (or short). WP:Silence requires reasonable time. You do not need specific consensus to add or improve content, unless maybe you have a bad history of poor judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if disambiguation is required, any editor can do it, but only with good reason to believe that consensus agrees that disambiguation is required. Lacking sufficient good reason to believe that means a discussion is required. In any case, there needs to be consensus that the first use is not the primary topic before its title is disambiguated. So the quote is accurate.

And for consensus to exist in a given situation does not mean some significant number of editors more than one have to look at the situation and agree. If policy supported by consensus clearly indicates a certain decision in a given situation, then consensus supports that decision, by definition, even if only one person (like the creator of an article) is even aware of the situation. --B2C 08:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Diego (talk · contribs) makes the following claim above:

At the third step (when the size and notability of the corporation grows), you're assuming that the corporation has grown so popular that it's a contender against the long term significance previously held by the plant (otherwise, it wouldn't dethrone it as primary topic). This means that more visitors will be interested in the company than in the plant, but not enough to make its article primary. In that situation, the disambiguation page is a better compromise than sending many visitors to the plant article.

The third step is: Some time later, as the size and notability of the corporation grows, there is no primary topic. That doesn't necessarily mean "more visitors will be interested in the company than in the plant, but not enough to make its article primary", but let's assume that is the case, because it is possible. Let's say the distribution of interest is 60% for the company, and 40% for the plant, and consider what happens to those entering "Climpaton" in the WP search box and clicking on Go in each case.

Under If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name, we would have:

  1. 100% arrive at the dab page at Climpaton.
  2. 40% click on the dab page link to Climpaton (plant)
  3. 60% click on the dab page link to Climpaton (corporation).

Under If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name, we would have:

  1. 100% arrive at the plant article at Climpaton which, for 40%, is the desired destination.
  2. 60% click on the hatnote link to Climpaton (corporation).

I fail to see why the dab page scenario is a "better compromise". --B2C 17:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Because there are a number of benefits that DAB pages provide, and that you're not taking into account by only counting page clicks. For a start, in the second scenario 60% of users are being shown a wrong article, while in the first they see a navigation page. You consider arriving to the DAB a failure, disregarding the extra time that readers need to recover from landing at a target article that it's not the one they're looking for. Instead I consider that a DAB page is a hand-tailored search results page, no worse than typing "Climpaton" at Google - in fact much better, as it only shows relevant links that belong to Wikipedia articles, presented in a nice format optimized for navigation.
Second, DAB pages not only help at navigation from searches. As Vegaswikian points out, linking to a non-primary topic produces problems also for internal Wikilinks, when editors create the link to Climpaton expecting that the company will be at the other side. If there is no primary topic, readers following the link will arrive to a DAB page instead than to the plant (which would be totally absurd if the context for the link was about the company). Second, the editor that created the link will get a warning from a bot, prompting them to fix it with the right meaning; and other editors will also be able to fix it with the link disambiguation tool. Diego (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a very incomplete analysis. First, there is no reason to think that 100% of readers looking for Climpaton would arrive at the disambiguation page. Many, perhaps most, would choose the desired target based on the parenthetical term from the search box drop-down. Remember, the disambiguation page typically appears after the other uses in the dropdown list. Similarly, incoming links to the disambiguation page have a much higher probability of being fixed than mistaken links to a incorrectly placed non-primary topic, so readers are significantly less likely to arrive at the "wrong" page from internal links if a disambiguation page is at the base name. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The analysis is complete with respect to all that matters. Users using the drop-down list are just as irrelevant as Google searchers - the article will be selected through the search mechanism and the sought article will be reached directly. In a TWODAB case, at least one of the two titles will be disambiguated, and will either be recognized as the one being sought, or the one not being sought. In the latter case, if the one being sought is undisambiguated, it will be known to be the desired article. So all that matters is the scenario in which a person enters the search term and clicks on GO, and the analysis is complete with respect to that. --B2C 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The analysis is complete with respect to all that matters Strongly disagree for the reasons already stated. Users using the drop-down list are just as irrelevant as Google searchers - the article will be selected through the search mechanism and the sought article will be reached directly -- unclear what this is supposed to mean. For the record I strongly disagree that internal search is as irrelevant as external searches. In a TWODAB case, at least one of the two titles will be disambiguated, and will either be recognized as the one being sought, or the one not being sought. In the latter case, if the one being sought is undisambiguated, it will be known to be the desired article Another fine example of shortsighted binary black/white reductionism resting on a dubious presumption that an undisambiguated title can be recognized as correct equally easily as a parenthetically disambiguated title. I suggest it is far easier for a reader to recognize the desired title in such situations when it is disambiguated rather than having to do a mental calculus -- not X, therefore it must be Y (although maybe Y is something else...I guess I'll just have to click on it to find out). older ≠ wiser 21:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I wrote: Users using the drop-down list are just as irrelevant as Google searchers - the article will be selected through the search mechanism and the sought article will be reached directly
Bkonrad replied: unclear what this is supposed to mean.
Sorry for being unclear. This is crucial to understand. What this means is that regardless of which of the following scenarios are shown in the drop-down list are:
  • Climpaton and Climpaton (corporation),
  • Climpaton (plant) and Climpaton, or
  • Climpaton (plant) and Climpaton (corporation),
the people searching for the plant and the people searching for the corporation will both know which in the drop-down list to click (if nothing else because they'll know which not to click), so, "Users using the drop-down list are ... irrelevant" when it comes to deciding which of the three naming possibilities to use. They are just as irrelevant as those using Google (which also takes you directly to the article you seek, regardless of which of the three naming possibilities are used). So the only situation relevant to choosing which of the three naming scenarios to select is internal search without drop-down list, which is exactly the case considered in my analysis, especially those simply entering the search term (e.g., "Climpaton") and hitting Go.

You wrote: an undisambiguated title can be recognized as correct equally easily as a parenthetically disambiguated title

That's out of context. I'm not suggesting anyone will recognize the title from the undisambiguated title all alone. The context is choosing between the undisambiguated title and the title disambiguated with something that either matches or doesn't match the desired topic. If it matches, the disambiguated title is it; otherwise the undisambiguated is it.

For example, consider Alunite. You may be looking for the mineral, or the town in Utah. Your choices are Alunite and Alunite, Utah. If you're looking for the mineral, even if you don't know about the town, you'll know that Alunite, Utah is not about the mineral, so Alunite must be your article. Similarly, if you're looking for the town and you don't know about the mineral, you'll know Alunite, Utah is your article, not Alunite. There is no need to move Alunite to Alunite (mineral). And there is no more benefit to anyone in disambiguating both titles in any other TWODABS situation, including when neither is primary. --B2C 04:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that already. But you do not address the point that comparatively it takes longer to process the scenario in which one option is clearly marked and one is unmarked than the scenario in which both options are marked. There is benefit for all to clearly mark the options when there is no primary topic. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Why the final clause, when there is no primary topic? Isn't the benefit there even when there is a primary topic? In this very case, for example, Alunite and Alunite, Utah, "there is benefit for all to clearly mark the options"... no? I mean, Alunite is a relatively obscure mineral. I, for one, never heard of it. So if I encounter the town in my travels or on a map or in some citation somewhere, and choose to look it up, there would be benefit if Alunite displayed as Alunite (mineral), not as Alunite.

I can't deny the benefit, just as you cannot deny that the benefit would apply for primary topics too, especially for any primary topic that is not broadly recognized. Like Allunite.

So now we're back to the Matter Scale, because this is really about how much it matters. Yes, it might take a bit longer "to process the scenario in which one option is clearly marked and one is unmarked than the scenario in which both options are marked", but how much longer, and, more importantly, how much does that bit more matter? If you're still unwilling to try to quantify the answers to these qualitative questions in a manner that allows for relative comparisons and weighings, I don't see how the discussion can reasonably proceed. --B2C 17:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is part of the nature of a primary topic that it is unmarked. Alunite is clearly the primary topic and no one looking for the ghost town in Utah that was formerly a mine for the mineral should be surprised that the mineral is the primary topic. Even if one might not know precisely what "alunite" is, no one familiar with what the town in Utah is would be surprised that something else is at the unmarked base name. There perhaps might be some marginal benefit in creating a redirect from Alunite (mineral), but that would seem superfluous in this case. Such a redirect might be appropriate where the primary topic has multiple facets that could potentially be considered as separate sub-topics. No, I really don't think there is any point to discussing how much it matters that a disambiguation page should be used when there is no encyclopedic basis for choosing a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 17:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
You claim: It is part of the nature of a primary topic that it is unmarked.
I apologize for sounding pedantic again, but topics, primary or not, are not marked (disambiguated) or unmarked (undisambiguated). Titles are marked or unmarked. This probably seems like nitpicking but I suggest there is a correlation between clarity in terminology usage and clarity in thinking about the concepts associated with that terminology. So let's try to be more careful, okay? It is part of the nature of the title of a primary topic article that it is unmarked.

Anyway... you claim that "no one familiar with what the town in Utah is would be surprised that something else is at the unmarked base name". Fair enough. But check it out. What you're saying is that anyone familiar with a (non primary) use in a TWODABS situation (like the town of Alunite) would not be surprised to find another use at the base name, even if they're not familiar with it (like the mineral Alunite). I agree again. Let's call this the Bkonrad Principle, okay?

Now, shouldn't this Bkonrad Principle apply to a TWODABS case where neither use is primary? I mean, whether the use at the base name is primary or not can't matter to someone who is unfamiliar with that use. Therefore, whether the unfamiliar use at the base name is primary can't be a factor in whether they are surprised by it being at the base name. And, so, per this principle, anyone familiar with one of the non primary uses should be no more surprised to find the other (unfamiliar) non-primary use at the base name than he or she would be if that unfamiliar use was primary.

This is exactly my point, and one of the main reasons I support, If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name for TWODABS cases. It shouldn't be any more surprising, nor any more problematic in any way, for anyone to find the other (unfamiliar) use at the base name in a TWODABS case if it is not primary, than it is for someone looking to find the town of Alunite to find the (unfamiliar) mineral at Alunite, which you agree is acceptable. --B2C 04:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC) added "which you agree is acceptable" for emphasis. --B2C 06:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

B2C, the existence of benefit is a very weak argument. Many things have benefit in a narrow context but are a bad idea in a wider context. Communism, for example.

Alunite is not a relatively obscure mineral. We know little of your geological knowledge, so " I, for one, never heard of it" means little. How long is your list of recognized minerals? List of minerals reports that there are only 4700 of them. Alunite is mined commercially around the world.

Alunite is the primary topic for the term "alunite", discounting the town, for multiple reasons. Ambiguous non-primary-topics, where the competing topics are unrelated and individually significant, should be disambiguated, per the principle of least astonishment. The town is not unrelated.

No. The Born2cycle-Bkonrad Principle is not looking very worthy. It is introduced on a false premise (that someone could reasonably be familiar the town of Alunite but not familiar with the mineral Alunite). Familiarity implies holding some non-negligible amount of information. If a term evokes recognition of a familiar topic, and a competing topic is unfamiliar, then this competing topic should not be ascribe "Primary Topic" status. Given that the convoluted argument begins with a dubious invented principle, its not worth further study. It amounts to an arbitrary bright.

Arbitrary bright lines are bad. They would mean that Wikipedia would be run according unnatural rules. This hurts accessibility of the project to new editors, and remaining accessible to newcomers is an even more important principle than anything mentioned so far. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Smokey, I agree "the existence of benefit is a very weak argument", though I'm not sure why you're pointing this out. "The existence of a benefit" is not my argument.
Bkonrad contends that someone who knows of the town but not the mineral should not be surprised to find the mineral at the base name. I agree. You seem to believe anyone reasonably familiar with the town would also have to be familiar with the mineral. What if it's someone driving through the area with a passing interest in ghost towns? We may disagree on how likely something like that may be, but that's irrelevant. The point is that being familiar with only one of two topics named X does not mean one would be surprised to find the unknown topic at the base name X. Finding an unfamiliar topic at the base name of the non-primary topic being sought is simply not problematic in any significant way. That is not my entire argument, but it is one of the underpinnings. In other words, finding an unfamiliar topic at the base name of the non-primary topic being sought is not unnatural, nor does it hurt accessibility of the project to new editors or to anyone else. --B2C 07:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • What if it's someone driving through the area with a passing interest in ghost towns?

    Well, these people are not familiar with the town, they have just stumbled upon it. As soon as they know just the first little bit, they will have encountered mention of the mineral. Alunite is not very interesting an example. A more challenging example is Welland. Consider Welland ON vs Welland SA. I consider both obscure, and that a whole lot of biases are at play. Also consider Welland ON vs Colin Welland, or any other unrelated pair.

    "The point is that being familiar with only one of two topics named X does not mean one would be surprised to find the unknown topic at the base name X."

    The contrary is exactly my point. If someone can reasonably assume that their X is the only X, they will be astonished to find X udisambiguate is something completely unrelated. This can occur very easily for obscure topics both named ofter sometime historically distant, like Welland. (unlike Alunite).

    "Finding an unfamiliar topic at the base name of the non-primary topic being sought is simply not problematic in any significant way."

    This sounds like you don't value the principle of least astonishment.

    I have never said that all of your arguments are wrong. However, you conflate arguments, and some of your arguments are not palatable.

    "nor does it hurt accessibility of the project to new editors or to anyone else"

    Here you are denying what someone else has already said to you from experience. It is also my experience. If you search for something you expect to find, and find something else, unexpected, unrelated, unfamiliar, then you are astonished, and astonishment has a discouraging feedback to the searcher. This discouragement is a negative contribution to accessibility. Have you read much about the principle of least astonishment? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for the town and you don't know about the mineral, you ought to, and you will as soon as you learn the basics about the town. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Diego Moya (talk · contribs), indeed, arriving at a dab page is a failure, as that is not arriving at the article being sought. Similarly, arriving at the "wrong" article is also a failure. Further, these failures are comparable. Neither is better, or worse, than the other. Both make it obvious that the sought article was not reached, and both make recovery from the failure - clicking on a link to reach the sought article - equally clear and easy.

The claim that there is extra time required to "recover" from landing on a "wrong" article, as compared to landing on a dab page, is pure fiction, as far as I can tell. Do you need this extra time when it happens to you? I know I don't. Do you know anyone who needs the extra time? --B2C 20:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that there is extra time required to "recover" from landing on a "wrong" article, as compared to landing on a dab page, is pure fiction, as far as I can tell Another faulty presumption. Have you ever watched a well-formed usability test? I have and I'd say it is far more likely to disorient a reader to end up at the "wrong" article than to arrive at a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps the question should be, how can we better reorient the reader who has landed at the "wrong" article? Perhaps if the situation is a TWODABS with one topic being only slightly more notable than the other, we could make the hatnote more prominent. bd2412 T 21:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The claim that there is extra time required to "recover" from landing on a "wrong" article, as compared to landing on a dab page, is pure fiction, as far as I can tell - It is not. As Bkonrad pointed out, this old discussion had an editor who found people requiring up to 30 seconds to find out the hat note, and others not discovering it at all; this mirrors my experience when arriving to the wrong article. If you try to optimize the hatnote, you start acting against the purpose of the article, which is allowing the content of the article to be read. If you make the hatnote more salient, you hurt those readers who have arrived to the right article. The way to help readers is to not force them into the wrong article from the start. As DAB pages are optimized for browsing and are more lightweight than articles, they load faster and finding the right link is easier. If you allow each type of page to be used for its main purpose (disambiguation pages to decide ambiguous titles, articles to read content), instead of mixing their goals, each page can be used to its best. Diego (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
By that reasoning, why not make Apple and Mouse and George Washington disambiguation pages? They are all very big pages, with comparatively long load times, so a person reaching them while searching for something else will be terribly inconvenienced. bd2412 T 00:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I submit that no reasonable reader would search for "Apple" or "Mouse" or "George Washington" and have no recognition of the topics found at these articles. No reasonable reader would be astonished at what is returned. Therefore, they are good at the undisambiguted titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
A reader looking for the Apple computer company might not be "astonished" but they will be just as inconvenienced by the page load time as one who is astonished. If the links that people make are any indication, quite a few editors don't give much thought to what will be on the other end of the link when they type it (whether in the edit box or a search window). bd2412 T 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
A reader looking for apple computer searching "apple" should expect the fruit to appear. They may be inconvenienced if they have difficult access, but they shouldn't be astonished. I consider the "minimize astonishment" argument to be more important than the "minimize inconvenience", although both are valid. B2C appears to have no consideration for astonishment of a minority, weighing consideration of averages only. I'm not sure how you weigh minimizing minority astonishment verses maximizing average ease of access (noting averages will be dominated by typical readers accessing popular pages)?

Quite a few reader don't give much thought to what will be on the other end of the link when they type?. Yes. This is even my behaviour when working on a good computer with fast connection speed. Should we title articles to anticipate common clumsy searching? I think we should weight the principle of least astonishment highly, and rely on search engines to interpret search queries. I suggest that fast and easy internet access encourages clumsy searching, and that we are not working for quality if we optimize for clumsy searching. (google will always beat us in that race)

Quite a few editors don't give much thought to what will be on the other end of the link when they type it? I appreciate that this is a source of irritation, including to people like you who fix misdirected links. I can well imagine that not-so-careful editors dealing with popular topics will often link to the undisambiguated title regardless of whether the undisambiguated title hosts a DAB page. This is an editor issue that requires education, and I think it is bad practice to alter the product (compare Wikipedia:Product, process, policy) to ameliorate editors' bad habits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that there is anything wrong with Apple.

What about someone searching for the town of "Alunite" and ending up on an article about the mineral at Alunite? Do you believe that article should be moved to Alunite (mineral)? Why or why not? --B2C 04:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I added the hatnote {{See also|Alunite, Utah}} to Alunite.
No, I would not support disambiguating Alunite (unless we decided to disambiguate all such minerals).
Reasons: (1) Alunite, Utah is not a real town, but a company town of no known wider significance, meaning no one will look for it unless they already know about it, nd if they know about the company town they should be expected to already know abou the mineral; (2) The town has no known continuing significance, being a ghost (company) town; (3) the town was named after the mineral mined locally that motivated creation of the town, and so the town name is derivative of the mineral.
There is less reason to move Alunite than to disambiguate Apple (fruit). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, good. We agree about that, though I take it you meant to say, "... than to disambiguate Apple" (Apple (fruit) is already disambiguated). --B2C 07:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, a lot to take in here since I last checked, and a whole lot I disagree with. First, yes, you are being overly pedantic. A primary topic, in the contect of disambiguation, only exists when there is an unmarked title (or redirect). You objections are purely pedantic). You wrote: What you're saying is that anyone familiar with a (non primary) use in a TWODABS situation (like the town of Alunite) would not be surprised to find another use at the base name, even if they're not familiar with it (like the mineral Alunite). No, this is not my point at all. It is not "any" use -- it is the primary use. It is precisely because there is a very clear primary topic that there is no surprise that the non-primary topic does not have the unmarked title. Turn the example around. Suppose that the ghost town article was created first at the unmarked name (and that the creator ignored the USPLACE naming convention). I expect that readers looking for the mineral would be very surprised and irritated to find the article on the ghost town with the unmarked title.

Similarly, if neither of two topics are primary and one is placed at the unmarked title, there will be a element, if not of surprise, perhaps more accurately of disorientation, for readers looking for the other topic. As SmokeyJoe has pointed out, your proposition completely ignores usability and assumes that hatnotes are perfectly equivalent to dab pages for assisting in navigation. They are not. With two non-primary topics of approximately equal notability (which after all is the essence of a TWODAB situation), first, the likelihood of a reader arriving at the disambiguation page is minimized by first, having both titles marked and secondly, by having the disambiguation page at the marked title -- mistaken links to the dab page are more likely to be fixed. older ≠ wiser 09:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What you're talking about suggests an extension to recognizability in the context of ambiguous names. If I understand correctly, you guys believe that recognizability is more important in titles of topics with ambiguous names than in titles of topics with unique names. I mean, if Slagox is the name of only one topic, say an obscure plant, then you're fine with its title being at Slagox, right? Because it needs to be recognizable to only people who are familiar with the plant. But if it's also the title of some obscure book (just notable enough such that neither the plant nor the book is the primary topic), then the plant article title needs to be recognizable not only to those familiar with the plant, but also to those unfamiliar with the plant but who are familiar with the book. Similarly, the title of the book needs to be recognizable to those familiar with the book and to those unfamiliar with the book but who are familiar with the plant... right? Is that what you're trying to say? If so, this recognizability nuance is not explicitly documented anywhere, so far as I know. Would you favor changing the description of Recognizability to say that somehow? Currently it says this:
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject, will recognize.
--B2C 18:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think Recognizability is the right place. It is really a matter of disambiguation, which I think already addresses this under WP:TWODABS: As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. You seem to be the only one actively disputing that guidance. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so much disputing that guidance as questioning it - and what it is based on. Since you've brought up Welland, let's talk about that a bit. First, it's not TWODABS - so let's assume it is, for sake of argument. Say the only two uses are the city in Ontario and the village in England. Well, first, if there was only one use, the city in Ontario, there would be no problem whatsoever with having the article at Welland, right?

Now, back to the TWODABS situation. Now, under current guidance, it's an issue because we can have the city at Welland only if it is the primary topic. Why is that, if not because those familiar with and looking for the English village, but not familiar with the Ontario village, would be confused or disoriented or something if they landed upon the Ontario city at Welland? But that confusion and disorientation (or however you want to characterize "the problem") would not occur if the Ontario city is the primary topic? Why does it matter? How is WP better if the city is at the base name Welland if and only if the city is the primary topic? --B2C 14:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess I really don't understand what it is you are questioning or why. If a topic in Wikipedia is ambiguous, disambiguation is required. If there is a primary topic, that topic can use the unmarked title (either directly as title of the topic article or as a redirect). If there is no consensus that a primary topic exists, then a disambiguation page is placed at the unmarked title. It's really very simple. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If the city is at Welland and the other at Welland (village) - there is disambiguation - no more is required. Also putting the city at Welland (city) and creating a TWODABS dab page is going beyond what disambiguation requires.

If the city is the only use, it can be at Welland - no questions asked. If there is another use, say the village, disambiguation can be fully and easily handled by disambiguating the second use. Why do we have to disambiguate both uses just because there is no consensus that the city is the "primary topic"? You seem to accept the notion that no primary topic means a dab page is required... but why? What is the reasoning that underlies this axiom, especially in terms of it applying in the TWODABS case? That's what I'm questioning. --B2C 14:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a second use of the term, disambiguation can be fully and easily handled two ways: by qualifying one of the topic's titles and hatnoting it from the other, or by qualifying both topics' titles and linking them from a base-name disambiguation page. I agree that if an article existed unambiguously at a base name and a new article is created that introduces Wikipedia ambiguity, that there should be consensus to move the first article from the base name to a qualified name. But if there is consensus that there is no primary topic, a dab is required, because otherwise (if there is an article at the base name) then that article is the primary topic, which is counter to the consensus. I don't understand the reasoning that concludes "There's consensus that there is no primary topic, therefore we'll leave the old primary topic as the ongoing primary topic." -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You're assuming the very premise that I'm questioning: If an article's topic is not the primary topic for its base name, then that article cannot be at the base name. Why? --B2C 19:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Because the guidelines define it that way. If you want to redo all of the disambiguation terminology and start from scratch, you should say so. Otherwise, the primary topic of a title is the topic that that title lands on. If the title lands on a dab page, then there's no primary topic. If the title lands on no page, then there's no topic. If the title lands on one page, then there's a primary topic. If the title lands on two pages, you're not on Wikipedia. Here: "[The primary topic] is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page." -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the why, I think it all comes to the principle of least astonishment, really. Placing a topic in the base name means that we expect readers arriving to the page to not be surprised by the article being there. In the Welland example, placing Wellan, Ontario at the base name means that most readers expect to learn about the city when typing "Welland", unqualified. This is a reasonable assumption in this case, as people from a suburb or a village may reasonably expect that somewhere in the world there's a larger city with the same name. But if either Colin Welland or Mark Welland were to be recognized internationally by their last name alone, then the city couldn't be primary anymore, as people looking for the actor or the professor may arrive to a city instead, and be disorientated. Diego (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. This is what I was alluding to above. But even then, does the principle of least astonishment really carry much weight in a TWODABS situation with neither topic being primary? Welland is not a TWODABS situation. In a TWODABS situation, there are only two uses, and neither is important enough to be primary. If a use is not important enough to be primary, will anybody really be astonished to find another use at its base name? --B2C 19:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because likely a reader won't know that there exists a different topic sharing the same name (in the example above, someone looking for "Welland" as an actor); most of the time, they'll expect there to be just one article for that name, not knowing in advance that there is a name collision. Also, remember that most Wikipedia readers don't know anything about Wikipedia policy; most won't know what is a primary or non-primary topic, and will only find that we disambiguate pages according to their importance after many visits; but DAB pages must work from the very first visit of a user. Diego (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
We have hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages. I don't think it's that likely that a reader will be astonished to discover that there is another name for a generic-sounding name like Welland. I'm more surprised that there aren't dozens of them. bd2412 T 21:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The principle of least astonishment is not concerned with users being astonished to discover their factual misconceptions. It is an interface concern. The Welland problem is not that a Welland searcher discovers that there are multiple Wellands, it is that the searcher is taken to another obscure, specific Welland, as if that Welland is special, when it is not, and are initially denied information. (the dab page) directly relevant to their ambiguous search. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
(The following assumes Welland is a TWODABS situation with no primary topic; one use is the Canadian city, the other is English village). Why do you think being taken to one of the two and only uses of Welland, both of which are obscure, and with a hatnote link to the other use, anoints that use as being "special"? And so what if it has "special" status? In this case the city has more people than the village, and is more likely to be sought (but not sufficiently more likely to meet primary topic criteria). The hatnote link at the top is just as directly relevant to the ambiguous search as is a TWODABS dab page. --B2C 17:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If you beg the question, of course the answer is the one you want. Why do you think making one topic primary where it isn't primary doesn't anoint it as being "special"? So what if there's a two-topic disambiguation page at the base name when there's no primary topic? In this case, neither obscure topic is the primary obscure topic, so the handful of readers looking for either obscure topic would have to click through an obscure disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, because hat notes are hard to read and the reader can miss them. That would left the reader with the impression that Wikipedia doesn't cover the topic they are looking for, which is false. Diego (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should we have to assume what readers want without clear and convincing evidence? Why, when a topic is ambiguous, is the dab page a bad target when it does not force any incorrect ideas on where the reader should be and makes fixing bad internal links very easy and makes the readers aware of the error? In dabbing links that link to a dab page with two entries, it is quite often that they get marked as needing disambiguation since the average reader does not know which is the correct target. How does removing a dab page help in these cases, especially if they wind up at the wrong article? The readers don't know that they are at the wrong article and read it assuming they are getting correct information. So how do we justify giving those readers bad information? Remember that everyone does not have you vast base of knowledge you have and they can not determine from the article that they are not at the correct article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is the case that "hat notes are hard to read and the reader can miss them", that sounds like a problem to be fixed with hatnotes, since they appear on tens of thousands of articles. bd2412 T 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's true that hatnotes are easy to miss – and perhaps especially so for readers who are less familiar with Wikipedia. But, of course, we wouldn't want hatnotes to be so prominent that they become annoying. To the people who landed on the correct article, they are usually just a distraction. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - A hypothetical TWODABS example

This whole discussion comes down to the perceived cost of having readers land on the "wrong" article (but with a hatnote link to the sought article), especially that cost compared to the perceived cost of landing on a dab page instead of the sought page.

If landing on the sought page has a cost of 0 units, landing on the dab page costs 3 units, and landing on the wrong article costs 5 units, consider 100 people of which 60 seek one use and 40 seek the other. If we have the more popular use at the base name, the total cost is 60 * 0 + 40 * 5 = 200. If we have a TWODABS dab page at the base name, the total cost is 100 * 3 = 300, thus it's better, by 100 units, to have no dab page.

Of course, if you perceive a bigger cost to landing on the "wrong" article, say 10 units vs the 3 unit cost to landing on a dab page, then the numbers are 60 * 0 + 40 * 10 = 400 (for no dab page) vs. 300 (article at base name), per which having the dab page is better.

Personally, I see the cost of landing on the wrong article only slightly higher than the cost of landing on a dab page (like 5 vs 3), which is why I support no dab page in the TWODABS situation. But others seem to perceive a bigger difference, perhaps on the order of 10 vs 3, which is probably why they support the dab page. In a primary topic situation, in which, say, 75 of 100 seek one of the two topics, a 10/3 assignment of the relative costs indeed results in favoring no dab page. The total cost for no dab page would be 75 * 0 + 25 * 10 = 250; but for dab page we would have 100 * 3 = 300.

So I think you have to believe the relative cost difference between landing on the wrong article vs a dab page is that great, on the order of 10 vs 3, in order to favor a dab page in a TWODABS situation with no primary topic. If anyone really believes landing on an article with a hatnote link is more than three times worse than landing on a dab page, a subjective assessment with which I cannot quarrel, then I have to admit that support for a dab page in the TWODABS situation with no primary topic is rational and reasonable. --B2C 18:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that landing on the wrong page can be much worse than three times arriving to the DAB - if you measure it in time and the reader misses the link, it takes infinite time to arrive to the right article. Nevertheless, that's a subjective criterion; if we go with a numeric analysis there's another way to evaluate the situation.
You're taking the utilitarian approach of optimizing the average, trying to maximize the overall expected utility. If you take instead the egalitarian approach of optimizing for the worse case, maximizing the utility for those with the minimum value (so that no one gets a miserable experience), placing the wrong article gets you a value of 0 (from all the 40 users getting the wrong thing with value 0), while the DAB gets you 100 * 3 = 300, which is better. Diego (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
But that too assumes landing on a "wrong article (with a hatnote link to the desired article)" is a costly "miserable experience". I just don't see it. If that were true, we shouldn't have anything ambiguous at a base name, except may the most extreme of primary topics. We certainly would not have Welland (and countless similar primary topics at base names).

Remember, in a More-Than-Two-Dabs case with primary topic, we have an article at the basename, and usually a hatnote to the dab page. So the cost there for landing on the wrong article is even higher, for the hatnote link still does not get you to the sought article (as it does in the TWODABS case), but to a dab page from which you have to find your desired article and click again.

So landing on the wrong article simply can't be that bad, especially with that "wrong" article's hatnote link leads you directly to the sought article rather than to a dab page. Over three times as bad as landing on a dab page? I just don't see it. --B2C 19:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"Miserable experience" is an extreme case - the equalitarian analysis works the same as long as arriving to the wrong article is considered the worst outcome by any margin. One more time, you're considering as cost only the number of clicks that one must navigate, not the quality of being disoriented by being shown something unexpected (maybe because you said that you don't experience it, you can't understand the problems it causes to others). Primary topics aren't unexpected by definition, so they produce a qualitatively different and much less problematic experience. Nevertheless that's a very good rationale to reduce the number of primary topics to those that are strictly necessary, and to err on the side of caution and not creating them when in doubt. Diego (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec x2) I think your analysis overemphasizes direct hits and fails to consider that having marked names help readers avoid landing on the "wrong" page and get to the desired page in the first place. I don't think there's any way to quantify this (not even with made up valuations as in your hypothetical) without some testing with well-designed usability tests. And it does not take into consideration the benefit that links to a disambiguation page have a significantly higher probability of being detected and fixed than if a non-primary or marginally primary topic is at the unmarked title. Yes, these points also apply to primary topics, but the consensus has been that the nature of a primary topic is that either a) readers are likely to anticipate that there is a primary topic and adjust their search strategy accordingly (e.g. Paris or George Washington or Iron); or b) in the event they do arrive at the "wrong" page, they are able to readily recognize why THAT page has the unmarked title instead of the desired topic and then adjust their search strategy accordingly (either by using the hatnote or by refining their search. older ≠ wiser 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that in analyzing "disorientation", some weight must be given to the degree to which topics are related. I propose that a person seeking John Quested (producer), and instead landing on a page about John Quested (aviator) would be far more disoriented than a person looking for Doctor Zhivago (film) and instead landing on a page about Doctor Zhivago (novel), which happens to detail the story from which the film was adapted, and discusses the film itself. Similarly, a person looking for the Madonna song Ray of Light (song) will not be terribly disoriented to find themselves at Ray of Light, an article about the album which contains that song, and which discusses the song itself. bd2412 T 20:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, although I don't know all its implications, and acting on it may require changing current policy. WP:HATNOTE currently advises against placing those related links in the hat note, rather preferring them in the article's content. Though in cases like the one you suggest, there's some agreement above that placing the more general article at the base name can be a good thing (provided all articles are indeed related, and there's nothing like Ray (optics) involved). Diego (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
If editors are concerned that hatnotes will be overlooked, I see no great harm to come from having both. bd2412 T 21:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Diego wrote: "Primary topics aren't unexpected by definition, so [wrongly landing upon articles about primary topics instead of the sought article] produce[s] a qualitatively different and much less problematic experience [than landing on an article that is not the primary topic for the search term]."

That distinction is true only for certain primary topics - those that are universally known, like Paris. Most primary topics are not universally known, like Welland, Lorca, The Economist, Monterrey, Gruzinsky, Mitte. You can't argue WP:OTHERSTUFF because these are not exceptions; these are typical primary topic articles probably representative of the majority.

Consider people, say an American historical political figure and a British athlete in which one is significantly more notable in general than the other, and, so, is considered to be the primary topic. But British fans searching for the athlete are likely to not be familiar with the American historical figure, just as many researching the historical figure are likely to be unfamiliar with the British jock. For example, John Marshall and John Marshall (footballer).

I don't believe there is any practical difference in how problematic the experience is of landing on an article different from the one being sought in terms of whether the topic of the "wrong" article is primary or not. I mean, yeah, in the few cases where the primary topic happens to be universally known, but not in the vast majority. The worst case is just as bad (and that's not very bad at all) whether the wrong article landed upon is about a "primary topic" or not. --B2C 22:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Calculations based on made up numbers are more unreliable than the made up numbers.

    "If landing on the sought page has a cost of 0 units, landing on the dab page costs 3 units, and landing on the wrong article costs 5 units"

    No.

    Assume that a reader has entered to too brief search query, using the new style of search box that takes you to a single page and doesn't give any options.

    If landing on the sought page has a cost of 0 units. OK, this defines the reference.

    Landing on the dab page costs 3 units. No. more like -1. In the above, landing on the right page, the reader got lucky, suffers confirmation bias, and continues unknowing that he remains in the ignorant majority. Given the goals of the project, readers suffering confirmation bias and remaining ignorant is definitely a net negative.

    Landing on the wrong article costs 5 units. Unsure. Unsure on both sign and magnitude. The reader has learnt that his search was based on his misconception, and therefore has learnt something, and this is a positive. However, the page arrived at doesn't actually provide much information, doesn't place his objective in the picture, and this is a negative. However, the reader only has to follow the moderately prominent hatnote. The cost of this is small, although dependent on hardware and connectivity factors.

    B2C's apparent working assumption is that giving the reader what they expect is the main goal. I suggest that it is not. If the reader is already well educated, then he should know how to obtain what he wants better than by using an inadequate search query. So, therefore, we should assume that this reader is not so knowledgeable. To give a searcher what they most probably want, may often be right, and other times may be misleading. See confirmation bias, for example. If a kid cries, is the right solution to give the kid what most kids want, an ice cream, and then to walk away? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

    • Under the formulation that you have just articulated, Barack Obama should be a disambiguation page so that the reader who got lucky by landing on it will be relieved of his ignorance about there being other possible meanings of that name. bd2412 T 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • No. (again). The "formula" you may have read is not articulate, and no way pretends to offer solution. It is a criticism of someone else's formula, and their made up input data. I can make up, and justify, very different input data. Barack Obama belongs where it is because its topic is familiar to a wide audience. It can be assumed that anyone familiar with another "Barak Obama" is aware of the subject of Barack Obama. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
        • The "formulation" to which BD refers is entirely yours: Landing on the dab page costs 3 units. No. more like -1. In the above, landing on the right page, the reader got lucky, suffers confirmation bias, and continues unknowing that he remains in the ignorant majority. Given the goals of the project, readers suffering confirmation bias and remaining ignorant is definitely a net negative.

          I'm not sure what you intended to convey with this, but what your words mean is that it is better to send readers to a dab page than to "the right page", since, by sending them to the "right page", they simply "got lucky" and now suffer "confirmation bias" and "continues unknowing that he remains in the ignorant majority". So it is better to send them to the dab page rather than the "right page" because "remaining ignorant is definitely a net negative".

          You accept the cost of landing on the right page is 0 units as a reference. But you say having them land on the dab page is even better (-1 units).

          We agree the cost having to follow the hatnote "is small". --B2C 01:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

        • Barack Obama was not a good example since it's not ambiguous. But look how much readers searching for Jimmy Carter can learn if we send them to Jimmy Carter (disambiguation) instead! --B2C 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Actually, Barack Obama is ambiguous to Barack Obama, Sr. bd2412 T 01:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Touché! So, you're right. Per Smokey's "formulation", Barack Obama should be a TWODABS dab page with links to Barack Obama (president) and Barack Obama, Sr.. That way people searching with "Barack Obama" ("a reader has entered to too brief search query") will land on the dab page, which is worth -1, enriching them with 1 unit of value, rather than sending him to the article that is sought, which has a value/cost of 0 and with a result that he "suffers confirmation bias, and continues unknowing that he remains in the ignorant majority". --B2C 03:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Another hypothetical TWODABS example

Above, Bkonrad claims the hypothetical scenario I constructed favors my position. He encourages us to consider a situation in which the second use is "out of the box of comparable notability to the first." Fine; let's consider the effect of the two TWODABS approaches being discussed on such a situation:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation). The article is created when the corporation has achieved notability comparable to the plant. So, there is no primary topic.
  3. Eventually the corporation meets the primary topic criteria

Under If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name, we would have:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation). The article is created when the corporation has achieved notability comparable to the plant. So, there is no primary topic.
    • The plant article is moved to Climpaton (plant)
    • A new TWODAB dab page is created at Climpaton
    • The corporation article remains at Climpaton (corporation).
  3. Eventually the corporation achieves primary topic status
    • The plant article remains at Climpaton (plant)
    • The TWODAB dab page is moved to Climpaton (disambiguation)
    • The corporation article is moved to Climpaton.

Under If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name, we would have:

  1. An article about a plant named Climpaton is created at Climpaton; it is the only use of that name.
  2. Some time later, a new article about a small new software corporation also named Climpaton is added at Climpaton (corporation). The article is created when the corporation has achieved notability comparable to the plant. So, there is no primary topic.
    • As the original use the plant article remains at Climpaton.
    • The corporation article remains at Climpaton (corporation).
  3. Eventually the corporation achieves primary topic status
    • The plant article is moved to Climpaton (plant)
    • The corporation article is moved to Climpaton.

Now, which scenario is simple, more stable and less contentious? Which is more complex, less stable and more likely to foster contention?

Consider that under If there is no primary topic, whichever was created first is at the base name, nothing changes at stage 2, so there is no need for the community to even evaluate anything at that point. But under If there is no primary topic, a disambiguation page should be at the base name, the community is required to ascertain whether the second use is sufficiently notable for the first use to no longer meet primary topic criteria, to decide whether to disambiguate the title of the plant article to make room for the dab page at the base name. --B2C 17:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What? The topic of apple is unquestionably (per consensus) the primary topic of "apple", so of course I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when there is no primary topic. --B2C 07:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
<aside> Your use of "unquestionably" makes your statement false, unless you believe in steamrolling minority opinion. There is significant minority opinion found in that discussion. You ascription of "consensus" is wrong.</aside>
Your hypothetical construct resembles Apple so much that many of your hypothetical premises are unrealistic. I suggest that you stick to real examples and not ask others to follow you down fantasy garden paths. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
This second Climpaton hypothetical represents any one of countless TWODABS situation in which initially neither of the two topics is primary, and eventually the newer use becomes primary. Apple is not even close to TWODABS (more like FIFTYDABS), nor did it ever lack a primary topic; the original use was always the primary topic. Apple meets neither of the factors that are relevant to this discussion (Apple, Inc. doesn't even meet the irrelevant "software corporation" factor). Are you following this at all? --B2C 08:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So where are we at with John Quested example suggestion?

Thank you to all for comments above. Now is it too early to take a show of hands on including the John Quested example (sorry if I've missed better example in discussion above) in WP:DAB text? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

John Quested may refer to:

I suppose the question is that given that this case can exist, should an example be given? Yes or no? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another good example:

Ashley County may refer to:

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be historical trivia, but Ashley County, Missouri, was the former name of Texas County, Missouri. older ≠ wiser 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Well goddamnit. bd2412 T 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, how about:

Bland County may refer to:

Cheers again! bd2412 T 02:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Bland County. I thought this was a hypothetical obscure place, but they are real!?

    I'm not sure of the question. Is it: "Is these, or are these, good examples for the guideline on ambiguous topic pairs, where neither is primary?" Yes, I think so.

    Both pairs have the unneceesary, harmless but occassional helpful, DAB pages containing two links.

    Why do three of the four articles not have hatnotes, whether pointing either to its pair, or to the DAB page? I would think that all disambiguated pages should have a hatnote? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

  • The question is (a) assuming there are no objections to an example being added, (b) do we have one good to go. All the above 3 look fine to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The Ashley County example turns out to be no good, because Bkonrad found a third one. The other two are, I think, both good examples, and symptomatic of the most common legitimate use of a TWODABS page - for equally obscure people and equally obscure place names. bd2412 T 12:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Given then that the 3rd looks made up, go with John Quested. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
As you have done. Thanks. That wording before looks fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_40&oldid=1165418884"