Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:35, 4 July 2009

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

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

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: 45 days

• 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, 57

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Question about the {{about}} template

I am looking for a certain template. For example at Running amok, I see: {{about|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok (disambiguation)}}. And I wonder if there is a template like {{about}}, which I don't have to include „ (disambiguation)” into using it. A template that would produce the same output, using: {{aboutX|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok}}. I am looking for that aboutX template. There should be equivalent to every disambiguation template, for cases when you link to a page that contains „ (disambiguation)” into it or not. Thanks Ark25 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd've used {{redirect|Amok}} there, producing:

"Amok" redirects here. For other uses, see Amok (disambiguation).

But, beyond that, I don't see a big gain from creating an "about" template that automatically tacks on a "(disambiguation)" to the given link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I meant {{aboutX|USE|PAGE}} (only two parameters — the „other potential meanings” is somewhat redundant), to produce the equivalent of {{about|USE||PAGE (disambiguation)}} (or of {{this|USE|PAGE (disambiguation)}}):

This page is about USE. For PAGE (disambiguation), see Disambiguation (disambiguation).

In case there is such a template, I would be happy to know it. If there is not, I think it would be usefull to be created. It would be an elaborate version of {{otheruses2|PAGE}}, just like {{this|USE|PAGE}} is the more elaborate version of {{otheruses|PAGE}}. Or it can be seen as the +„ (disambiguation)” variant of {{this}}. Thanks Ark25 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to stop you creating such a template if you want, but I don't think it would be useful very often. Usually the X in "X (disambiguation)" is the same as the current page name (and we already have templates for that situation) or, if it is not, then a {{redirect}}-type hatnote is normally more appropriate (as illustrated by JHJ above).--Kotniski (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, a combination of {{otheruses1}} and {{otheruses2}} wouldn't be too far removed from what we have. Maybe {{otheruses4}} just needs to start using named parameters. But you (or I, if you don't want to mess with this code) could make {{otheruses9}} that says:

{{otheruses4|{{{1}}}||{{{2}}} (disambiguation)}}

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for late answer. I just created the otheruses9 template. In case the template is considered useful, it should be advertised with a more sugestive name, like "this1" (this2 is taken already), or I can suggest "dabthis" ( = "this" with disambiguation ) or "dabnote" ( = disambiguation note).

For example at Sydney, Nova Scotia:

{{otheruses|Sidney}}

{{otheruses2|Sidney}} Template:Otheruses2 {{This|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}

{{This1|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}

Therefore, if the editor is lazy, they can use "otheruses" or "otheruses2". If not, use "this" or "this1".

However, main question is: What is the recommended procedure: articles like Sydney, Nova Scotia, Evolution (film) shall include disambiguation note or not? For example many Avalon towns articles do not have any: Avalon, New South Wales, Avalon, Victoria etc; and most of the articles that end with (film) dont have disambiguation note. Seems Sydney, Nova Scotia is an exception. Therefore, if it's recommended to include a disambiguation note on that kind of articles, then this template would be quite useful. Otherwise, it would be only used in articles like The African Queen, where {{this|the film|African Queen (disambiguation)}} can be replaced with {{otheruses9|the film|African Queen}} - because of the "The" particle in the article name. Ark25 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAMB recommends not. If the title isn't ambiguous (and isn't the target of an ambiguous redirect), then it doesn't require a disambiguating hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section, "Is there a primary topic?", change:

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning

to

Tools that may help determine a primary topic

The words "meaning" and "topic" are not even synonyms and should not be used interchangeably like this. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done with this edit -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD with implications for disambiguation

Other editors who have an understanding of Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation would be welcome on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (disambiguation) -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And, too, someone familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could also take a look at New York State Route 399‎ (the redirect). The malplaced dab was how I first stumbled across this molehill. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about Milltown, County Armagh? I redirected it to the main dab page last month, but I was reverted. Dekimasuよ! 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that even needs to go to the base dab; people looking for Milltown, County Armagh won't be helped by the base dab, since there are no articles to disambiguate. I'll take a look at Milltown, Ireland this evening. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The mess of the number pages....

For example 123 (the year) has a for other uses hatnote to 123 (number). There is no 123 (disambiguation) page. If someone could point to a good example of the split between the year, the number and the dab page that would help in attempting this cleanup. At first glance there are lots of pages like this e.g 122 (number) and 124 (number). Tassedethe (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DAB page needed

Mariano Diaz and Mariano Díaz (photographer) need a DAB page. Note that one has an accent and the other does not. Hope somebody here can handle it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. A separate dab page isn't yet necessary; a hatnote on the base name article will direct readers looking for the photographer there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hotspot

Hot spot is first of all a physical concept so this information has to be introduced in the disambiguation list. The rest of the article 'The hot spot effect in subatomic physics' on the Talk page HOtspot should be moved , including references, to the main sector of Wkipedia as an independent article. The statement by Boleyn3 that most of the information of this article is already contained in Wiktionary is in total contradiction with facts.Gigigogo (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Gigigogo (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I copied this message to Talk:Hotspot, which is where I think Gigigogo wanted it to go. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Methodist Girls' School

DAB page upgrade, with or without the apostrophe: See here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bass

I'm having a discussion with an IP about some introductory text at Bass. If the text doesn't belong on the dab page, then where do you think it might fit better? --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wiktionary -- it seems to be etymological info, not encyclopedic info. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid dabs?

Grey-fronted, Grey-hooded, Grey-flanked, and Grey-footed seem to be adjectives, not usually dab titles... but I don't know if any of the things in question is usually referred to as simply "the grey-fronted", etc. Are these valid dabs? Dekimasuよ! 14:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. I think the scant users (no incoming links, <1 hit per day) would be better served by getting search results rather than these list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder if anyone else has an opinion. I've noticed that the dabs are new and that they're all being created by the same user, so I'm going to leave a comment on his talk page and ask him to comment here. Now we have Grey-throated, Grey-sided, Grey-striped, Grey-mantled, Grey-rumped, and Grey-necked as well. Dekimasuよ! 13:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After a quick glance, I'd say they're inessential but harmless. I think they're SIAs rather than dabs. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

SIAs aren't (or shouldn't be) catch-alls for things that otherwise don't have a place on Misplaced Pages. Even with SIAs, Misplaced Pages is still not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of data, such as "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with JHunterJ on that. SIAs are really for things that are closely associated with each other in content, not just in title. For example, I doubt that a category for animals with grey stripes would survive a CfD. Dekimasuよ! 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So if they're not dabs and not SIAs, they should be prod'd? --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting to hear from the creator, but maybe. Dekimasuよ! 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not too concerned personally what type of page they should be but surely these are potentially useful to readers? If I wanted to find info on the 'grey-hooded watchamacallit', then Grey-hooded would be a good place to start. I say leave them alone. Abtract (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just received notification about this discussion. This subject has already been discussed recently here. The result of that discussion seemed to be that these are set indices and are useful in the way that all set indices are useful. They are not catch-alls or directories of indiscriminate data; the majority of these pages list birds that use the disambiguator in question as part of their species name. Also, many of the entries on these pages are commonly referred to by the title of the page; the blacktail deer is commonly referred to simply as a blacktail as is the blacktail reef shark. The comment by Dekimasu that all these set indices have been created recently by the same user is only true of the pages specifically indicated in the current discussion. There are currently hundreds of such set indices based on bird species name disambiguators which have been created over at least the past three years, and these were not all created by me. As was mentioned by SP-KP in the prior discussion, "birders often abbreviate bird names" and therefore "it's right that we set up these abbreviations as redirects" for "if we do a bulk delete, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Neelix (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the other discussion. I still don't believe they're set index articles; these are secondary characteristics that are similar, not essential ones. If birders often abbreviate bird names to the extent that birds are often referred to as "grey-hooded", then that's a good enough explanation for me (we do have pages on adjectives that are often used that way, such as Organic). Dekimasuよ! 18:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are SIAs, they should not have the disambig template. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me now like they're valid dabs, since the idea is that the adjectives are used as nouns in some contexts. Dekimasuよ! 23:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the entries are ambiguous with the phrase, then it's a dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

These pages concern plant and animal common names, of which there are a huge variety, in many cases more than one common name applied to the same organism, and sometimes one common name applied to different organisms. Variants in spelling are common, and more substantive variants are common too. Grey-toed, grey-footed, etc. These are hard to remember, especially the common names that are not the ones you use yourself. Editors who work on Misplaced Pages articles about plants and animals often find it necessary to use dabs and/or SIAs to keep these common names under control. I have made some pages of this type myself. Please don't interfere with our efforts to figure out how best to do it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is interfering with anything. Discussion is not disruptive, and there's no reason to exclude particular editors from one because of how much they work on animal articles. The whole point of bringing the subject up here was "to figure out how best to do it" with editors who work on related pages. Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is good, but I think PRODing the pages (an option mentioned above) would be disruptive (interfere). --Una Smith (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

are there better ways to find the relevant articles, sure there are. will these help people find articles if they don't think of the better ways? I think they will. That's enough justification. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The absence of the pages at those names means that someone entering the names in the Search box would get search results for the adjectives entered. I think that would be more useful than an adjective index article. An adjective index article could also encourage other, poorer adjective index articles (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Designated) by example, and that would be counter-productive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic uber alles

There is a request to move James Stewart (actor) to James Stewart, currently a disambiguation page. See Talk:James Stewart. --Una Smith (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I screwed up there, I think. The statistics looked good until a flaw was pointed out. I think that has prompted some of the recent changes here to the Primary Topic section, which I think renders it less useful. We don't even have a definition of primary topic now!. It seems to not be well understood. I think there should be some discussion of that. My understanding is that the goal of the primary topic is to streamline navigation, which means something like "if more than (some percentage) of the people entering X in the search box are looking for 'article X1,' then it should be the primary topic." I know we don't have statistics that will give us the number for a particular dab page, but I think the abstract goal of the primary topic is something like this. It is not "the most read article on the dab page" or anything like "the most deserving of the honor." Its a pragmatic "navigation will be most efficient if..." Thoughts? (John User:Jwy talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it is not ever simply a matter of mathematical proportions or statistical analysis. There may be an article that is widely viewed and has statistics showing more page views/ghits/etc than other similarly named articles, but still not be a primary topic. For example, see recent discussions about Fedora. Is the primary topic the operating system (which is widely recognized on the internet and users of Misplaced Pages) or the hat? Personally I thought Fedora should be a disambiguation page, but current consensus seems to support leaving the hat as the primary topic, despite the statistics in favor of the OS. There are other similar pages where the most popular page is not necessarily the primary topic. Systemic bias also needs to be taken into consideration, especially with regards to pages views and ghits. Primary topic in an encyclopedia should not be a popularity contest.older ≠ wiser 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that it should focus on "navigation will be most efficient if...?" If not, what IS the purpose of the primary topic? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that one of the goals, at least a while ago, was not to send editors to the wrong article. Bottom line, statistics are not a solution in making decisions in this area. They can help by providing data, that may or may not be useful, but that are not the deciding fact.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic has always meant more common than any other, not more common than every other - "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Misplaced Pages to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." The only discussion, really stems on the fact that there are varying definitions of "much more used". Some use 20% more, some 50%, some 100%, some even hold out for 1000% more. Myself I prefer a higher percentage to establish primary usage, say 100%, and a lower percentage to retain primary usage, say 10 or 20%. This would mean that Foo Bar (actor) would need to get twice as many views as the second most viewed, say Foo Bar (singer) to become Foo Bar, while if their popularity waned over time they could stay at Foo Bar with only 10 or 20% more views than Foo Bar (singer). No one wants to define a mechanical cut off because of the Madonna rule - Madonna (entertainer) gets a bazillion more views than any other Madonna, but there is very strong opposition to the move - anyone remember (one of) the Beatles saying they were more popular than Jesus? 199.125.109.124 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is the goal of that definition? If it is the clicks (see below), "every" would be more appropriate. If not, what is the goal? I can see the issue of Madonna, but would consider that unusual (like India (disambiguation) which is treated rather specially because of similar strong opinions). But I'm hoping to focus on "what are we trying to accomplish with primary topics?" (John User:Jwy talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) There are competing goals for primary topic. Navigational (whichever arrangement yields the fewest clicks for the total audience is best) and content (whichever article seems to fit best as the topic one would expect an encyclopedia to have at the name should go at the name). Sometimes those goals line up and everyone's happy. Other times they clash. The guidelines don't specify one goal over the other because, AFAIK, there isn't consensus, so the consensus-formation is left to the individual pages. It may be time to pick one though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more to the point. I would choose clicks. Would like to hear more about the second option. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've said on other pages, I lean more towards the "principle of least surprise": what would most people expect to find at that title? The number of clicks can sometimes be misleading, as sometimes people click through to one article expecting to find another, and thus the stats become skewed. I have found that a more neutral method is to look at the reliable sources existing for either topic. If there seem to be far more reliable sources discussing one topic than the other (using the name in question), than that should probably be the primary topic.--Aervanath (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One note: one of the goals is to minimize the number of clicks. The method of determining which arrangement would minimize the number of clicks is not necessarily counting clicks on the current arrangement. Click-counting would always have to remain a tool in the tool box, not the final arbiter. Just as there is (likely) no formula for determining least-surprise, there is no formula for determining click-minimization. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart is a redirect. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of Jimmy Stewart then the article should have that page name, else the disambiguation page should have it. Evidently, contributors to the article about the actor decline to use that page name, so I have requested moving Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) there (see talk). Making many redirects to one article, while relegating two dab pages elsewhere, drives readers to that article who do not want to go there and impedes disambiguation. This brings me to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; I think many editors reading it do not see the trade-off involved when the primary topic doctrine is invoked. Disambiguation is not about showing readers a dab page, but about finding and fixing incoming links so that readers go directly where they expect to go. Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) gets about 20 page views per day and James Stewart (disambiguation) gets about 5. That is a lot of page views, considering these dab pages do not occupy the ambiguous base name. Those page views result from readers finding themselves on the article about the actor, and it is not the article they want. That tells me incoming links to the article about the actor need to be disambiguated. --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "Jimmy Stewart", then Jimmy Stewart should lead to that article, regardless of its name. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "James Stewart", "Stewart, Jimmy", "Harvey actor", or "that guy in the background of that one movie with all those people in it", then the main-space pages at those names, whether they are articles or redirects, should all lead to the article about the primary topic. A string can have no more than one primary topic, but an article can be about the primary topic of any number of strings; see also US/USA/United States/United States of America/U.S.A./etc. (primary topics) and America (no primary topic). Making any ambiguous phrase go to an article drives readers to that article who do not want to go there; it does not, however, impede disambiguation, because that article will have {{redirect}} hatnotes to help those readers who are looking for something other than the primary topic find the page or the disambiguation page. Fixing incoming links to disambiguation pages is a different problem than determining the primary topic for a string. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing incoming links is not a different problem. It is an integral problem that should be considered whenever deciding if an article is sufficiently primary that it should occupy an ambiguous base name. Disambiguating the incoming links may be far more important than the hatnote. --Una Smith (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing them isn't part of the problem, but understanding what links where is, correct? In a perfect world, the only links to a dab page would be deliberate links (and those unusual). Fixing is just administrative work that needs to be done when the decision is made. Just want to make sure I understand. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not exactly, the more pernicious aspect of incoming links is when the disambiguation page is not at the base name and there is a substantial number of links to the base name that should be disambiguated. These are not readily apparent by using what links here and once a page had been at the base name for some time, it can be difficult to dislodge it. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. That's the "understanding what links where" - we need to understand this situation when we look at pages hits and they should be fixed in any event. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are on the same page here. I don't know why, but this is something Misplaced Pages editors simply do not understand unless they spend time disambiguating incoming links. The number of links increases as Misplaced Pages grows. Over a year ago, I disambiguated incoming links to AFP, a dab page; now there are over 100 more incoming links to AFP waiting to be disambiguated, but because the dab page is at the ambiguous base name rather than at AFP (disambiguation), all the new bad links are isolated and the job of disambiguating them (of fixing htem) is relatively straightforward. Now lets say a "primary topic" occupied AFP, as happened briefly; there would then be thousands of correct links and the hundred new bad links would be lost among those. I am willing to fix 100 bad links; I am not willing to sift through thousands of good links to find those 100 bad links. And what about next year, when another 100 bad links has accumulated? I certainly am not willing to sift through thousands of good links again. London is something of a model for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When is the last time its incoming links were disambiguated? How many thousands of them are bad? The cost of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in the interest of "least surprise" we create a burden of "unpleasant surprise" for some readers. That is why some editors, including myself, want a primary topic to be 10x more popular by some measure than the next most popular topic. This is especially important when there are many items on the dab page; in some cases only a minority of incoming links to an ambiguous base name intend the primary topic, so most readers who reach the page via links are reaching the wrong page. --Una Smith (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I hear you now (my introduction to WP was disambiguating links into Epic). but let me rephrase to make sure: Because the primary topic is at the "ambiguous" title location, careless editors (i.e. most) will often link to it when they should link to one of the other articles on the dab page. This seems to be more an argument against a primary topic at all than which one should be "it" - but still a part of this discussion. I would rather we had careful editors, but... Maybe there is another way to address that problem - some way to "force" a confirmation of the link by the editors. More thinking needed. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a question of carelessness, but of practicality. Editors will link to the ambiguous base name no matter what. Incoming links that need to be fixed will accumulate, no matter what. At least when a dab page occupies the ambiguous base name, fixing these links is made relatively efficient. There is a preview tool that flags links to dab pages, and there are link checking tools that flag links to dab pages, and there is the bulk link fixing done by Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links. None of these tools work, nor should they, if an article (a topic) occupies the ambiguous base name. If the topic really is a primary topic, so that the vast majority of incoming links are correct, then the topic should occupy the ambiguous base name. The problem is in defining vast majority. Some editors, including myself, think a topic qualifies as a primary topic only if, say, 90+% of the incoming links intend that topic. It has been my experience that where we argue re if there is a primary topic, the dominant topic does not get the vast majority of incoming links. --Una Smith (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Big change idea, possibly a new topic of discussion: if a page title is ambiguous, and there is a primary topic (determined one way or another), then the primary topic article is still to be titled unambiguously, e.g. Michael Jackson (singer). The base name (Michael Jackson) is made into a redirect to the unambiguously titled page, and the unambiguously titled page hatnote-links to the dab page as normal. Links-to-dab-pages repair is assisted, because all links to the base name can/should be changed to link to an unambiguously titled article. They will accumulate, as noted, but repair is aided because there will be no "good" links to go through in order to find the new set of bad links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ. If Jimmy Stewart the American actor is the primary topic of the string "Jimmy Stewart", then Jimmy Stewart should lead to that article, regardless of its name. The idea that a given name with a primary topic should be either the location of that article, or a dab page, is incorrect, and contradicts what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states: "...then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am trying to understand what we want the primary topic to be - what problem does it solve. We can't tell if any method of determining if something is "the" primary topic if we don't understand why we have them. What does "sufficiently primary" mean to you? One meaning is "provides most expeditious access to desired information" another is "doesn't surprise the reader." Anything else? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why we have them is simple. Let's say that there are four or five people named Will Smith, who each have an article, but one is a very popular actor who gets a bazillion more views than any of the other. That is what primary topics are for - use Will Smith for that person and disambiguate all the others.

The bottom line, however, is that guidelines are just that, guidelines. They do not say only always do this. It is very clear that each article needs to be decided individually. You can look to the guidelines for assistance, but it is not cast in concrete how to decide what to do. The one thing, however, that everyone can agree with, is that there is such a thing as a primary topic, for some subjects. Beyond that the guidelines only give you some pointers in how to find out if a primary topic exists. There is no hard and fast rule that can be pulled out and always used. The biggest disagreements have been over an individual definition of how "much more" used a topic has to be to become a primary topic, and my advice is that whenever using the term, define what it means to you, or indicate that to you such and such topic appears to be "much more used". I really do not think there can ever be, nor should there ever be, a hard and fast definition of how much is much more. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You are still describing a solution to some problem: what is the problem? Why do we need the primary topic? It appears to be navigation efficiency. (John User:Jwy talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses is navigation efficiency. I think the principle of least surprise is saying the same thing. That is, having the topic that causes the least surprise to be at a given name is probably equivalent to making navigation with respect to that name most efficient.
In the case of James Stewart (actor) → James Stewart the issue is whether the primary topic for the string "James Stewart" is the actor. My issue with the arguments there is that they are all based on conflating high page view counts of the article at James Stewart (actor) with evidence that the actor is the primary topic for the string "James Stewart". In theory, every single one of those views might have been reached by someone searching for Jimmy Stewart (which was shockingly recently rejected as the location for the article) or by clicking on a link - so the page view count tells us exactly nothing about whether that topic is the primary topic for that string. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable at all with the notion that we choose primary topics simply to minimize clicks, or even for a broader notion of navigational efficiency. I think the primary topic also has a semantic significance. The primary topic for a term (more on this below) should, in my view, be the common meaning of the term, using "wikt:common" in two senses -- frequent, and the ordinary or everyday meaning. Someone who types "school" in the search box and is surprised when they are not presented with an article about fish, for example, probably does not have a particularly strong grasp of English. Suppose that in some parallel universe we were to measure clicks or google hits or some other metric and decide that a majority of the people searching for "school" actually were interested in fish. That alone would not make it the common meaning of the word, nor should it be enough to make it the primary topic. Readers would get the incorrect impression that the common usage of the word "school" in English denotes groups of fish, and that using this word to denote a place of education is specialized or unusual.
That brings me to my other concern. Disambiguation pages are not disambiguating "strings" as several comments above suggest -- they are disambiguating words that have meanings in the English language. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an automated database, and we are in the business of delivering articles to human readers, not machines analyzing strings. Any approach that ignores meaning and simply takes a mechanical approach, routing the user to an article based on a string of characters, is inconsistent with this fundamental mission. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I opt for "strings" because not all disambiguation pages disambiguate words: N (disambiguation), 99 (disambiguation), ! (disambiguation), Uno (disambiguation), RBI (disambiguation), Michael Jackson (disambiguation), Once Upon a Time (disambiguation) -- depending on what definition of "English word" you're using, not all of those would qualify. And there's no implication of "automated database", "mechanical approach", or "machine analysis" in "string". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

R'n'B, I don't follow your point. If the language evolved such that "school" became more and more used to mean "group of fish" rather than "place for education", then both the semantic considerations and navigation efficiency needs would change accordingly. That is, we would want to reflect this change to show that fish use is primary, and, due to the evolution, we would be improving navigation by making such a change. The two characteristics seem to correlate directly. If make a particular topic the primary topic for a given name does not make navigation efficient, then that's a strong (if not definitive) sign that that use is not actually primary.
I also don't see any difference between "word" and "string" other than a "string" is not necessarily a "word", nor just one "word" - it's any string of characters that has an associated meaning in English. As JHunterJ points out, there are no other implications. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks R'n'B. I think I follow. You seem to be going stronger than "doesn't surprise the reader" to "exemplifies standard English common usage?" This is an important distinction, I think, because if an overwhelming number of people were looking for "X (article 1)" when they entered "X", then they would not be surprised by encountering "X (article 1)" and we might want it to be primary (or do we have to take into account the LEVEL of surprise by the others who aren't looking for "X (article 1)"?). But we would make another decision about it if we somehow knew "X (article 1)" was not "common usage." I understand B2c to suggest these differences will be minimal, but I can see them happening (Madonna example above might fit the case). Need to think about it. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

<<<————————————————————————

(reset indent) Ah, I think I'm getting it now. So Madonna is an example of where we might go with the entertainer being the primary topic if we were looking exclusively at navigation efficiency, because most people looking for madonna are probably looking for the entertainer rather than the Biblical figure? Another example of that might be the city in Ireland named Cork. There it was argued that the city is the primary topic because though cork is a common word, it's not nearly as likely to be searched for in an encyclopedia. But that argument failed to compel (eventually) and the city ended up dabbed at Cork (city).
Okay, so it isn't purely navigation efficiency that should be the guiding factor, but also English usage considerations, at least when a name in question has a common, well-known and "important" meaning? Shall the guideline state something like a topic cannot be primary for a given name if there is another topic for which that name is commonly used, is well-known, and is important? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think you've got it. But I'm not sure we worked it out enough to change guidelines. Let's see what others say - and I need to sleep on it. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R'n'B. One can find many compelling examples where click minimisation would not lead to the best outcome. These are especially common in the case of current events and new releases:

• A few months ago, the vast majority of visitors to Swine influenza would actually have been looking for 2009 flu pandemic;
• Right now, 99% of people who visit Wimbledon and The Championships, Wimbledon are actually looking for 2009 Wimbledon Championships;
• Come 2010, 99% of people who visit FIFA World Cup will actually be looking for 2010 FIFA World Cup;
• Leading up to the release of the final Harry Potter book, the majority of visitors to Harry Potter would have been looking for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows;
• During the X-Men Origins: Wolverine hype, the majority of visitors to wolverine would have been looking for the movie rather than the animal.

These are all examples of temporary changes to user behaviour and word associations. Sometimes, however, these associations stick permanently:

• Even after 23 years have passed, the vast majority of visitors to Chernobyl will be looking for Chernobyl disaster;
• Similarly, most of the visitors to Tiananmen Square will be looking for Tiananmen Square protests of 1989;
• The vast majority of visitors to September 11 will be looking for September 11 attacks;
• Perhaps I'm overoptimistic, but I suspect that most visitors to Kyoto are actually looking for Kyoto Protocol.

Hesperian 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you say what "the best outcome" means? Is it only that we should avoid temporary bumps in "popularity" when considering optimal navigation? I'm looking for a less contentious formulation that will avoid needless argument (not ALL argument - some is good). (John User:Jwy talk) 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have the answers... thinking on my toes here....

I guess what I'm saying is that the primary topic should be the most notable topic, rather than the most popular topic: We have a responsibility to dig our collective heels in and say "We don't care how popular George Washington the movie is; the president article stays at George Washington."

I also think topic relevance comes into play. The most relevant topic for the term "Chernobyl" is the town, not the disaster; so Chernobyl must be about the town.

It may be that these can be merged/reconciled....

What if we determine the primary topic by checking usage in reliable sources?

No matter how popular George Washington the movie is at any given point in time, an examination of reliable sources will show that the term "George Washington" is overwhelmingly used in reference to the U.S. president.

Chernobyl makes an interesting case study. A quick Google Scholar search yields papers like "Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl" and "Sheepfarming after Chernobyl", in which Chernobyl is clearly being used as the name of the event; but there are also articles like "Fitness loss and germline mutations in barn swallows breeding in Chernobyl", where the term is clearly being used as the name of the town.

This would make a rather elegant counter-point to WP:COMMONNAME. In COMMONNAME, we start with a topic, and determine the title by seeing what term reliable sources use to refer to it. Here, we start with a term, and determine the primary topic by seeing what topic reliable sources are referring to when they use that term.

Hesperian 05:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Navigation has two parts: searching, and following links. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC addresses efficient searching, at the expense of efficient following of links. --Una Smith (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

...when editors are careless (which they often are). see discussion above. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone seasons

I am struggling to figure out why the following are disambiguation pages, rather than simply short articles indicating the different subregions covered by broader cylcone-season regions: 1997–98 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 1998–99 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 1999–00 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2000–01 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2000–2004 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons, 2002–03 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2003–04 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2004–05 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2005–06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2006–07 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2007–08 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season, 2008–09 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season. bd2412 T 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- they don't look like dabs to me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. They should fall under WP:SS, if someone just writes a little summary of each one. Dekimasuよ! 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists of suffix usages

These don't appear to be disambiguation pages at all, but merely lists of words which include a particular suffix. In fact, to me they seem more appropriate to Wiktionary than to Misplaced Pages:

-archy

-cide

-graphy

-hood

-mania

These are somewhat closer in that they indicate different purposes for which the suffixes are used, but they are still dictionary material:

-ic

-ous

-ware

I propose delisting them as disambig pages. bd2412 T 20:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delisted all but -ic, and tagged it for cleanup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Determining primary topic

On what basis is the primary topic determined to be one article and not another? Can there be multiple primary topics? Are the expectations of readers or is proper naming more important when determining a primary topic? If there is a dispute, would it be appropriate to set up a temporary disambiguation page to two uncommon redirects, and thereby use the stats tool to determine what topic readers are interested in seeing?    M   01:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on multiple primary meanings here. And I'm sure there've have been others, I just know of that one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the "Primary topic uber alles" section above. Naming based only on statistics is generally discouraged (or that changed recently, depending on who you ask). Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The basis is "consensus". Benefit to readers is more important. "Proper naming" is not a consideration in determining primary topic, as far as I know -- any article can be properly named whether it is the primary topic or not. No, if there is a dispute, it would be proper to do nothing except resolve it. Setting up a temporary disambiguation page is a kind of agreement/disagreement with one side/the other in the dispute, so it should not be done as a temporary compromise. The stats tool provides data; the stats tool does not determine anything else; it is up to the editors to reach consensus to determine what the primary topic is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

He is more talking about whether the common misuse of a term can allow it to be the primary topic for a search phrase that properly refers to another article's topic (see Talk:Peer-to-peer), I would assume. Whether the term is commonly misused is an open question that the experiment proposes to resolve, although I'm also uncomfortable with it. Dekimasuよ! 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with it because the results would have no bearing on which setup is most helpful to readers. Assuming that M is correct that a majority of users arriving at Peer-to-peer seek the File sharing article, a disambiguation page would be of no greater benefit to these individuals than the current hatnote (linking directly to File sharing with a detailed explanation) is. It would merely force users seeking the content currently located at Peer-to-peer to also follow a link. —David Levy 02:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If a majority (>50%) arrive at the peer-to-peer disambiguation page and select "file sharing", then we can suppose that they want information on that topic. We can also suppose that (unlike the majority of editors currently voting at peer-to-peer) they have exactly as much interest in the peer-to-peer networking architecture as they do in client-server - very, very little. Yes, they're only a click away with that hatnote (which they will probably ignore, since the similarity of the two articles will lead them to think they're in the right place), but now they've been directed to a topic that they didn't expect.    M   07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And there we have it. This all comes down to your utterly uncorroborated belief that readers "will probably ignore" the detailed hatnote that currently appears at Peer-to-peer:

This article is about a method of networking and its implementation, not peer-to-peer file sharing. For file sharing performed over peer-to-peer networks, see File sharing.

Basically, your theory is that readers won't understand that, so you want to protect them from the "wrong" article (despite the fact that it directly relates to the subject that they have in mind) by moving it away.

And your stance isn't unique to this particular article. In the move discussion, you've made it clear that you regard hatnotes in general as ineffective. And as I noted there, the community disagrees. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I believe a common-enough use of a term (whether or not such a use may have originated as or continues to be seen as a misuse) can be a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But in this instance, the original/proper use remains highly common (and intertwined with the other use in question). —David Levy 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there might be no primary topic, if the consensus from the discussion at Talk:Peer-to-peer results in that. But there's nothing in the dab guideline that says which way that consensus should fall. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, Peer-to-peer is the most sensible location for the article about peer-to-peer networking because the term's other common use (a reference to peer-to-peer file sharing) directly relies on the former. —David Levy 04:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What does "directly relies" mean, and how does that affect the sensibility of the location?    M   07:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "peer-to-peer file sharing" (sometimes abbreviated as "peer-to-peer") is based on the connotation of "peer-to-peer" documented at Peer-to-peer. It refers to file sharing performed via the type of network described in that article. Peer-to-peer file sharing is an application of peer-to-peer networking and could not exist independent of it. It is not an unrelated topic. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And, replying to the earlier point about the problem introduced where one group isn't helped and another group is hindered: whenever a two- or three-entry dab page is placed at the base name, there will be a case for placing any entry at the base name and using hatnotes instead to direct readers. This makes sense from a click-counting perspective, but not necessarily from a "least surprise" or "expected encyclopedia entry" perspective. If there is no consensus for which of two or three contenders should go to (remain at) the base name, then there is no primary topic and the dab page goes to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In this case, however, the article currently occupying the Peer-to-peer title is about the underlying technology on which the specific type of "file sharing" in question is based. Therefore, there is no surprise. (And in fact, the article's content is directly relevant.) —David Levy 04:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely a surprise, and an insidious one - because of the similarity of the pages, many readers are likely unaware that they are at the wrong article, and wondering why it doesn't cover copyright issues, court cases, specific file sharing clients... which it did actually, since even editors were confusing the two subjects. Similarity of subjects should be a greater reason for a DAB page, not a lesser one - or am I wrong?    M   07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And you base this assertion on the fact that a handful of editors (one in the past 1 ½ months) have added information pertaining to peer-to-peer file sharing to the article about peer-to-peer networking. You attribute this solely to the title (as opposed to the fact that the two subjects are directly related and overlapping in their scope).

And for some reason, you believe that the hatnote that now reads...

This article is about a method of networking and its implementation, not peer-to-peer file sharing. For file sharing performed over peer-to-peer networks, see File sharing.

...is insufficient (and somehow less helpful than the text "Peer-to-peer file sharing" on a disambiguation page). —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(in reply to the above) There was a thought of placing the DAB page at the contested title, so as to measure where readers were going - just for a couple of days, even. I think that the objection was that this might be seen as an abuse of DAB and the stats tool, or unconventional. Would it be seen in this way? Having the DAB page link to seldom-visited redirects for the duration could give us some very accurate stats. And are such stats generally useful in establishing consensus?    M   08:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not when there is no underlying dispute regarding the fact that many readers arriving at the page seek the File sharing article, as has been explained to you over and over again. —David Levy 08:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages