Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Movement to get rid of the primary topic guideline

See here. Johnsonsjohnson 11:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I don't see any such thing. Where there is significant disagreement about whether a particular meaning is the primary topic, there is almost by definition no primary topic. A primary topic exists only when there is widespread agreement about it. older ≠ wiser 14:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The primary topic can be found here:[1] Johnsonsjohnson 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. You can't change things without consensus, which you don't have. What is so hard to understand that the democratic stance is against your desire to make the Lost page default to the TV show? Its seemingly the only reason you signed up. --90.192.92.48 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Johnsonsjohnson may be a sock puppet, I don't know, but he does have something of a point. The debate at Lost (TV series) has not really focused on whether or not Lost is the primary topic, but whether or not a TV show should take precedence over a common English word like lost, even though there is no generic article on what it means to be lost. (There is an article on loss, incidentally.) Through discussion, it has come out that some people are voting against the move because they are opposed to primary topics in general:

Quoting: My argument is that we should not make choices for the reader. We should not assume that they are looking for the TV show, even if it's the most prominent 'Lost' topic by a million hits. -SilentC (talk · contribs)

You'll notice that of the few people who even broach the concept of "primary topic" in that discussion, nearly all are in favor of moving. I doesn't seem like people are really voting on whether or not they think it's the primary topic, so I don't believe the consensus has been decided. -Anþony 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, how about we mention how Johnsonsjohnson (contribs) felt so strongly that his fave TV program was the primary topic with the name, that he campaigned hard to have Lost, Scotland deleted to reduce the number of notable articles the show had to contend with. See here and here. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That was obviously a bad move on the part of Johnsonsjohnson, but it isn't really relevant to the larger issue being discussed here: is it appropriate for editors to make a judgement about what users are most likely to be looking for when they enter a term into the Search box? I say that it is appropriate, and that it's also appropriate to use WikiCharts as part of the determination for that judgement. The primary topic guideline is both sensible and clear, as is the evidence that the television series is the "Lost" subject most Wikipedia readers are looking for.

Some editors in the move request discussion are saying that the television show isn't the primary encyclopedic topic for the word "lost". I disagree with that interpretation of the data, but respect it as a fair and sensible reason to oppose the move request. What isn't sensible, in my view, is to argue that any topic which has more than one meaning should be disambiguated, as SilentC does here. Of course, SilentC also seems unclear on some other key Wikipedia guidelines and policies... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Bkonrad (older != wiser) has put it perfectly. When trying to decide if/what the primary topic is, if there's a lot of disagreement, as there is in this case, then it signifies that there is no appropriate primary topic. If no one can agree on what the most prominent article is, then it's just best to keep them all un-significant. -- Natalya 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying that one particular example doesn't have a primary topic and saying that the very concept of primary topics is flawed. Silent C wrote, "I believe if there is more than one article that has a claim to the title in question, the title should be a disambiguation page and all other articles sharing the title should be qualified. Whether that be Paris, or George Washington or Awl." That proposal is what's being discussed here. Saying "there is no primary topic for this title" is fine. Saying "If more than one article can reasonably be created with the same name, both articles shall be differentiated and the original article name shall become the disambiguation page" (see here) is problematic. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, SilentC's statement should be changed to "if there are more than two articles that have claims". If there are exactly two articles, a hatnote (top link) to the article that has a qualifier is all that is needed. Chris the speller 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But that would involve making the determination of which should be qualified: hence, primary topic. I think that's perfectly fair (and it certainly reflects existing Wikipedia practice). But what SilentC is saying is that every ambiguous title should be reserved for a disambiguation page, and we should never make a judgment of which meaning is primary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to point out that Bkonrad (older != wiser)'s evaluation of the debate at Talk:Lost (TV series) is flawed. Yes, the consensus there is that the page should not be moved. However, at least some of the people voted against moving even while acknowledging that Lost is clearly the primary topic. "Do you think Lost should be moved?" is one question which has been answered with a resounding "no" and some questionable rationale. "Is Lost the primary topic?" is another question which has yet to be addressed. -Anþony (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

External links in disambiguation pages?

There seems to be a rigid rule against external links in disambig pages. But there are times when linking one alternative of a disambig to an external link instead of to a Wikipedia page, is the most compact and tidiest way to provide the information. A recent example is that in a reference in this version of the page Lake effect snow I found a link to COMET, which proved not to mean anything at that time pointed to by COMET or comet or comet (disambiguation). So I did this:-

• Redirect COMET to comet.
• Transfer COMET's previous #redirect link to comet, accompanied by a new link for the meaning meant in Lake effect snow:-

==Acronyms==
'''COMET''' can be:-
* COmmunication by MEteor Trails: see [[Meteor scatter#Military use]].
* [http://www.comet.ucar.edu Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training].

but someone at once, and twice, deleted the external link line. One of them suggested "make the disambig page point to a Wikipedia page, which points to the external link.". But the resulting new page Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training would be not much more than the external link and thus vulnerable to being quickly speedy-deleted or AfD'ed, thus losing the link to the external information about that meaning of the acronym COMET. So (without getting sidetracked here into discussion about whether the external link in question is notable), please, it would be useful to be allowed to make a disambig line point to an external link.

If the objection is that it would cause trouble for disambig-handling bot software, then that software should be set up to allow for external links in disambig lines. Anthony Appleyard 09:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what your argument is yet but I think can summarize one reason against as disambig pages being primarily navigational tools, rather than intended as sources of information in themselves. The link should go in the article for the subject, and if the subject isn't worth including in an article, why are we including a link to it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And indeed, the disambig line with the external link is a navigational tool, navigating the reader to the external page named. Anthony Appleyard 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a directory of external links, though, so if there couldn't be an article, we don't include it in the disambig. We need not include links to every possible meaning of a term, only those that meet our standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Night Gyr, if the article is not worth having, we don't need a dab page entry for it, and if the article is worth having, take a couple of minutes to create a stub article for it, just a sentence or two, with the external link in the ==External link== or ==References== section. It would help if the stub contained a link or two to real articles, and if one or two of those articles pointed back to the stub; then its deletion would be unlikely. If nobody thinks it's worth a couple of minutes, I think we can get along without it (until someebody does). Chris the speller 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Well put. -- Natalya 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The obvious CSDs that might be involved are G11 (not applicable if you're trying to provide information without spamming) and A3 (not applicable if you write a couple of sentences), so deletion is unlikely to be too much of a problem. --ais523 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline_list

This template has been on the project page for I don't know how long, and was abruptly removed. I put it back and called for a discussion. Since then it has been abrubtly removed again. I have no special interest or personal stake in this template, but I can imagine cases where it might be handy, and I thought that a polite editor might ask others if it is useful before removing it. Please comment; if its removal makes Wikipedia better, I have no objection. Chris the speller 04:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See the template talk page. This is cludge; Talk page guidelines, Don't bite the newcomers, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with this page, yet the pages that do, for example the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages and WikiProject Disambiguation, are not there. This is just a duplication of the List of guidelines; that other pages are "Guidelines" has nothing to do with whether it would be useful to navigate to them from this page. There are select policies, help pages, Manual of Style subguidelines, and Wikiprojects that are highly relevant to navigation, but most guidelines are not. One size fits none. —Centrx→talk • 04:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've readded it. It's perfectly relevant to anyone who wants to navigate among our guidelines. Centrx, if you don't like the navigation template, take it to TFD or the template talk page first, instead of pulling it off of every page and leaving them without an easy way to get ot other guidelines. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is on the template talk, and I haven't been removing it from "every page". I removed it on this one because I came here for a quick link to the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages, but found that in the "navigation" template, the most highly relevant other page was not to be found there, despite it being a long list supposedly for helping navigation. Also, the template itself does not warrant deletion, so it doesn't warrant TfD; it has its uses but those uses are not to be put on every guideline page (it is on several user pages and user "toolboxes", and is clearly useful for that). For navigating amongst guidelines, there is a list of guidelines at Wikipedia:List of guidelines, and we can have a link to that list, but that does not mean that anyone is for some reason specially interested in "Sign your posts on talk pages" yet for some reason totally disinterested in "Neutral point of view", which like many other useful pages that people might want "an easy way to get to", is nowhere to be found on this list. —Centrx→talk • 05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a policy, not a guideline. Policies are linked from the bottom of that list. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So what? It would be just as useful to have it listed for easy navigation, and it is much more important than these guidelines, and no more or less relevant to disambiguation than the others. There is already a "guideline" header that denotes that something is a guideline, which links to the page about guidelines and therefrom the list of guidelines. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that this is the sort of thing that looks very official and useful, but that doesn't mean it is. I'll create a template for disambiguation-related subjects and put those on the relevant pages. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• We would be better off creating specialized templates that group a bunch of related guidelines together. The current template is an arbitrary listing of arbitrarily chosen guidelines. (Radiant) 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous link marking

Whilst attempting to improve some links to disambiguation pages, I often find that I am not able to determine which of the specific meanings is the right one. The obvious thing to do is to leave the link ambiguous.

I was thinking though, that it might be an idea to mark the ambiguous link in the article so that it is highlighted so that other readers, who might be able to disambiguate the link correctly, would have a suggestion that they might be able to help.

I've created Template:Ambiguous link, with the idea that it can be placed directly after an ambiguous link like this: I live in Reading.

What do you think? Duckbill 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; however, Link needs disambiguation is a bit long. What about making it shorter; perhaps, Disambiguation, which would also indicate that the link goes to a disambiguation page as well as needs making more specific. Snowmanradio 10:29, 2 December 2006

Disambiguation needed, like {{cn}}? Septentrionalis 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the current instance of this seems to be working fine. It's a good idea Duckbill, and fairly straightforward for use for things like geographical disambiguation. --JohnDBuell 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. I see we have {{cn}} pointing to {{Fact}}. Perhaps we should have {{dn}} pointing to {{Ambiguous link}}? Duckbill 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I have now updated the wording for {{Ambiguous link}} and created {{dn}} and also {{Ambiguous link/doc}}. Duckbill 21:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-wide single disambiguation scheme

There seems to be two forms of disambiguation in use at Wiki - Parantheses and commas; unfortunately the comma has other uses (such as in titles and proper names). Wouldn't it be a good idea to explicitly adopt a form of disambiguation and discourage others to avoid confusion?

The most flagrant example is in placenames, especially US cities, where American contributors have brought the "speaking from one state to another" disambiguation practice ("city, state"), common to the US, to become a Wiki guideline. THEPROMENADER 10:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. It is a wiki guideline for communities in the United States (and some other countries) because it is the convention in the local English dialect. Septentrionalis 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses also have other uses in titles and proper names, although this usage is much less common than use of a comma. --Ishu 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To ThePromenader, strictly speaking, commas are not explictly a distinct method of disambiguation. As described under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic, there are basically two options, use an alternate name or use a parenthetical term. Use of commas with the U.S. city names is a stylistic convention, which also happens to disambiguate the city names. The city, state formation is in effect an alternate common name for the places. There is really nothing "flagrant" about this at all. older ≠ wiser 21:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no "stylistic" convention - the use of "City, State" in wiki is just a convenient porting of a common US habit to the Wiki media by US contributors. Yes, other countries do and have done the same.

"State" in a "City" article name serves foremost the purpose of disambiguation - to anyone having universal comprehensibility and organisation (of Wiki namespaces) in mind, any other excuse/reason for a name form can only come second to this. THEPROMENADER 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is quite obvious that there is a stylistic convention in the use of City, State as a naming convention. Yes, disambiguation is certainly a major factor in the adoption of such a convention, but it is nonetheless a stylistic convention. You seem to deprecate it simply because it is a common practice in the U.S. and elsewhere. I don't see any basis for such deprecation in existing Wikipedia policies or practices. older ≠ wiser 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not depreciating it because it is a local practice, I am simply making a point of making clear that it is, in fact, a local practice. What is most important of all, though, is the practice's purpose is disambiguation.

Such practices or habits should not conflict or be confused with other Wiki disambiguation. This local practice (and those promoting it) are not taking the media they are publishing in into account - in fact, it seems that many are not thinking beyond their own "city" contributions (that most often are, not uncoincidentally, articles on the place they live) at all. This is natural, but small-minded as far as the comprehension of users of other nationality is concerned. I'm sure you see my point. THEPROMENADER 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm dense. I don't see "City, State" as having the purpose of disambiguation; it may serve that function in some instances, but it is common practice to refer to cities this way even when there is only one city in the United States that has a particular name. One might refer either to "Los Angeles" or to "Los Angeles, California" interchangeably, even assuming there is no Los Angeles in any other state. Even if you're talking about Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, it wouldn't be surprising for someone to use the state name even in a context where there is no ambiguity. --Russ (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you really say "Los Angeles, California"? Would you really say "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California"? I doubt that the state is ever added to a city name in conversation unless a) there are many cities of the same name in the US or b) the town is not a "major" one ("state" is used as a locator - most in the US know the locale of most US states).

All the same, the latter argument is moot - only the disambiguation "purpose" matters here. The "locator" function is an "informative" one, and adding only "state" to that end is rather half-assed (if the reader does not know the locale/country the state is in - take a US citizen reading "Boipatong, Gauteng" for example - what country is it in? For he, this disambiguation is pointless).

There's no point in adding anything to an Encyclopaedia namespace if it doesn't serve the better function of that encyclopaedia. If Wiki was for US-only readers, a pre-disambiguating "City, State" would be cool, and I would have no argument. THEPROMENADER 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether it is ever added in conversation has no bearing on the question as it is used even for unique city names in writing and especially in formal writing. And Wikipedia is also a written media. Rmhermen 23:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) - I edited my original reply above yours. I see your point about conversation - perhaps I should extend that to any form of communication between locals. THEPROMENADER 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To reply to Rmhermen: local traditions or habits between locals should have no place in an international media if they don't serve any purpose in the same. I think I managed to explain that in the "Boipatong, Gauteng" example. THEPROMENADER 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary Topic

I think a little clearer guidance should be given on this issue. I believe that the following text should be expounded upon:

• When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top.

Every dab page has an article that is the most sought after although it may not be very clear to most editors which one that is. I think the primary rule should be used when it is percieved that an article is the desired search result a majority of the time, but not when it is the desired result a non-majority plurality of the time. The way this currently reads it could mean that whenever it is clear which one is most sought it should be primary. I believe it could and should be interpreted to mean that when one meaning which is more sought than the others combined it can be used as the primary term. Thus, if one of 15 meanings is the sought search result 30% of the time and others are the sought result 5% each, then 70% of the time someone is looking for something on the dab page other than the main article and thus should be sent to the dab page directly. Even if one of 25 meanings is sought 40% of the time and the other 24 are sought 2.5% each I think the primary rule is inappropriate. Unfortunately, with current technology we do not know whether something is sought a majority or plurality of the time. I may go to village pump with this one, but would like some feedback.TonyTheTiger 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, all we need is more judgment on the part of editors; it might be preferable to make clear that it is sufficient that one meaning predominate and overwhelm any other, even if there are a dozen small ones. To cite the example that provoked this question, there is overwhelming consensus on Talk:Samuel Johnson that this should indeed be Dr. Johnson, even though there are a dozen Sam Johnsons. Septentrionalis 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Primary meaning may be too vague, and used to mean "whenever a topic is more prevalent". Primary example #1 is George Bush - the most common meaning is the son, but we have a disambig due to the father. Perhaps something like primary meaning in the vast majority of circumstances. I hate to have to try to define what "majority" looks like , but we may be headed down that road. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, George Bush is a pretty good example of the principle at work. While Dubya, may be the more common referent because he is the sitting president, both he and his father are approximately equal in terms of relative notability in a large context. You can't really claim that Dubya is so overwhelmingly more well-known as to have eclipsed his father. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I should add that the query stems not only from opposition to the Samuel Johnson move request but the contrast of that decision and the support for the Robert Johnson -> Robert Johnson (musician) the week before. The combination of the two results left me wondering how to interpret the primary topic rule. TonyTheTiger 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Johnson (musician) is not overwhelmingly better known than any of the others, considering English as a whole; although presumably he is among jazz-players. Dr. Samuel Johnson is known to all genuinely literate readers of English; and I don't think that's a no true Scotsman problem. Septentrionalis 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am now officially waiting for the official announcement that Sam Johnson is selected as his parties presidential nominee and does so to a theme song by rapper Samuel "25 Cent" Johnson, aka "Diggity Doggy" Johnson. TonyTheTiger 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If that happens, we will reconsider; we may then need to reconsider Robert Edward Johnson as the primary Robert Johnson too. But until then, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Septentrionalis 20:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to think about this one overnight. Suppose we get to a day where we have access to click through data to determine dab page/primary topic controversies. Basically, what is needed is a majority/supermajority primary topic rule. Basically, the majority rule would handle the aformentioned
Case 1A - 1 of 15 articles is the sought search result 30% of the time and others are the sought result 5% each. Then, 70% of the time someone is looking for something on the dab page other than the main article and thus should be sent to the dab page directly.
Case 1B - 1 of 25 meanings is sought 40% of the time and the other 24 are sought 2.5% each. Then, 60% of the time someone is looking for something on the dab page other than the main article and thus should be sent to the dab page directly.

You may recall that I felt the Samuel Johnson page was one of these types of cases, but I may be wrong. There are a couple of problems that are created by going with the simple majority. Many involve cases where a few articles share the bulk of the desired search result demand. George Bush is a good example. In these cases one article actually does have a majority but other articles have very significant demand. In these cases we need to have a supermajority rule. I do not have access to click through data so the numbers I propose would have to be refined to optimize Type I and Type II error problems created by the proposal.

I would propose the following: If

A. any 2 articles account for 85% (to be refined) of the search result demand and one article accounts for a majority of the demand or,

B. any 3 articles account for 90% (to be refined) of the search result demand and one article accounts for a majority of the demand or,

C. any 4 articles account for 95% (to be refined) of the search result demand and one article accounts for a majority of the demand,

The majority article must account for a 2/3rds (to be refined) supermajority and/or 3 (to be refined) times the search result demand of any other article to become the primary topic. Since many dab pages have only a few entries this might actually become the general rule in a sense. This also causes a problem as search result demand ebbs and flows. There would have to be some sort of determination of how to handle transient demand spikes for current news and controversy. The above truly only accounts for moving a dab page for an article page. For a move in the other direction some adjustments would have to be made that would have to be determined by consensus. TonyTheTiger 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the above, I proposed a move at Talk:New London to have New London, Connecticut as the primary topic. Using the number of incoming links an article has, I find that 75% of the total number of incoming links to places called "New London" refer to the Connecticut city. (This drops to 60% if you include the submarine base and court case named for the same city). However, there are 23 other New London places (plus the two non-places mentioned above). Does the number of naming conflicts prevent one topic from ever becoming a primary topic regardless of significance? --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy with a threshold of 95%. If there is a problem, it is with too many articles being set up as "primary", not with too few. I am ever suspicious that when a campaign like this starts, there is a missionary behind it. I have trouble imagining how a reader who enters "George Washington" could be surprised to arrive at an article about the first President of the US, but I can easily imagine a reader from Wisconsin being surprised that "New London" leads to the city in Connecticut. On the other hand, for a New England reader to be surprised to find out that there are 21 New Londons in the US, well, that's not all bad. If it takes a lot of thought and discussion to justify a "primary article", that by itself suggests to me that it probably shouldn't be one. Chris the speller 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think my main question is: does a certain threshold number of naming conflicts automatically disqualify a topic from being primary without even looking at the actual significance of a topic relative to the others. If so, what is that number? --Polaron | Talk 22:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Even if there were a thousand other articles about "George Washington" the main one should be for the first US president. If there is one subject that gets the vast majority of hits, and many articles that get relatively few, some if not many if not all may be named after the primary one. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)