Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:38, 11 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disambiguation page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:D WT:DAB

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Threads older than 3 weeks may be archived by MiszaBot II.

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

Categorization of Dab pages

Nowhere is it explicit that disambiguation pages should have no categories other than disambiguation categories. This should be made specific. Why should this be so, one may ask? Because categorization of any non-disambiguation category (such as category:Mountains of Fooland or category:Fooish surnames or the like) treats a disambiguation page as an article, which it is not. There are no references permitted, no substantive information provided; it's merely a navigational gateway to articles where information is provided, supported (we hope) with reliable sources. I propose adding a section as follows:

== Categories ==

Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not be categorized as such. Any categorization of disambiguation pages is provided by use of the {{disambiguation}} template and parameters permitted (geo, etc.). No other categories should be used on disambiguation pages. Hidden categories may on occasion appear due to maintenance or other tags and templates, but no explicit categories (such as Category:Mountains of Fooland or Category:Fooish surnames or the like) should be used on disambiguation pages - as each of those would require reliable sources, which cannot be provided in a disambiguation page.

Any thoughts? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But what of the dab pages containing, among other things, short lists of last names (i. e., when a separate surname set index does not yet exist)? I understand the rationale behind the proposal (and mostly agree with it), but in case with the last names it seems that removing a "surname" category would be somewhat counterproductive...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 18, 2012; 20:06 (UTC)

WP:DCAT alludes to it. Note that when lists of surname-holders or lists of given-name-holders are included on a disambiguation page, it is acceptable to put the more specific Category:Fooish surnames on the disambiguation page, or to split the list of name-holders to its own article with the more specific category. But the exception for surname and given name categories is the only one I'm aware of, and I clean out any other categories (such as your Category:Mountains of Fooland) on disambiguation pages I clean. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It should not be acceptable to put Category:Fooish surnames on the disambiguation page - a new article with sources must be created to contain reliable sources to show that the name is indeed Fooish - anything else is pure conjecture and surmise, and where applied to living people, strictly prohibited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Ëzhiki surname is a parameter that can be used with {{disambiguation}} - it generates the category of "Surnames", which needs no sourcing - what is unacceptable is to "claim" the surname as "fooish" without reliable sources, in the same way that Arras (disambiguation) has been claimed to be an Albanian toponym (I guess the French just borrowed it?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but since the dab guidelines do not permit sources on dab pages, it's simply impossible to justify a "fooish surname" cat on dabs which include short lists of last names, even as such inclusion is an allowable practice per WP:DCAT. Looks like another example of bureaucracy standing in the way of encyclopedic work, if you ask me. If sources were allowed (at least to address this kind of situations), there wouldn't be a problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 19, 2012; 13:12 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46, you are welcome to split any surname-lists + surname categories from any dab pages to new surname articles, but there's no "must be created" nor any BLP violation (since having the category "Fooish surnames" on the page "Bar (disambiguation)" does not mean that every holder of the surname Bar is Fooish, only that some might be). Keeping short surname lists on dabs (with their categories, if any) is one of the compromises we reached through consensus. I am no fan of surname-holder lists, but I suspect that changing that compromise is going to be difficult. Ezhiki, whenever your encyclopedic work requires a citation, you are also welcome to split the surname list + categories + citations to a new surname article; there is no problem, bureaucratic or otherwise, standing in your way. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources could be added to an article page discussing the surname or whatever and have sources. Statements and categories that need sourcing simply shouldn't be on dab pages, which are not articles and serve to guide users to articles. There's nothing encyclopedic about sourceless information. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add restrictions to the disambiguation guideline against consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a logical conclusion to ALL categories requiring reliable sources; you seem to disagree with that, now a RFC will solve it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would note that Richmond Township, Michigan is appropriately in Category:Michigan township disambiguation pages, which makes sense because all of the locations on the disambig page are in Michigan, and there are many such disambiguation pages. I generally agree that disambig pages should not be in regular article categories, but if all of the topics on a disambig are, for example, places in a particular state or country, it seems reasonable that the page should be categorized in the general intererst topics for that country. bd2412 T 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's appropriate, as long as the cat is a "disambiguation" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with such a blanket restriction; numerous anthroponymy articles start as disambiguation pages but are nicely categorized, and there is usually zero controversy. I realize WP:BLP sounds like a wonderful stick to beat people with, but it shouldn't be used indiscriminately. If someone wants to actually volunteer their time to split surname pages out of disambiguation pages, that's great, but otherwise please don't destroy existing good work without an actual reason. --Joy (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed restriction as well, as per Ëzhiki and Joy. Pragmatically, categorization is often useful even on disambig pages - and yes, eventually a disambig may grow into a real article, while retaining a category. Trying to create an absolute strict distinction between disambigs and "real" articles strikes me as a misdirected effort. -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Carlossuarez46 also created Category:Given name disambiguation pages and Category:Surname disambiguation pages. I've reverted the edits to Template:Disambiguation/cat and Template:Disambiguation/cat/doc. CFD to follow, but not immediately. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The categories have finally emptied. CFD at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 10#Name disambiguation categories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree 100 persent with Carlos Suzrez here. The idea of placing disambiguation categories into categories is just plain wrong. Most of these pages will have things that are not about the surnames at all. It is a bad idea. Disambiguation of things should be in disambiguation categories, not in regular categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  Disambiguation pages are in disambiguation categories. Disambiguation pages that also hold a list of non-ambiguous, partial-title-match name-holders might also be in the appropriate surnames or given names category, per the compromise that was reached earlier. I agree with you that placing disambiguation categories into (other) categories is just plain wrong, so I've proposed that the two categories that do that, Category:Given name disambiguation pages and Category:Surname disambiguation pages, be deleted. You appear to disagree with Carlossuarez46 there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

broken toolserver link

http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/dablinks redirects to itself. It should point to http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py. Can someone notify the author? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There appears to be a difference of opinion on whether (a) placement of a page in a category must be supported by reliable sources, and (b) whether disambiguation pages may have explicit categories other than disambiguation categories, such as Category:Fooish surnames. The community should form a consensus on how to handle this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article content needs reliable sources; disambiguation pages are not articles. WP:DCAT already describes the community consensus. When lists of surname-holders or lists of given-name-holders are included on a disambiguation page, it is acceptable to put the more specific Category:Fooish surnames on the disambiguation page, or to split the list of name-holders to its own article with the more specific category. Editors are welcome to split any surname-lists + surname categories from any dab pages to new surname articles, but there's no "surname article must be created" mandate nor any BLP violation (since having the category "Fooish surnames" on the page "Bar (disambiguation)" does not mean that every holder of the surname Bar is Fooish, only that some might be). Keeping short surname lists on dabs (with their categories, if any) is one of the compromises we reached through consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style shows that dab parameters should be used. More specific disambiguation categories (such as counties mentioned above) are tolerated but adding substantive categories like Fooish surnames is just wrong without reliable sources. "Fooish surnames" is not a subcategory of Category:Surname disambiguation pages nor ought it be. I - and most readers - would expect anything categorized as Fooish surnames to have some encyclopedic content about the surname; not just a list of people and things, some of which may or may not even have the supposedly Fooish surname. As for your argument that not everyone in the dab page needs to match the category - there is no encyclopedic value to adding the cat; the user expects some content. As for your "no BLP violation" - then you'd agree to adding Category:LGBT people to any dab page with at least one LGBT person's article in it, since adding Category:Fooish surname is ok with one Fooish person on the page? Illogical. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link showing where this was discussed and the consensus you claim exists reached. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DCAT, so probably its Talk archives. Please provide a link showing where WP:DCAT does not actually represent the community consensus, and where the consensus you claim exists was reached instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with JHJ. In general, categories (other than disambig cats) should not appear on disambig pages. However, surname and given name categories are a necessary exception, because of the many cases in which proper "name articles" have not yet been split off from the disambiguation pages. Where a distinct name article does exist, that article and not the disambiguation page should be categorized in any appropriate name-related categories. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an assumption that the surname is notable? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not by us. But see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Home backup#Background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles about names, including lists of people with a name, are not disambiguation pages. Any such lists on dab pages should be split to separate pages. MOS:DABNAME sets out the difference. WP Anthroponymy is not particularly active but such splits are ongoing. It's good to see from the contents of Category:Surname disambiguation pages that the splits have been practically completed for A to Q. Once R to Z are done, there should not be a need for that category. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The contents of the ill-considered new Category:Surname disambiguation pages are dwindling I believe because the WP engine is catching up to the revision of the ill-considered changes to Template:Disambiguation/cat that switched Category:Surnames to the new Category:Surname disambiguation pages in late December. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ship index articles and (disambiguation) titles

Discussion related to the use (or misuse) of (disambiguation) in set index article titles is going on at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ships#Deletion request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

References

"Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed."

What about red-links? I think this part needs more clarification. -- Dalba 18 Dey 1391/ 12:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If you need a disambiguation entry for a red link and have a citation for it, turn the red link into a blue link by making it a stub with the citation, and then add the entry. Or, add the citation to an existing article that mentions the topic of the new entry if the entry is to have a blue link in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope JHunterJ doesn't mind if I clarify that the entry must have a blue link in the description, and the bluelink must mention the disambiguated topic. So a citation would presumably be appropriate at the blue link. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Just one more questions: What does "almost every case" mean in WP:DABSTYLE? (Could you give me an example of a situation where no blue link is needed?) MOS:DABRL says: "If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages" "keep a blue link in the description". According to MOS:DABRL, is it right to say that blue link is needed only when the red-link is not used in any other article?-- Dalba 18 Dey 1391/ 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea why it said "in almost every case". I just deleted that phrase. No, the blue link is needed for every red link entry or unlinked entry. The red link is to be removed (leaving an unlinked entry with a blue link in the descritpion) if it's not used in any other article. The key is the purpose of disambiguation pages: to navigate the reader to the encyclopedic coverage for the topic sought. If there's no encyclopedic coverage, no navigational assistance is possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "a blue link is needed for every red link" does not mean that a red link that meets the criteria of MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION should be deleted because there is no blue link; it means that, in this situation, the blue link should be added to the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that "in almost every case" is useful: there will be some rare cases where two blue links are much more useful than one. A couple coming to mind are where the disambiguated term is a joint name for two people (literary pseudonym, double act, etc), or where it's a bridge from A to B.

I opened a couple of pages in tabs, from my watchlist, but then read WP:DAB itself before coming to this talk page, so I reverted JHJ's change before coming here - but I think I would still have reverted it, even having read the discussion first. PamD 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've split that guidance into two, to clarify the answer to دالبا's question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's now clear, although somewhat clunky! We might be able to come up with something smoother, but we seem all to agree that every entry needs one blue link and it will be very rare that it benefits from more than one. Of course the entries which start off as redlink plus bluelink will often become two-bluelink entries, when the redlinked article is created and the editor, quite reasonably, doesn't check all the incoming links to their newly-created article. But they'll get cleaned up in time. PamD 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Primary Topic"

The primary topic should, in terms of both usage and of long term significance, be the topic any reader is much more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics identified for disambiguation.

I propose to insert the above definition of "primary topic". The words are taken primarily from Template:Primary Topic. Currently, there is no reasonable definition on the project page. (conseqeuently, people imagine their own definitions).

I inserted it here, but have been reverted for little more than "no consensus". Are there any substantive objections? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is much better than the present mess at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but will probably get pushback from those who always like to be able to pick a primarytopic even for very ambiguous terms. I'd support it, or something along that line if better suggestions come along. And that template Template:Primary Topic should be deleted; it's just Born2cycle trying to hide away a definition where he can control it; he has been advised many time to stop that harmful and confusing practice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pushback is good. It is an excellent way to find boundaries. I don't agree that everything Born2cycle does is evil. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I support it as well (although the current text is not a mess). It probably will get pushback from those who always like to be able to ignore a primary topic even when the readership would be better served with a primary topic for the title, and who always like to be able to overqualify titles from ambiguous terms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• JHunterJ's edit, to

The primary topic is the topic with long-term significance or the topic the readership is more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics for the ambiguous title, or both.

was productive and should be reinstated. Noetica should stop reverting progress without substantive objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the last words "or both" are needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'd happy to exclude ", or both". Any editor should feel free to reinstate that progress despite Noetica's reversion. That text simply restates the existing Primary Topic criteria that's still in the guidelines. The template's text is wrong; the primary topic does not need to be "both" long-term significance and usage. It also does not need to be "much" more likely than the combination of all others; only more likely than the combination of all others and much more likely than any of them. I was unaware of the template's existence until now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  And now that I've looked, I'm not sure I see the problem with the template. It doesn't hide anything away. It simply says whatever this guideline says. Changes here will be reflected in its output. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted edits made in the last thirteen hours or so (see diff). In the section "Is there a primary topic?" Together the changes affect the conditions for determining that there is a primary topic. We shifted from this:

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This 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 (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.

To this (change affecting the definition is underlined):

Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. The primary topic is the topic with long-term significance or the topic the readership is more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics for the ambiguous title, or both.
If there is a primary topic, the ambiguous term leads the reader to it. If the article is not titled with the ambiguous term, then the ambiguous title redirects to the primary topic. The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
If there is no primary topic, the term is the title of a disambiguation page or a redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page (if it covers multiple similar ambiguous titles).

Now, the rest of the page is unaffected. It contradicts the addition that I highlight above. For example:

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: ...
...
There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move.

And more. Such a contradiction is no good for anyone; and undiscussed moving of the goalposts for primary topics is bound to be controversial. Personally, I am against making it any easier to discover a primary topic, and I would like to see the matter discussed here with wide participation to find where consensus lies.

I have removed "the" from the section heading here, so that it does not prejudge in favour of there being primary topics by default. No accuracy is lost by that omission.

(Editors, please remember that we are in various time zones around the world. Don't expect quick responses!)

Noetica 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noetica,

If you feel the need for highlighting the before and after texts, would you consider doing it in side-by-side cells of a table (or similar).

I agree with you about contradictions. I don't see the contradiction, just lack of clarity.

I am also against making it easy to assert that a topic is "Primary". I think the way to do this is increase the obyectivity of the measurement of primacy. Currently, it is pretty weak, and allows any editor to assert that their favourite topic is Primary without risking a contradiction to the the guideline they bluelink.

Personally, I think a Primary Topic should be in respect to *both* usage and long term significance. Where the two contradict, we should assume that we have two groups if readers, readers interested in current, popular usage, and readers interested in more serious, academic or historic long term significance. We should not ignore either group, and if the topic is ambiguious, it should be disambiguated.

When JHunterJ changes the "and" to "or", I think it is still better than the previous versions, but that we need to find something in the middle. If one meets theone definition, but not the other, it may be completely fine. The problem with a straight "or" is that it can in theory define two different Primary Topics for the one topic. This is a point of rare frequency, and I think it best to define a reasonable definition as a starting point.

A benchmark I have in mind is "Big". I think it absurd that this is considered to be the primary topic, from a historical perspective, across all of the English speaking world. I think it is a"Primary Topic" for Tom Hanks fans, but not for a global audience. Recent RM and Move Review discussions revealed multiple editors could claim opposite conclusions of the interpretation of WP:PIMARYTOPIC, thus revealing the ineffectiveness of the guideline.

I put back the original section heading because it is the target of incoming links. I don't think it is a problem expecting people to understand that for a given topic there is not necessarily a "Primary" topic. If you do, the guideline should say so more plainly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Big is a Big problem. Even if we agree that it's the primarytopic (due to no other article vying for that title in WP), it makes little sense to use such an ambiguous topic name as an article title, when Big (film) is so much more precise and recognizable. But the disambig guidelines are written in such a way as to encourage naming a primary topic, and having named one, using it as title. This should be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Primary Topic should not be defined in terms of existing article titles. Usage and long term significance goes beyond the standard contents of an encyclopedia. We should also think of downstream and external usage. Can the link en.wikipedia.org/Big be considered a Primary? I think Primary should be considered the antonym of ambiguous, though softer than unambiguous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

OTOH, Primary Topic should not be defined in terms of downstream usage (if downstream means future; if it means something else, let me know). Future Misplaced Pages can handle future usage. Primary Topic is already defined in terms of external usage, of topics that have Misplaced Pages coverage, which is how it should be. "Primary topic" only has meaning in cases of ambiguity; if a term is not ambiguous, then it has only one topic, whether you call that position first, last, or middle. Dicklyon's disagreement with WP:PRECISION (putting qualifiers on titles that don't need them) should be addressed there. The Primary Topic guidelines do not encourage using the term as the title; they rely on the article naming guidelines for that, and if the article is named something else, the disambiguation guidelines simply say to make the ambiguous term with that topic as primary should redirect to the title given by the naming guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dont start negatively

Noetica, this was a bad edit. The asserting of a negative fact in introducing something is intellectually weak. The asserted fact is also quite dubious. The whole section is a dogs breakfast, and is demonstrobably ineffective a guidance. Suggesting an important emphasis on what? And do you even appreciated the substance of the paragraph, or are you too busy elsewhere to allow editing here? Please consider the applciability of Misplaced Pages:Status quo stonewalling, please read Misplaced Pages:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", and please tell me what part of WP:Consensus I am not following. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Briefly, Smokey: Yes, I am flat-out busy with a hundred things. It doesn't help anyone, if edits are made to a central guideline (deferred to in policy at WP:TITLE) while the issues are being discussed here, and while precise applications of the guidelines are attempted at more than one current RM. There is no rush. Nothing is lost by orderly, methodical treatment here on the talkpage. This is what ArbCom has stressed for editing of guidelines recently; and it's especially important when we have strong advocates for one position or another posting both here and at affected RM discussions!

I appreciate your careful reply above. I'm being careful also; and we share concerns about these guidelines and how they have been applied, or certainly misapplied and misread in many cases.

Let others have their say, and that takes time; we all want to see the range of opinions, right? I will come back here when I have a break in my other activities. Meanwhile, keep it on the talkpage? Please?

O, and a word to the wise: linking Born2cycle's polemical custom-made essay is really not going to help keep the peace around here. Mmm-hm?

Noetica 05:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Noetica. Discussion at WT:TITLE and ongoing RMs are endless. We shouldn't wait for these things to improve an obviously improvable guideline. I am well aware of the impract of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on RMs. I actually think the lack of clarity, of definition, or objectiveness, and even of correctness, of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a root cause for the non-productiveness of many RM discussions.

If I have time and interest in doing this today, it is not for you to tell me to wait for something else first. Sorry. I admit to being frustrated by your BRD reversions. I respect your reversion, try to discuss (very few seem truly interested), and try again with a smaller edit. You seem prepared to revert any edit not pre-approved. I strongly object to that, it drives the life out of the project, it wraps the editing process in red tape. The most enjoyable and lively editing comes from improving on others' edits. You should only revert as a last resort. Reverts disencourage lurkers from contributing. The best wasy to encourage others to contribute is to make a small reasonable edit and wait to see what other's make of it. If there is no new discussion, it is time for a new edit.

I knew Born2cycle was an author, but don't know about it being "custom made". For you? I don't recall seeing direct interaction between you two. I try to keep up with the essays, and I liked it. It does reflect an editing philosophy obviously different to yours, but I didn't see it as offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to characterize Template:Primary Topic as "Born2cycle's polemical custom-made essay". The template merely transcludes text of this guideline from the section "Is there a primary topic?" contained within the <onlyinclude> </onlyinclude> tags. As JHunterJ mentioned in the previous section, this template will reflect whatever changes are made to that text. However, that said, it certainly seems to introduce a rather curious circularity and duplication to try to insert the text from that template elsewhere into this same guideline. If there is an actual disagreement between text in the various parts of the guideline, that should be addressed, but with a little more thoughtfulness than circular duplication. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"custom-made essay" II think Noetica was referring to the stonewalling essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The polemical one, not one of those for which he puts transclusion markup in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for his own purposes. Ask Born2Cycle what prompted him to write the stonewalling one. And while you're there, ask him a related question: what happened to him at ArbCom, what happened to PMAnderson (the only other editor picked out for mention), and what became of his accusations against me in the same case. (Heh. I only mention it because it will probably get relevant here, sadly.)

No time today. I'll be back in a day or so. Busy with other pages and with real life. Be consensual while I'm gone, y'all.

Noetica 12:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:City of New Orleans

The article is about the train and is the primary topic. There is a request to re-name to City of New Orleans (train). There is some opposition so I posted here in case anyone wishes to give them some advice. The hat note at the top of the article includes the dab page but not the city. Would it save confusion if the city was added as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: state the purpose of primary topic at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Due to the discussion at Talk:The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film)#Requested_move, I've realized that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation for the purpose of recognizing and establishing primary topics on WP.

Accordingly, I propose inserting the following lead sentence to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, to clearly state this purpose:

The purpose of recognizing primary topics is to best serve those readers using the Misplaced Pages Go search function when searching with a term associated with one particular topic much more than any other, by taking them directly to the article about that topic, rather than to a dab page.

Any objections? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. While I agree with the sentiment, I think the wording is terrible - I had to read it a couple of times before I understood it. Better, but not perfect, would be something like:

Many search terms can refer more than one topic, in such cases the primary topic is the one that a significant majority of people expect to find when searching for or linking to that title. For example, most people searching for "Winston Churchill" will be looking for the article about the British Prime Minister rather than his grandson or any of the various schools and ships named after him. So, to enable these people to find the information they are looking for as quickly and as easily as possible, we place the article about the primary topic at the plain title (in this case Winston Churchill) and the articles about the other topics at disambiguated titles (e.g. Winston Churchill (1940-2010), MS Winston Churchill, etc) accessible through a disambiguation page at Winston Churchill (disambiguation) which is prominently linked from the top of the primary topic article.

This is almost certainly too long, but with some trimming would I think achieve your goal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to miss B2C's point, which is that it's about the "Go" button on the search box. I think he means specifically to admit that searching and linking provide little or no reason to have a primary topic. Am I right? Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, once links are established, primary topics don't matter for linking to work. In fact, titles don't matter for linking to work, as long as the link links to the intended article. But Thryduulf is right that a very important reason for primary topics is that when a given term X has a primary topic, editors creating a link ] expect it to link (perhaps through a redirect) to the article about X's primary topic. My proposed wording misses that. I also agree the wording needs improvement in general.

But, yes, people searching with web search engines like Google, whose algorithms pay no attention to the content of URLs or web page headings (which is technically all that a WP article title is), are essentially unaffected by our choices for titles. That is, if we moved Winston Churchill to 123ABC, users Googling for "Winston Churchill" would find it exactly as well.

It's those searching (and linking) within WP, particularly with GO, who benefit when the search term with a primary topic is also the title of, or redirect to, that topic's article.

One way or another I think we need to find a clear and succinct way to explain this. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Go" button was removed in the default Vector skin years ago and many editors probably don't know what "Go" refers to. And we don't need a long text for the purpose when the guideline is more important. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC currently starts:

"Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article."

I suggest adding one short sentence after that:

"This ensures that readers using the search box are often taken directly to the article they are looking for."

Possibly add ", and wikilinks are less likely to need disambiguation."

PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Didn't know about the missing GO button! Thanks! But I see the default action when you type in a string and press Enter is to "GO" (rather than "Search").

Anyway, I support PrimeHunter's wording/suggestion. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about the GO button not existing either (I find monobook a significantly more userfriendly skin for the way I work), but yes I mostly support PrimeHunter's wording, but think that the second sentence could be slightly improved as:

"This ensures that readers using several common search methods are usually taken directly to the article they are looking for."

I say several methods as it's the search box, the go button, direct URL entry (I and others do do this), and firefox's search from the URL bar (I don't know if other browsers have this function or not) all work this way. "Usually" I think seems more significant than just "often". Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in favour of the above proposal to add a better definition of "Primary Topic". The two are too connected to have two discussions at the same time, and I think definition is more important to come first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – yes, it may be a fair representation of the purpose of primarytopic. But this purpose is often misguided, in my opinion, by putting emphasis only on the one advantage of getting many readers directly to the article they might be seeking, at the expense of all the other readers who are taken to a wrong article where they have to do extra work to find the disambig page. It's as if web search usually defaulted to the "I feel lucky" result instead of giving you options. Not a great experience, even if the majority of the time the lucky result is what you want. So, emphasizing this purpose is a step in a bad direction, in my opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Born2cycle's claimed motivation: he's "realized that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation for the purpose of recognizing and establishing primary topics on WP". Hmmm. So when one's own take on a guideline is questioned in a hotly contested RM that is not going as one likes, with hard argument one is at a loss to answer, one denigrates the opposition as "confused", and rushes off to change the guideline in midstream? Sorry: not the Wikipedian way as I learned it. We agree that the guideline needs sorting out, right? Given the extensive use it is gets at RMs, we need a big RFC. And a fair, properly constructed one (a rarity these days, but the only way to avoid trips to ArbCom I think). Please though: not now. Too much else going on. Noetica 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment