Talk:Big Bang Theory

Primary topic

The change in primary topic was discussed at the primary topic title. See Talk:Big Bang Theory. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus there to have the TV show as the lead item on this page. That doesn't even make sense, given the nature of the scientific principle, and it is inconsistent with our tendency to avoid "in the moment" popularity. While the IP shouldn't revert repeatedly, I think their idea is correct. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus there is what the primary topic of Big Bang Theory is. The ambiguous title is "Big Bang Theory". Per WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic, we intro the dab for the ambiguous title with the primary topic for that ambiguous title. Primary topic of Big Bang theory is the theory. "Big Bang theory" is not ambiguous (no other articles would be titled with a lower-case 't'), but it still makes sense to include the entry for the theory on this disambiguation page. Our tendency is indeed to reflect the current primary topic, recognizing that it can change over time. If their idea that the primary topic of "Big Bang Theory" is no longer the television show, discussion at Talk:Big Bang Theory can determine if that's the new consensus. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I sure do love me a spirited debate, especially when both sides are right. Two separate disambiguation pages exist: Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). As the article for the cosmological theory is titled Big Bang, I would agree that the primary topic for the page currently in question refers to the TV show. Thus, JHunterJ is correct, though the "consensus" is yet to be proven.

However, the real solution should be to consider the reader: How do we best guide the reader to the desired topic page? I suggest merging the two disambiguation pages, as the topics of both originate from the cosmological theory. Both pages contain links to the Styx and Harem Scarem albums. Only Big Bag (disambiguation) does not link to the Family Guy episode. As for the primary topic question, the search term "big bang theory" directs to Big Bang, hence this would be the combined page's primary topic. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the sets of articles that could have the ambiguous topics are distinct except for the primary topics (I missed the two albums when fixing the merge last year -- fixed now), keeping the disambiguation pages separate best guides the readers who reach the pages to the desired topics. Readers do not navigate based on the origination of the topic they're looking for. "Big Bang theory" has a primary topic. "Big Bang theory" is not ambiguous -- there aren't other topics that would have articles titled that, so there is no disambiguation page to list it first on. "Big Bang" has a primary topic, the theory, and it's ambiguous with many things, so the primary topic is listed first on Big Bang (disambiguation). "Big Bang Theory" has a primary topic, the TV show. "Big Bang Theory" is ambiguous -- there are other topics that could have articles titled that, two albums and an episode, so the primary topic is listed first on Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Merging the two dabs would mean that readers who are looking for something that could be titled "Big Bang Theory" have to sift through a much longer disambiguation page to find the sought article, a drawback that is not balanced by any improvement for any other reader. The problem is only in the reading of a navigational page's layout as if it were a value judgement on the destinations, like if one were looking at a map to drive from Atlanta to DC and got irritated that there were a bunch of less important cities along the way, when clearly DC is more important and should be reached first. (And the consensus was "proven" at Talk:Big Bang Theory.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Linking to Talk:Big Bang Theory earlier, either here or at the editor assistance discussion, would have made the consensus issue less, well, ambiguous. Three things:

1. I disagree that consensus was ever reached. JHunterJ, Jnc, and Beefcake6412 saw it one way. Flygongengar, an unsigned user, and Incnis Mersi saw it yet another way. What number defines the broader community?

2. I suggest, and this really is better mentioned at Talk:Big Bang Theory, the article be renamed Big Bang Theory (TV Series). I have no statistics, but the majority of film, TV, fiction, and music articles tend to contain a paranthetical disambiguation.

3. It appears Flygongengar suggested merging the two, thus you could say there is a growing consensus to merge.

The problem with consensus is that it is truly rare. Take any congress/parliament or the UN, for example. Five links seem sufficient to warrant a separate disambiguation page. Since consensus on the primary topic is ellusive, here are some points to consider:

The Big Bang Theory (TV Series) - Currently one of the highlest rated TV show in the United States.

Big Bang theory (scientific theory) - the article title is Big Bang, and it has it's own disambiguation page.

Big Bang Theory (Styx album) (2005) - They've been together for 30 years, 40 if you count the 10 year break-up. The album reached #46 on the Billboard Top 200 Albums, and it was Styx's highest charting album in 14 years.

Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) (1998) - The group disbanded in 2008.

"The Big Bang Theory" (Family Guy), a 2011 episode - Also a highly rated TV show, but how often do people go searching for a particular episode of any show by name?

With the Styx album coming a close second, I'd say the TV show has primacy. After all, it's not "The Dark Side of the Moon." Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

How much earlier that the very first line here would you suggest I link to Talk:Big Bang Theory? (I suppose I could move it above the project tag.) Consensus was reached in October.[1] A non-consensus attempt at merging was attempted by Flygongengar and reverted. Some questions about how disambiguation pages illustrate primary topics came up and were answered in accordance with the consensus at WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic. Consensus on Wikipedia is pretty common, though, since WP defines WP:CONSENSUS differently than Webster's. A WP:RM process can indeed help, but TV shows, etc., that are the primary topic for their title do not use qualifiers (WP:PRECISION, WP:COMMONNAME, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC): Babylon 5, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Ally McBeal. They get qualifiers when the title is ambiguous and the TV show is not the primary topic -- we don't put qualifiers on all titles just for consistency. I take it that you disagree with my reasoning against merging, and would rather compel readers looking for one of the things actually titled with "Theory" to wade through the longer disambiguation page? I don't see a benefit to that arrangement, and I thought I explained it rather fully. Also remember that primary topic is not a measure of importance, but of (a) usage on the encyclopedia and (b) educational value. The cap-T topics are not much covered in academia, so usage does indicate the TV show pretty well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that link at the top. Sorry (actually, replacing the Wikipedia logo woould have been better). While 17 days between any comments, from 10 Oct to 27 Oct, was ample time to hear any objections, it looks like consensus changed after that. As for Flygongengar, the words "I have to object" were reverted, but the wording "If anything the 'Big Bang Theory' disambig page should be merged into the 'Big Bang' disambig page," were written. Several days later, there were more objections. It's a pain, but that's the life of consensus.

Recall that I wrote that "five links seem sufficient to warrant a separate disambiguation page," so I'm no longer arguing for a merge. But I stll believe it would be better to add paranthetical disambiguation. You provided Babylon 5, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Ally McBeal as examples that do not use qualifiers. Those are pretty unambiguous. Should a music group record a song or album with any of those titles, I believe the qualifier would appropriate. Also, those three example don't have much chance of becoming ambiguous. Should we comb through Wikipedia and find all the titles that do have qualifiers and don't have qualifiers? Take a gander at List of American television series. Look at the links, and you'll find a good many have qualifers in their titles. Here's a slice for movie titles with common phrases:

Madman (disambiguation)

Impact

War Game - A redirect from the movie WarGames, which by your rationale should have its own disambiguation.

Daylight (disambiguation)

Arena (disambiguation)

Ash Wednesday (disambiguation)

Also, since I agreed the TV series should be considered the primary topic, as you have stressed quite often, it seems we are saying the same thing, only we are arriving at them from different directions. I actually agree with your logic for not merging, except I don't think the list is all that long, certainly not as long as the distance between D.C. and Atlanta. Cheers! (it's Friday) Encycloshave (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a parenthetical qualifier to a primary topic is contrary to WP:COMMONNAME (the qualifier is not commonly used to refer to the topic), WP:PRECISION (the title does not need the qualifier, since it would be the target of the unqualified redirect), and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (primary topics are placed at the base name). Qualifiers are a technical restriction of Wikipedia, because two articles cannot have the same title. Trying to over-qualify titles in the name of consistency is directly contrary to WP:PRECISION; that a good many happen to be qualified means that a good many aren't the primary topic for their titles, not that "all" should be qualified. Some more titles with a TV series at the base name and a disambiguation page: The Simpsons, Survivors, Big Ideas, Lovejoy, The Twilight Zone, Big Love, King of the Hill, Strangers with Candy, Princess Sarah, McCallum, Too Close for Comfort, Gypsy Girl, Mine All Mine. Finding the ones that are ambiguous but disambiguated with a hatnote on the base name is harder. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that the article is "The Big Bang Theory" and only shares that name with a TV episode, it's not a big deal. If and when a movie, novel, or another TV series comes out with an identical name, we can hash this out again. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

prove words about big bang theory?

Can User:JHunterJ prove his words about big bang theory?

Dear User:JHunterJ, Prove your so-claimed neutrality, if wikipedia is to be a true reference tool, as you so claimed in your own words, then wikipedia should therefore strive to be accurate! support and execute the move! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move

Rationale: 1) Precedents: e.g. Glee_(TV_series), Once_Upon_a_Time_(TV_series), Lost_(TV_series) 2) Speaking of precedents, the show owes its name to its namesake, not to mention that the cosmological model should have historical precedence. This is at the very least, I think, because I am sure there are still skeptics out there, and as a great wise man said, only one convincing experiment is sufficient to prove a theory wrong. 3) It is quite a shame that variations of big bang, big bang theory, the big bang theory redirect to the tv series without giving users a warning, or at least an unbiased choice. 76.70.89.12 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.89.12 (talk)

Focus on content, not editors. Your precedents aren't analogous. Derivation isn't a criterion. All primary topics are "without warning". How are you going to prove your neutrality in the face of all the evidence for your ANTI-TV bias? There is obviously no consensus for your proposed move there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

There will always be pro-TV readers/editors, anti-TV readers/editors, and readers/editors who just don't care. It's not so much an issue of accuracy as it is an issue of WP:BIAS. The WP:RM drama would not be necessary if an exception to WP:D could be made for this page. Since WP:MALDAB is an extension of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the disclaimer at the top of WP:D should apply through inheritance: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In my opinion, the most reasonable thing to do would be to discuss whether an exception can be made for this page, not WP:RM. For now, I support the RM, but I'm willing to retract my vote if the interested parties were willing to begin a discussion regarding the possibility of making an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that this page can have no primary topic. Convenience is a small price for some in order to eliminate bias for all. Jusses2 (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you could demonstrate the convenience for the readers that that change would yield, we could discuss it. Given the hatnotes on Big Bang and The Big Bang Theory that are already in place for the convenience of the readers, and the targeting of the redirects Big Bang theory et al. to Big Bang, I don't see how the exception would benefit anyone except editors who take umbrage that a TV show could possibly appear on a list above a scientific theory. Readers looking for either the theory or the TV show need never reach the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is convenience valued over neutrality in this case? Convenience is a virtue, neutrality is a policy. Jusses2 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to identify a primary topic neutrally. As appears to be the case here. Neutrality does not prevent titles from having a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A primary topic is identified through consensus and applied if there are no major objections. From the edit history and current RM, it appears that the choice of primary topic is no longer undisputed. I was referring to neutrality in opinion among editors regarding the choice of primary topic, which is different from the inherent systemic bias that comes with the identification of a primary topic. However, bias is exacerbated if a disambiguation page is designed solely based on page view statistics (convenience). Jusses2 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Several questions have arisen, sometimes along with bold edits, but no consensus on a new primary topic or on removing the primary topic entirely. To remove the primary topic entirely, WP:RM to move Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to Big Bang Theory. The disambiguation page is designed on the arrangement of the articles (which one is the primary topic, i.e., reached via the base name Big Bang Theory, and then the others). As I explained above, "Big Bang theory" isn't ambiguous, but "Big Bang Theory" is. The problem here so far has rested only with editors who view the arrangement as some sort of value judgment instead of a navigational aid. And also please note that prior to the discussion of October 2011, I was also defending Big Bang Theory from undiscussed, non-consensus changes from the theory, and if new consensus is formed, I will happily return to that as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's as simple as WP:RM from "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" to "Big Bang Theory", which does not affect "The Big Bang Theory" at all, it would seem that 76.70.89.12 proposed an unnecessary RM from "The Big Bang Theory" to "The Big Bang Theory (TV series)" if the goal were to remove bias from this disambiguation page. I'll wait for the current RM to finish before deciding whether to propose RM from "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" to "Big Bang Theory". Again, all this formal procedural action would be unnecessary if an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be discussed for this page. Jusses2 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to what 76.70.89.12 expected here from the move there. The move there would involved the primary topicness for the title "The Big Bang Theory". There's no bias to be removed from this page; divesting language about "bias" or "neutrality" might help build consensus for an exception for dab page linking to the primary topic WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic for this page. Given the hatnotes already in place at The Big Bang Theory and Big Bang, what would be materially improved by varying from the usual primary topic linking? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see community cohesion as the main improvement. As long as there is a primary topic, there will always be editors who disagree, resulting in numerous less than constructive edits and reverts. I can't see how anyone would disagree if there were no primary topic, although I suppose this may stir up an angry mob of gnomes grasping tightly their laminated copies of WP:MOS. Objectively, a disambiguation page can be considered as merely a navigational aid, but the edit history shows a number of editors who see value in the choice of primary topic. An exception to WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic for this page requires merely a discussion and consensus. No moves are required, and it can be easily reversed should the consensus change. After a WP:RM to the base name, it would likely require yet another RM to undo should the consensus change. Jusses2 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Describing the other side as an angry mob of gnomes grasping tightly their laminated copies of WP:MOS does little for community or cohesion. The edit history shows a number of editors who did not understand the disambiguation page formatting guidelines and would rather disrupt than discuss. I am one of the editors who see value in the choice of primary topic. Are you saying that if the list is reformatted so that no article appears to be the primary topic (and, I assume, that the scientific theory is listed before the TV show) that the disruptions would end? Are the other number of editors in agreement? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:Gnome: "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." I apologize if you took it seriously. There are multiple possibilities for the order of entries as outlined in WP:MOS and the order should definitely form part of the discussion. Perhaps it may be logical to separate the entries into three sections:

• Big Bang Theory: Styx album, Harem Scarem album
• Big Bang theory: cosmological model
• The Big Bang Theory: TV sitcom, Family Guy episode

As the albums have the exact same capitalization as the page title, wouldn't it be most precise for them to come first? I cannot possibly know for certain whether this proposal would end disruptive edits (I'm not a crystal ball) and I cannot speak for other editors. The only way to know would be to invite other editors to join the discussion about the possibility of granting this page an exception to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jusses2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no mention of "angry mob" or "grasping tightly" on WP:Gnome. I have no problem with grouping the non-primary topic entries (music, TV), but the list is really too short to break into sections. Since this is the combined disambiguation page for the two ambiguous titles "The Big Bang Theory" and "Big Bang Theory" (which share a single primary topic), all of the entries match one of the ambiguous titles, with the possible exception of the little-t theory. We could split the dab into two dabs, one with the "The" and one without, but that does not seem to gain anyone anything either. Or we could move this page to The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). I do not see the point of trying to back-door a change to the primary topic by inverting the order here, rather than actually changing the primary topic at Talk:Big Bang Theory if the primary topic has changed. And that does seem to be the crux here: what is the primary topic of "Big Bang Theory". We usually don't ignore rules just to placate editors who don't want to use the usual processes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already apologized for WP:Gnome, so let it go and return to the topic at hand. This is not an attempt to "back-door a change". Please do not accuse me of not wanting to use the usual processes. Need I remind you of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." This is a matter of precision rather than order inversion. It is most precise to place Big Bang Theory (Styx album) and Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) at the top because they both share the exact capitalization of the dab page's title Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Big Bang theory should follow because it only differs from the dab page's title by the capitalization of a single letter. The Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) are different from the dab page's title, so the proper place for them is The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Since The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is currently redirected to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), it is most precise to place The Big Bang Theory and The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) in a separate section titled "The Big Bang Theory". Of course precision is only one criteria, but this logic would be difficult to refute objectively without resorting to page view statistics. Jusses2 (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Your "apology" said "if", which I clarified -- it wasn't the Gnome part that was contrary to your picture of community cohesion, but the other snarky (or "humorous") bits, but sure, you could let it go. It's most precise to place Big Bang Theory at the top, because it is the primary topic for this exact title "Big Bang Theory", and it leads to the TV series. No statistics needed, just a click through the base name link. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no article at "Big Bang Theory". It's merely a redirect (to an article of a different name). There are in fact two articles with the exact base name "Big Bang Theory": Big Bang Theory (Styx album) and Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album). Having a redirect at "Big Bang Theory" pointing to an article of a different name simply cannot be precise. Jusses2 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it can, and simply. That's how primary topics work. There is an article reached through Big Bang Theory, and it's the primary topic for "Big Bang Theory". Similarly, USA has a primary topic, even though it's ambiguous and the primary topic article is at a different title. "If a primary topic exists, then that term should be the title of the article on that topic (or should redirect to an article on that topic that uses a different, more appropriate title)." WP:PRIMARYTOPIC -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like circular logic: "The Big Bang Theory" (in the most precise form of "Big Bang Theory") is primary on "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" because "The Big Bang Theory" is primary on "Big Bang Theory" (as a redirect). As the issue of primary topic is not isolated to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), I cannot see this discussion progressing any further without a discussion of WP:RM to the base name. Jusses2 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the logic, although it's not circular. For each title, there are guidelines (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) to determine which topic (if any) is primary. For each topic, there are guidelines (WP:NC) to determine which title should be used. If it's primary for any other titles, those redirect to the WP:NC-selected title, because it's primary. If any of the titles are ambiguous, the primary topic might be reached at the base-name article or through the base-name redirect. But we are agree, a WP:RM is the way to go to change from the primary topic to no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I direct attention to the discussion at the top of this page. Remember that big bang has two disambiguation pages, one for Big Bang and one for Big Bang Theory. A merge has been discussed, and the outcome is to keep them separate. When we're discussing the primary topic for the disambiguation page titled Big Bang Theory and not Big Bang, how is it pedantic, i.e. grasping tightly to laminated copies of the WP:MOS, to insist the primary topic is one that closest reflects the article's title? When you review all the discussions and ad hominem attacks, you'll notice the real issue was over the fact that a scientific theory was getting second billing to an American TV show that "stole" its name from the theory. If that were happening on Big Bang (disambiguation), well that would be rediculous, but this is Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). Additionally, I think the move request is irrelevant to the primary topic, as the article title would just have the paranthetical qualifier attached, leaving the title of the disambiguation page slightly modified. By the way, as a disclaimer for those claiming this is about a bunch of TV-biased editors, I don't watch the show or much TV at all, and I consider myself a science dork (mostly Earth science). Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:MALDAB, a disambiguation page titled "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" should have a primary topic, but a disambiguation page located at the base name "Big Bang Theory" should not have a primary topic. This is why a move request is relevant to the current discussion about the primary topic. I'm not proposing a merge. Again, I apologize if you took the Wiki humor seriously. Jusses2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is at present a primary topic for Big Bang Theory -- it is The Big Bang Theory. As described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Redirecting to a primary topic, a primary topic may be a redirect to an article with a different title. On the basis of WP:MALDAB, there is nothing wrong with having Big Bang Theory redirect to The Big Bang Theory and with having separate disambiguation pages for both. It might not be the best possible arrangement, but it is in no way proscribed by WP:MALDAB or WP:DAB. I think it would be fair to say that one issue under discussion is whether that should be the case. Unfortunately, this issue has not been very clearly articulated and is somewhat lost amongst walls of WP:TLDR text. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But I agree, a move request (if made) would be relevant, and I've pointed to that process before for editors who feel that there has been a change to "no primary topic". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Who's on first? Too many WP:RMs are getting volleyed back and forth. When I said a move was irrelevant, I was referring to The Big Bang Theory → The_Big Bang Theory (TV series). Were that move to happen, the primary topic for the disamb would remain the same. How about a chart? They're always nice.

Action	Result	Encyclo's vote
The Big Bang Theory is moved to The Big Bang Theory (TV series)	Article name changes. No change to Big Bang Theory (dsiambiguation) primary topic	OK
The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is moved to Big Bang Theory	Disambiguation is literally deleted.	No
Change primary topic of The Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to Big Bang theory	Disamb is same as for Big Bang (disambiguation), leaving Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) superfluous. See #2.	No
Make an exception and remove the primary topic from Big Bang Theory (dismab) altogether	Disamb becomes pointless. See #2.	No
Everybody agrees to disagree and leaves both disambs alone, one for Sheldon and one for Fred, each with their own primary topic	We shake hands	Yes

Cheers Encycloshave (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the outcome or The Big Bang Theory is moved to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) entails also moving the disambiguation page to the "vacated" base name or retargetting the base name to the theory. That seems to be the goal of the anon's proposal, although it wasn't explicit. There is never any need to redirect a title to the same title with a qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved due to lack of consensus. Aervanath (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) → Big Bang Theory – Many users aren't aware that Wikipedia searching can be case sensitive, and a capital T on Theory isn't enough to disambiguate this term from the other options. "Big Bang Theory" should be a disambiguation page, or at least redirect to the same article as Big Bang theory. 117Avenue (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment "Big Bang Theory" should redirect to Big Bang theory (Big Bang) as a {{R from alternate capitalization}}, since it is found capitalized that way. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:AT, which acknowledges that a capital T on Theory (or M on Meat) is enough to disambiguate terms: "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail. Many such differences involve capitalization, separation or non-separation of components, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Red Meat and Red meat; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other; so use appropriate disambiguation techniques, such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages, to help readers find the article they want." And we have those hatnotes in place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  You have quoted Wikipedia:Article titles, with emphasis on article. We are discussing redirects, and disambiguation pages. The examples provided are article titles, not redirects. The "The" in front of Big Bang Theory is enough to disambiguate for an article title, but a capital "T" is not enough for a redirect. Big Bang theory and Big Bang Theory should no redirect to different pages, when neither target is the same title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  In this context, no material distinction between article titles and redirects exists; the principles on which WP:AT is based are equally applicable here. If it's appropriate for Red meat and Red Meat to send readers to different pages (as the policy indicates), it's equally appropriate in the case of Big Bang theory and Big Bang Theory. —David Levy 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly. If caps are enough to differentiate titles, then caps are enough to differentiate titles. Articles have titles. Redirects have titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The television program is the primary usage of "Big Bang Theory". The other works listed are significantly less prominent, and the uppercase "T" in theory is sufficient differentiation from Big Bang theory (which appropriately redirects to Big Bang). A suitable hatnote is in place at The Big Bang Theory.—David Levy 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There are already two articles with the exact base name: Big Bang Theory (Styx album) and Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album). I see no need to redirect the base name Big Bang Theory to The Big Bang Theory when the base name could serve as a disambiguation page for the two articles that share the exact base name. It is more likely that readers will look for Big Bang Theory (Styx album) or Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) by searching Big Bang Theory than for readers looking for The Big Bang Theory to search for Big Bang Theory. I propose the following layout for Big Bang Theory as a disambiguation page:

Big Bang Theory may refer to:

• Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) (1998)
• Big Bang Theory (Styx album) (2005)

(The) Big Bang Theory may also refer to:

• Big Bang theory, a cosmological model of the universe
• The Big Bang Theory, an American TV sitcom first broadcast in 2007.
• "The Big Bang Theory" (Family Guy), a 2011 episode of the TV series

When using page view statistics, it is important to consider the percentage of readers who are misdirected by the current page layout, not just the total number of views each page receives. As Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is an unlikely search term, it could be argued that many of the readers looking for Big Bang Theory (Styx album) or Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) by searching the base name are inconvenienced twice: first at the hatnote on The Big Bang Theory and a second time at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). This is not the readers' fault: they searched the correct base name, capitalization and all. Even worse, they may leave Wikipedia after the first misdirect, thinking that an article about the album they were trying to find does not exist. And if they weren't looking for either of the albums, they would be one click away from the correct article. Note that page view statistics do not provide the full history of the user's activity. Page view statistics count both correct and incorrect arrivals. One desirable outcome of this discussion would be to minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals. Jusses2 (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

On what do you base the assertion that "it is more likely that readers will look for Big Bang Theory (Styx album) or Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) by searching Big Bang Theory than for readers looking for The Big Bang Theory to search for Big Bang Theory"?

In a Google search for "big bang theory" with "the big bang theory" excluded, the television program dominates (with some hits relevant to the cosmological model mixed in, partially due to the case insensitivity). Apart from Wikipedia's articles, neither album is mentioned until page 8 of the results.

And this far under-represents the commonness of referring to the TV series as "Big Bang Theory", as it omits all instances in which the phrase "The Big Bang Theory" appears on the same page. —David Levy 02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please turn off Google's "personal search results" (by adding &pws=0 to the URL) and try again. Here are the top 5 results from this non-personalized search, excluding image and YouTube results:

1. Big Bang Theory: Fashion: Wmagazine.com
2. ScienceDaily: Big Bang Theory News
3. Big Bang Theory (Styx album) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Vatican astronomer says Big Bang theory in tune with creation history
5. ThinkGeek :: Interests :: Big Bang Theory

I'll let the search results speak for themselves. Jusses2 (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are exactly the same as the top five results from my original search. The only relevant disparity is that the albums' first non-Wikipedia mention occurs on page 9 instead of page 8.

Are you not seeing mostly hits related to the television program on your end (despite the fact that all pages containing its full title are omitted)? —David Levy 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, "Big Bang Theory" is the base name for the albums. What else are readers looking for either of the albums supposed to search? Jusses2 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They're supposed to seek "Big Bang Theory" and either follow the direct link to Big Bang Theory (Styx album) / Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album) appearing among the suggestions below the search field or arrive at The Big Bang Theory and follow the hatnote to the disambiguation page. That's how Wikipedia routinely handles secondary usages. It inconveniences as few readers as possible (because most seek the primary usage). —David Levy 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per User:Jusses2. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  As you're citing Jusses2's rationale, I invite you to address my response thereto. —David Levy 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support; the capitalization alone is not sufficient disambiguation, IMO. Powers ^T 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's sufficient in Wikipedia's consensus opinion, however, per the above-quoted WP:AT. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  A quick look over the above comments will show that the TV series may no longer have the consensus as the primary target. 117Avenue (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  OTOH, my quick look over the above comments shows that there is no consensus to change the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Consensus is that capitalization may be enough for disambiguation (as with Red Meat, but not if it might lead to confusion. A scientific theory is an example of something that someone might capitalize even though we don't do so here, so I consider the capitalization difference to be insufficient disambiguation for most readers. Powers ^T 04:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  We're addressing two separate (but related) issues: "Is capitalization sufficient disambiguation in this instance?" and "Is the television program the primary usage of the phrase's capitalized form?".
  I believe that the available evidence answers both questions by showing that the TV series is the most common usage of "Big Bang Theory" by a substantial margin.
  I agree that the likelihood of readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seeking Big Bang probably exceeds the likelihood of readers typing "Red Meat" seeking Red meat, but the likelihood of readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seeking The Big Bang Theory appears to be significantly greater than that possibility and all others combined. Therefore, reassigning the title to a disambiguation page would inconvenience more readers than it would convenience. —David Levy 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree, I don't think we can make any concrete assumptions about which topic is intended by "Big Bang Theory". Powers ^T 18:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I realize that you disagree, and I'm interested in your take on the Google search discussed above (in which mentions of the television program predominate, despite the fact that the results have been greatly skewed against it by the omission of all pages containing its actual title). —David Levy 07:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move, though lukewarm. While I do agree that "The Big Bang Theory" (with title case and definite article) clearly refers to the popular tv show, "Big Bang Theory" is significantly less unambiguous. But either way it makes little difference as the use of hatnotes provides roughly equivalent navigational capability to readers looking for other meanings. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. By far the most elegant and functional solution is to have the DAB at Big Bang Theory, the theory at Big Bang theory, and the TV show at The Big Bang Theory, as proposed. That plus hatnotes will work well. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Why would that be more elegant and functional? What is your response to the evidence that the television program is the predominant target? —David Levy 02:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  Elegant: Because it looks like we know what we're doing. Functional: Because people can easily get to the page they want. Response: Much the same as to your assertion above that The television program is the primary usage of "Big Bang Theory". The other works listed are significantly less prominent.... I'm afraid I have difficulty taking that seriously! A sitcom (which I enjoy too) named after one of the most publicly discussed scientific theories of all time (second probably to Evolution) is now the primary meaning of the name? Ridiculous. If your figures tell you that, check your assumptions. There is something badly wrong. Aha, it's the capital T! Now, of course we at Wikipedia know that Big Bang theory and Big Bang Theory mean different things, and on occasions we disambiguate just by case, and in some cases that's valid. But not in this one. Wikipedia is optimised for readers, not contributors, and the discrepancy between the significance of this sitcom and the theory after which it is named is just too overwhelming. Readers looking for the sitcom will know of the theory, but not necessarily vice versa. Andrewa (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. You clearly understood that I was referring specifically to the styling with an uppercase "T" (as indicated later in your reply), so there was no reason to pretend that I was suggesting that the sitcom is more significant than the cosmological model is (which would, indeed, be ridiculous). By "the other works listed", I was referring to the music albums and cartoon episode linked from the disambiguation page.
  2. By "evidence", I was referring to the Google search (in which mentions of the television program predominate, despite the fact that the results have been greatly skewed against it by the omission of all pages containing its full title).
  I'm absolutely not asserting that the sitcom is anywhere near as noteworthy as the scientific theory is. I'm asserting that most readers typing "Big Bang Theory" seek the article about the former.
  And if a reader seeking the Big Bang article does type "Big Bang Theory", he/she needn't even visit this disambiguation page. Upon arriving at The Big Bang Theory, he/she is presented with a hatnote linking directly to Big Bang.
  In other words, that article already is a single click away, so its accessibility would remain the same (while readers seeking the TV show's article would need to pass through an additional step). "People can easily get to the page they want" now, and the proposed move would only reduce convenience (excepting that of readers seeking the articles about the aforementioned "other works", which obviously are far less prominent). —David Levy 03:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Errm, in the Google search you give above, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22big+bang+theory%22+-%22the+big+bang+theory%22, the science theory is at least as prominent as the tv show. Hardly evidence of a primary topic. But if you look a books, the science usage overwhelms. Google results are inconclusive as far as I can tell. older ≠ wiser 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Google tells us COMMONNAME, not PRIMARYUSAGE. 117Avenue (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Google won't filter the results for the uppercase-T version; you have to filter them yourself. Google is one of the tools in the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC toolbox. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Errm, in the Google search you give above, http://www.google.com/search?q=%22big+bang+theory%22+-%22the+big+bang+theory%22, the science theory is at least as prominent as the tv show.

1. You see as many hits pertaining to the theory as hits pertaining to the TV show (even after setting aside the instances containing a lowercase "t" in "theory")?

2. Again, this search greatly under-reports the extent to which the television program is referred to as "Big Bang Theory"; every page on which it's also referred to by its full title (The Big Bang Theory) is excluded. (Otherwise, instances of "The Big Bang Theory" would be counted as instances of "Big Bang Theory".)

But if you look a books, the science usage overwhelms.

Well, of course. There obviously are far more books related to the scientific theory than books related to the sitcom. In this case, that doesn't tell us much about general usage. —David Levy 04:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1) If it takes such steps to "correctly" interpret the results, I stand by my assertion that the results are inconclusive for determining a primary topic.

2) A books search is also one of the tools for determining primary topic. Why should it be ignored just because it offers results that are inconvenient? older ≠ wiser 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If it takes such steps to "correctly" interpret the results, I stand by my assertion that the results are inconclusive for determining a primary topic.

I don't follow. Are you saying that it's not worth the trouble?

I linked to that search to show that the television program comes out ahead despite being placed at a substantial disadvantage. (The alternative would place it at an unfair advantage.)

Even when numerous valid results are excluded, the sitcom still predominates. What's unclear about this?

A books search is also one of the tools for determining primary topic. Why should it be ignored just because it offers results that are inconvenient?

I didn't say that it should be ignored. I'm saying that the context shouldn't be ignored. In this case, a Google Books search's outcome doesn't accurately reflect the big picture (because it inherently favors academic usage).

Likewise, a Google News search (another of the aforementioned tools) under-represents the scientific theory (because articles about a weekly television show naturally arise more frequently). —David Levy 04:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A first look at the google results shows the science theory is not overwhelmed by the tv show. It is only by applying some additional not terribly intuitive manual filtering that the results are skewed towards the show. I remain unconvinced. older ≠ wiser 04:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...because you refuse to go beyond a "first look" to analyze the data in a meaningful manner. (Keep in mind that Big Bang theory already redirects to Big Bang and isn't affected by this discussion.)

But even without manually considering case, I just went through the first ten pages of results and counted 52 related to the television series and 40 for everything else combined.

And I reiterate that this search excludes all pages on which the phrase "The Big Bang Theory" (the program's complete title) appears. —David Levy 05:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Indications for a primary topic really should not entail such careful examination and selective filtering of evidence. IMO, the primary topic should be blindingly obvious to any reasonable person. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that isn't the standard to which Wikipedia adheres. (That a comic strip is the primary topic for "Red Meat" is far from "blindingly obvious to any reasonable person", but it nonetheless is an example cited in policy.) —David Levy 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The situation is not quite analogous. Red Meat in title case would be a rather unusual way to refer to the dietary/culinary sense. But it is hardly unusual to think that people might use title case to refer to the theory. older ≠ wiser 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's unusual. Google Ngrams does too,[2] with exceptions where "Big Bang Theory" is actually in a title (book title, chapter title, etc.). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

At best, the ngram only shows that one form is more commonly than the other. If it were truly unusual, it would be closer to zero. And it is not like ngram is without problems. Previous discussions have raised significant questions about the measure. older ≠ wiser 01:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone dismisses the possibility of readers seeking the Big Bang article arriving at the title Big Bang Theory. But given the fact that the proposed move wouldn't improve the Big Bang article's accessibility (and would worsen that of The Big Bang Theory), I see no sense in setting the burden of proof especially high.

Only if one or more of the three other entertainment-related articles were widely sought (in comparison to the sitcom's article) would the move be helpful, and that obviously isn't the case. —David Levy 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Page view statistics only show how many times a page has been accessed. It gives no information about how the user arrived at the page, be it by searching the correct article name or through a redirect. The number of times The Big Bang Theory has been viewed does not tell us how many times readers searching Big Bang Theory arrived at The Big Bang Theory incorrectly. Remember that every search for Big Bang Theory increases the view count of The Big Bang Theory because of the current redirect. I say again: "One desirable outcome of this discussion would be to minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals." Jusses2 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. In the above reply, I didn't mention (and wasn't referring to) Wikipedia's page view statistics.

2. You're mistaken in your understanding of how the page view statistics are calculated. A visit to Big Bang Theory is not counted as a visit to The Big Bang Theory.

A flaw to keep in mind is that the tool isn't case-sensitive. In other words, The Big Bang Theory and The big bang theory are treated as one and the same, as are Big Bang Theory, Big Bang theory and Big bang theory.

3. As discussed above, the only scenario in which the proposed move would "minimize the percentage of incorrect arrivals" (instead of increasing it) is one in which one or more of the three other entertainment-related articles are widely sought (in comparison to the sitcom's article). The evidence strongly suggests otherwise. —David Levy 04:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If not by page view statistics, what measure are you using to gauge the concept of "widely sought"? Please clarify. Jusses2 (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. In comparing the subjects' relative prominence, I was thinking of the Google search.

The page view statistics are useful too. Here are February's:

• Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album)
• Big Bang Theory (Styx album)
• The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy)

Interestingly, the Family Guy episode (which isn't titled "Big Bang Theory") received the most views, by far. —David Levy 06:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(replying to you clearly understood above, the stringing is a little confused) 1. No straw man intended, do you intend to reply to the argument rather than just objecting to the phrasing? The evidence is full of holes, as one would expect when it leads to such a strange conclusion. 2. Readers searching for either are not going to distinguish between upper and lower case in their search terms. Note that Google does not, and nor under many circumstances does Wikipedia (type Big bang Theory in the search box for example). Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No straw man intended, do you intend to reply to the argument rather than just objecting to the phrasing?

I did address that argument (by explaining that it refuted one that I never made).

I also addressed your "because people can easily get to the page they want" argument by citing the Google search results and pointing out that the Big Bang article already is one click away for anyone visiting Big Bang Theory (so the proposed move wouldn't make it any more accessible).

To what other argument are you asking me to reply?

The evidence is full of holes, as one would expect when it leads to such a strange conclusion.

The conclusion that the television series is more significant than the scientific theory is? Again, I'm not claiming that.

Readers searching for either are not going to distinguish between upper and lower case in their search terms. Note that Google does not,

This is discussed above.

and nor under many circumstances does Wikipedia (type Big bang Theory in the search box for example).

No page titled Big bang Theory exists (because that capitalization is random and arbitrary), so MediaWiki interprets it as Big bang theory. This proposal has no bearing on that redirect or Big Bang theory (both of which lead to Big Bang and will continue to do so). Only Big Bang Theory is affected. —David Levy 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I did address that argument (by explaining that it refuted one that I never made).

I don't think it did, it just accused me of dishonesty. But if you think you've answered the argument, let's just agree to disagree on that.

I also addressed your "because people can easily get to the page they want" argument by citing the Google search results and pointing out that the Big Bang article already is one click away for anyone visiting Big Bang Theory (so the proposed move wouldn't make it any more accessible).

In turn, you're addressing a point I didn't actually make.

No page titled Big bang Theory exists (because that capitalization is random and arbitrary), so MediaWiki interprets it as Big bang theory. This proposal has no bearing on that redirect or Big Bang theory (both of which lead to Big Bang and will continue to do so). Only Big Bang Theory is affected.

Actually the capitalisation was carefully chosen to make a point. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it did, it just accused me of dishonesty. But if you think you've answered the argument, let's just agree to disagree on that.

What argument? You wrote the following:

A sitcom (which I enjoy too) named after one of the most publicly discussed scientific theories of all time (second probably to Evolution) is now the primary meaning of the name? Ridiculous. If your figures tell you that, check your assumptions. There is something badly wrong.

This misrepresents my position, as I've explained repeatedly. What "argument" do you believe I'm failing to address?

In turn, you're addressing a point I didn't actually make.

Please elaborate.

You stated that having the disambiguation page occupy the title Big Bang Theory would be more functional "because people can easily get to the page they want". You then wrote of the likelihood, in your view, of readers seeking the Big Bang article. But thanks to the hatnote, that article already is a single click away (just as it is on the disambiguation page).

Actually the capitalisation was carefully chosen to make a point.

Your point was that "under many circumstances", Wikipedia doesn't "distinguish between upper and lower case in [our] search terms". This is true (as it depends on the context), but your example ("Big bang Theory") contains arbitrary capitalization conveying no real-life linguistic distinction (so it's treated as "Big bang theory, which we do distinguish from Big Bang Theory). —David Levy 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the significance of the Google search results, allow me to offer an example: Apple. Clearly Apple Inc. dominates the search results, but Apple is about the fruit. Google may not necessarily provide that strong an argument in primary topic discussions. Furthermore, from WP:GOOGLE: "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity." Finally, a move to the base name is recommended by WP:MALPLACED if this discussion results in a change of consensus to no primary topic. Jusses2 (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the significance of the Google search results, allow me to offer an example: Apple. Clearly Apple Inc. dominates the search results, but Apple is about the fruit.

Note that I've opposed the proposed move from Apple to Apple (fruit). That situation varies significantly, as "Apple" is the natural title for both the fruit's article and the company's article.

Conversely, the cosmological model's article occupies the title Big Bang, and while that subject is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang theory" (which rightly redirects accordingly), we're discussing the title Big Bang Theory.

The Red meat article unquestionably pertains to the primary topic for that term, but this doesn't stop us from using the Red Meat title for something else.

Furthermore, from WP:GOOGLE: "On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity."

That advice is irrelevant to the matter at hand. It pertains to a situation in which a title compliant with WP:NPOV is sought. (For example, on the subject of abortion views, a Google search might show that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" predominate, but it can be argued that these are non-neutral. This is the subject of an ongoing RfC.)

Finally, a move to the base name is recommended by WP:MALPLACED if this discussion results in a change of consensus to no primary topic.

No one disputes that. —David Levy 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Red meat article unquestionably pertains to the primary topic for that term, but this doesn't stop us from using the Red Meat title for something else.

Not a good parallel. The article title is really red meat, and contrasts with Red Meat. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your argument that two capitalization differences suffice, but one doesn't?

MediaWiki ignores the first letter's capitalization, so from a functional standpoint, only the case of "m/"M" sets apart the two articles' titles. (A user typing red Meat arrives at the Red Meat article.) —David Levy 13:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your argument that two capitalization differences suffice, but one doesn't?

No, that overgeneralises (and I guess you'd therefore see it as a straw man judging by your earlier comment). My point in simply that there is sufficient difference in the way the brain processes the two cases that it's not a good parallel.

MediaWiki ignores the first letter's capitalization, so from a functional standpoint, only the case of "m/"M" sets apart the two articles' titles. (A user typing red Meat arrives at the Red Meat article.)

True. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that overgeneralises (and I guess you'd therefore see it as a straw man judging by your earlier comment).

There's no straw man, as I haven't ascribed that position to you. (I asked whether it was what you meant, which was a sincere question.)

My point in simply that there is sufficient difference in the way the brain processes the two cases that it's not a good parallel.

This is subjective, so let's agree to disagree. —David Levy 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, per evidence provided above. The television series clearly dominated the Google results for "Big Bang Theory" (with "The Big Bang Theory" subtracted from the query, which put it at a distinct disadvantage), and "apart from Wikipedia's articles, neither album is mentioned until page 8 (actually 9) of the results." Users typing "Big Bang Theory" in full, with such capitalization, therefore are most likely looking for the television show's article. Users who are seeking articles about the two albums named "Big Bang Theory", or the Family Guy episode, will see such results in Wikipedia's dropdown suggestions as they type "Big Bang Theory" - and if not, they'll be able to navigate to the disambiguation page from the hatnote (which also includes a direct link to the theory's page, so the proposed move wouldn't help users seeking that). There's no reason to add an additional click for users looking for the TV show's article who type "Big Bang Theory", when clearly that's what most users arriving there intend to see. -CapitalQ (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bolding

Why is The Big Bang Theory being bolded in the first sentence? It is a list entry. This page is for the disambiguation of the term "Big Bang Theory", hence the title. 117Avenue (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize a discussion has been started already. From my edit summary: If "The Big Bang Theory" is a significant variant of "Big Bang Theory", MOS:DABINT recommends that both (in bold) be included in the lead sentence. This recommendation does not seem to be compatible with the current page layout. If strict accordance with WP:MOSDAB is desired, perhaps the following as the lead sentence:

Big Bang Theory may refer to The Big Bang Theory, an American TV sitcom first broadcast in 2007.

In my opinion, this layout with only one term in bold (the base name, i.e. the term being disambiguated) is the most clear. Furthermore, an illustrative example from WP:MOSDAB:

A cosmonaut or astronaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft.

Note that the significant variant is not in bold. Jusses2 (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The cosmonaut example doesn't work here, because the TV series is a different title than the one being disambiguated. However, the Mozart one does. 117Avenue (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Mozart example would support this layout. The difference is that the case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at Mozart (disambiguation) is so strong that "Mozart" is more like an abbreviation of "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" than a significant variant. Jusses2 (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If "Big Bang Theory" were to be considered as an abbreviation of "The Big Bang Theory", the following would comply with WP:MOSDAB (both the "Linking to a primary topic" and MOS:DABINT sections):

The Big Bang Theory is an American TV sitcom first broadcast in 2007.

Note how the term in bold (the term being disambiguated) is used as a redirect to the primary topic per WP:MOSDAB ("the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article"). MOS:DABINT ("The term being disambiguated should be in bold") is satisfied at the same time. There would be no confusion about what is being disambiguated. Jusses2 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to this edit, there is nothing anywhere that supports not bolding the primary topic. Whether a redirect is bolded (ala cosmonaut) or the full title (ala Mozart) is a matter for editorial discretion based on consensus. But there is not one shred of guidance in MOSDAB that supports leaving the primary topic unbolded. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory is primary here because it is primary at Big Bang Theory as a redirect. With the last proposal above, the primary topic is in bold. Jusses2 (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary Topic RFC

The current primary topic of "Big Bang Theory" is an American TV show. I contend that the far more encyclopedic topic, the one our target readers want to read is actually about the cosmological theory. Comments welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• cosmological theory. The far more encyclopedic topic - a featured article, a member of V 1 and V .5, vs an article about a short-run TV show that has multiple issues. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I think it's pretty clear that the Big Bang has greater enduring notability and educational value, having been in science textbooks since somewhere around 1950, resulting in multiple nobel prizes, and you know, existing since before 2007. Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  I would be willing to compromise to no primary topic, per Blueboar. Hipocrite (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Also acceptable is David Levy's IAR suggestion. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Big Bang theory" is the proper name of the scientific theory. We do disambiguate on capitalization, so "Big Band Theory" and "Big Bang theory" are two distinct titles. No need to change. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, do you have an opinion on what the primary topic of "Big Bang Theory" is? Hipocrite (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Big Bang Theory" (capital T) primary topic is the show, as it is right now. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Disambiguating on capitalization alone is a terrible idea, as any seasoned computer programmer will inform you. It may be right to have two primary topics, one for each different string, but they shouldn't be made the basis of the navigation structure. Diego (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• TV show. I agree that the cosmological theory is more encyclopedic than the TV show, but the theory is also more encyclopedia than Pokemon. So the theory is the primary topic of the names that are appropriate for the theory (Big Bang, Big Bang theory with a lower-case t, Big bang theory, The Big Bang, The big bang, Big-bang theory, Big bang, Creation of universe, etc.) but not for names that are not appropriate for the theory (Pokemon, Knut Kiesewetter, Big Bang Theory with a capital T, etc., etc.). Note also that we just finished the requested move which would have changed the primary topic, with no consensus to change the primary topic, so this is just spinning the same wheels. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  The requested move was about "The Big Bang Theory," and may of the !votes specifically mentioned the "The," making it totally inapplicable to "Big Bang Theory." Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Applicable discussions: Talk:The Big Bang Theory#Requested move, Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Requested move, Talk:Big Bang Theory#Proper target?. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  As JHunterJ points out, you appear to have overlooked this disambiguation page's move request, which was closed only two days ago. We're rehashing some of the same arguments now.
  However, in this context, I think that a compromise (with either no primary topic or shared primacy) would be reasonable. —David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware no regular editors of Big Bang related articles were informed of the previous discussions - that has now been fixed and so new opinions are likely.Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory - the name of the TV show would not exist if it were not for the theory - it is clearly the primary topic and the most encyclopedic, probably one of the most fundamental articles that we have on the encyclopedia. Hipocrite's arguments per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above are sound. I love the TV show but that does not make it the primary topic. Additionally, although not entirely relevant to the RFC but instead the requested move from which it originates, the idea that adding "The" (or indeed (T/t)heory) sufficiently disambiguates the term is rediculous. Since "The" is the definite article it can be used in front of the cosmological theory if one wishes to do so and as such the disambiguation does not work. Polyamorph (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge dabs - I have a problem with saying that the TV show is primary over the two music albums, or the Family Guy episode. None of these are primary over the others, each is distinct. So, if the cosmological event isn't the primary topic, then I would have to say there is no primary topic.
  That said, I agree that the cosmological event is appropriately the primary topic for the dab page: "Big Bang (disambiguation)"... so perhaps the solution is to merge the two dab pages... and if we did that, then I could see the argument that the cosmological event should be considered the primary topic. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Why do you have a problem with a TV show being primary over music albums or TV episodes? Readership usage indicates that it is primary over those albums and episode. (Other titles have albums primary over TV shows; not sure about episodes over albums or shows, though, but it wouldn't be problematic if that were what the readership sought by that title.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'm baffled by the assertion that "none of these are primary over the others, each is distinct". As covered in the above move request (closed only two days ago), that simply isn't the case. —David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  O dear, there are separate dab pages for Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)? That is plain retarded. Can these please be merged ASAP. No reader is served by this rather puzzling split.TR 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Let's avoid the "retarded" labeling. No one calls the TV show "Big Bang", nor the bands "Big Bang Theory". Two different sets of topics ambiguous with two different titles. The cosmological theory is the only one ambiguous with both, so included on both pages (and primary for one of them). Readers looking for all of the other topics are served by this rather obvious split. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nobody calls them like that, but everyone looks for the longer titles using shorter two-words search terms. This has a peer-reviewed article published by Google, I can look for it if you're interested. This split will only force readers to have to look at both pages. You should read about information foraging to learn what structure best serves users to navigate to their target - (hint: classical top-down hierarchies are not the way, specially when all items in the hierarchy have almost indistinguishable names). Diego (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Diego, you put into words very well something I was also thinking. In addition there are several links in Big Bang (disambiguation) that are clearly related to the Big Bang theory (there see how I used the definite article!) e.g. Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It makes no sense whatsoever to have two Dab pages! Lets merge into a "Big Bang Theory" section in the Big Bang (disambiguation) page. Polyamorph (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  (after ec) Since I don't know what "this" is in "This has a peer-reviewed article", I don't know if I'm interested in it. If you're saying you have some evidence that "everyone" looking on Wikipedia for the topics listed on Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) does so by searching for "Big Bang" (and not for "Big Bang Theory"), then yes, I'd be interested. The split does not force anyone to look at both articles, unless that don't know what they're looking for. -- JHunterJ (talk)

  I agree with TR. It doesn't sound like the most sensible disambiguation to me especially when one is practically empty. They should be merged. Polyamorph (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Neither is practically empty. Practically empty disambiguation pages are deleted via {{db-disambig}} -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It has few articles list whereas the other is very exhaustive. It makes no sense to have two disambiguation pages on the same topic. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't disambiguate on topic; we disambiguate on title. The two dabs do not share a topic. Some titles are indeed ambiguous among smaller sets of topics than other ambiguous titles. We don't combine Cadaver (disambiguation) and Corpse (disambiguation), for instance. It makes perfect sense to have two disambiguation pages for two titles when the two titles are ambiguous among distinct topic sets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The titles aren't ambiguous enough, especially since the Big Bang theory redirects to Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think the following handles should redirect as indicated:

  "Big Bang theory" -> Big Bang (i.e. the cosmological model)

  "The Big Bang Theory" -> should stay as the primary title for the article about the sitcom. (People normally do not normally insert the article "the" in front of a search unless they are specifically looking for a title starting with "the". It is therefore reasonable to expect that people explicitly putting the "the" in the search are looking for the sitcom.)

  "The Big Bang theory" -> The Big Bang Theory.

  "Big Bang Theory" -> Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) (There is no telling what somebody searching for "Big Bang Theory" was looking for. Redirecting to either the theory or the TV show will end up with a lot of readers in the wrong place.)

In all cases the articles should have a hatnote back to the disamb page.TR 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)", and a request to move this disambiguation page to "Big Bang Theory" was closed only two days ago. —David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do not think that "Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)" should be merged with overcrowded "Big Bang (disambiguation)". But the title "Big Bang Theory" should either redirect to a dab page or host that page. In one hand, this capitalization is ungrammatical as a name of the theory, and unlikely will be frequently searched for. In another hand, redirecting "Big Bang Theory" to "The Big Bang Theory" will be quite confusing as two titles differing only in one letter's case would redirect to two different articles. I do not object against dab–dab and article–dab solutions for such pairs for nearly identical titles, but article–article is error-prone and counterintuitive. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Overcrowded dab pages are the most useful ones, because you at least know that the looked-for term must be in there and not in some other randomly-named related index. Splitting disambiguation between nearly equally-named pages will force the readers to perform pogo stick navigation (that's the technical term)[3] between all the available pages to find the right one. Diego (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  What a perfectly horrible idea. By that logic, we should have just one disambiguation page on Wikipedia, listing every topic currently listed on all of the disambiguation pages across Wikipedia. Overcrowded dab pages are less useful than properly-populated ones. You know that the looked-for topic (not term) must be in the disambiguation page specific to the ambiguous title for that term, and you don't have to spend extra time wading through longer lists of topics that aren't ambiguous with the title of the topic sought, but happen to be ambiguous with an "associated" title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  What a perfectly horrible comment. Pogo sticking round wikipedia is much less desirable than having a more extensive dab page. Lets not apply rediculous analagies here. Polyamorph (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  What a perfectly horrible assumption. There's no indication that actual users are actually pogo-sticking around Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  If users are arriving directly to their looked-for articles in their first attempt (i.e. not pogo-sticking) why do we have top hats? I say the existence of this is pretty solid evidence that users are pogo-sticking, that's why we have guidelines to alleviate it. Diego (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  First as an admin I would expect you to be more reserved in your use of derogatory language. Clearly you didn't get my subtle hint. Secondly there is no evidence that they are not since it's such an poor method of disambiguation it's quite likely. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing derogatory about my language, nor hinty about your reuse of it. You've made a claim with nothing to stand on except that no one has disproved the claim? That's not how it works. You need to show, not just claim, that the current arrangement of two disambiguation pages that are not nearly-equally-named (the addition of "Theory" makes their ambiguous sets quite distinct) is somehow troubling readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  By the same token you need to show, not just claim, that the current arrangement of two disambiguation pages is the optimal way of doing things - if you're demanding evidence then I'll demand it back. It isn't entirely easy to do in either case. Proving that the readers are having trouble pogo-sticking around due to this confusing disambiguation is probably not that simple, proving that it's possible is another matter. It is possible that a user looking for information on the Big Bang cosmological model or the tv series could end up on the Big Bang (disambiguation) page - either due to a search or because they clicked the wrong hatnote wikilink (since there are two of them linking to very similar titled disambiguation pages) or perhaps an external search engine result. Pogo-sticking is possible, whereas merging the disambiguation pages will remove the possibility of confusion. You might argue that just because it is possible doesn't mean users are actually experiencing any problems but you don't know that. The addition of Theory is a not a good disambiguation term (for various reasons including but not limited to the use of the term Big Bang only for referring to the cosmological theory and/or the tv show). It's also unecessary since the Big Bang (disambiguation) page is extensive and will quite nicely accommodate the four additional entries (since it already contains the Big Bang). It also makes sense because Big Bang (disambiguation) contains entries regarding the cosmological model. It makes no sense to have different entries on the theory on different disambiguation pages. Polyamorph (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, no, the current arrangement just is. Changes to the current arrangement need consensus, and to get that consensus either requires the change to be obvious (which it isn't here) or a convincing argument (more than just a claim). Making a unsupported claim against the current arrangement and then demanding that the current arrangement be defended rather than the unsupported claim is a common practice, but not one that has any teeth. Happily, the past 3 or 5 move discussions have shown the benefit (not necessarily "optimal-ness") of the current arrangement, so we're in luck. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  That's wholly untrue. Just because something is doesn't mean you don't have to defend it. Sure things need consensus and evidence must be provided, but on both sides. Thanks for ignoring my actual comment completely and replying only to argue that you don't need to provide evidence that the current way that "is" is the correct way. This discussion will get more coverage than the past discussions and hopefully more eyes will help. Polyamorph (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge dabs: Variant forms of names (such as "Big Bang" and "Big Bang theory"), Terms which differ only in capitalization ("Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory") and Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article ("Big Bang theory" and "The Big Bang Theory") are all recommended critera to combine terms in a single page per Wikipedia:DPAGES, so there's a guideline directly supporting the merger. Also search engine users rarely use caps sensitive search, and almost never use more than two words. Right now, someone looking for the current TV sitcom using the words "Big Bang" (the most likely possibility, since it's the shorter and most economic search term) will be misdirected to The Big Bang (TV series), the only link to a TV show appearing at Big Bang (disambiguation) (and thus the only link with the correct information scent). How is the user supposed to know that the link they should have clicked instead was at the end of the page, hidden under the fold, in the See also section and called Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)?

For a common user, big bang=Big Bang=big bang theory; we shouldn't expect users to know under which of the many several caps-plus-minus-word-"Theory" combinatorics have Wikipedians organized each article. Both dab pages should be merged so that neither capitalization nor primary topic won't matter; this is information architecture 101.

If there's consensus that the TV show is the primary topic for the string "The Big Bang Theory", then both strings should be highlighted in the merged dab page, with the scientific theory first. Diego (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's some opposition to merging boths dab pages based primarily on the idea that the merged page would be too long. This argument doesn't make sense because

1. The merged page would be only 4 lines longer than the current one and
2. The two most likely targets would be at the top of the list, per the compromise solution by David Levy, so the length of the merged list doesn't matter. The possibility to mislead a percentage of readers with two target dabs can thus be avoided at no cost. Diego (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a "fork"/further discussion of this requested move at wt:civility#Why is the american u.s. tv series the BiG BANG THEORY theory allowed to be more notable than what is real, really, The Big Bang Theory. (Thank you user:David Levy for the correction of my mis-typing, see immediately below.) To me, it would be less confusing if the two DABpages were merged. NewbyG ( talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discusison is located at WT:Notability. —David Levy 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You would need to demonstrate that people use Wikipedia the same way they use search engines, a claim I don't believe is true, and that readers of Wikipedia are using "Big Bang" to search for the TV series more often than any other search string, a claim I also don't believe is true. Also, Big Bang leads to the theory article, complete with hatnote link to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), not hidden under the fold. Organization by cap combinatorics is explicit in WP:AT. This is Wikipedia disambiguation 101. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So you Wikipedia consensus is better than scientific principles, this is what you're suggesting? ;-)justkidding I'm making a common sense explanation (or WP:IAR if you prefer) of what is known about how people look for information on the internet. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was on the internet. (Now seriously: note that I'm not talking about article titles, I'm talking about disambiguation pages, so WP:AT doesn't apply). Read below. Diego (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Compromise. I don't know whether the two disambiguation pages should be merged. Either way, in this context, a "no primary topic" compromise is reasonable. Alternatively, something along the lines of the following is a possibility:

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the universe, from which the American TV sitcom The Big Bang Theory takes its name.

Big Bang Theory may also refer to...

—David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I support this writing, it clarifies the roles of the two major meanings. Diego (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• There have been three unsuccessful attempts to move The Big Bang Theory in the past 15 months that are directly relevant to this discussion.[4][5][6] Time and time again in these discussions, multiple editors have demonstrated that the TV series is the primary topic. Page view statistics overwhelmingly support this view. Typically, the TV series receives around 1.7 million page views per month and the TV series sits at #57 in the rankings, while the cosmological model receives only 217,000 page views and sits at #1,572 in the rankings. Clearly, the article our readers want to read is actually about the TV series, not the cosmological model. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  Correct me if I'm wrong but none of those discussions were brought to the attention of interested parties at e.g. Talk:Big Bang. Hence it's not a real consensus yet. Polyamorph (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What is a "real consensus"? Given the number of editors who participated in those discussions and the fact that the last was the result of these discussions, I think there's enough to establish that there is consensus. Try as you might, you can't credibly argue against the page view statistics. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Where possible, discussions should be bought to the attention of interested parties. Since this was apparently not done the consensus is biased towards editors interested in the tv sitcom article. So although the stats are interesting they don't necessarily represent overall consensus. Let the discussion proceed, if again it closes as no consensus then you can argue that no further future discussion is needed. Since this is an RFC so should get a more thorough attention from all interested parties.Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was biased at all. My examination of the page view statistics certainly wasn't. Or are you arguing that 1.7 million page views for the TV program and 200,000 for the cosmological model could be interpreted to mean that the cosmological model is the primary topic? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All those discussions consisted of a small sample of the wikipedia community, so nothing is clear. I've already stated why I think the cosmological thoery is the primary topic, see my comments above. Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All discussions on Wikipedia consist of a small sample of the Wikipedia community. That's how Wikipedia consensus works. This audience is definitely larger than the previous one, and consensus can change, but so far there's no new consensus emerging, just more editors repeating the previous discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're both coming from. However I think you'll have a lot more problems trying to close an RfC that has already generated quite substantial interest from different editors than just letting it run its course. If consensus is the same then you'll be happy and be able to bury it once and for all. If consensus changes then the RfC was worthwhile. Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes a very clear distinction between a topic that is primary for a term with respect to usage, and a topic that is primary with respect to long-term significance. The page views for the TV program are very likely to fade as soon as the last season is aired; the enduring notability and educational value of the scientific theory, not so much. Now if the series had finished some years ago and it still showed the same page views you would have a stronger argument, but that's not the case. Diego (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• The problem comes because we're conflating two different problems here:
  1. Article titles are used to unambiguously identify topics. In this sense the differences in capitalization and inclusion/exclusion of the word "Theory" are vital to give a proper title to each article.
  2. Disambiguation pages are used for navigation, to help readers find in a single place all the articles that might be relevant to the topic they're searching for. Since we don't know what the reader is looking for, and the reader doesn't know how we have matched capitalization with particular topics, having a single starting point for navigation is the most sensible approach for the disambiguation pages (not the article titles). That's the whole point of disambiguation pages (what would we need next, disambiguation pages for our disambiguation pages?) ;-) Diego (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Examining the page view statistics for the articles, redirects and disambiguation pages, which I did, gives a clear result. In short, everything is fine as it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with the various things Diego has said, much as my stomach heaves at the idea of bands and TV shows in the same system as serious science. Whatever the upshot, I would insist on the lede in each of the confusable articles being sufficiently terse and explicit to tell anyone what you are letting yourself in for when your mouse hovers over a link. JonRichfield (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If this helps you, think that the system to separate scientific theories and TV shows are the categories. Disambiguation is the rational place to put science and popular topics together because they share names, and then you can still have them under different subsections so that they are never really together. Diego (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological Theory should definitely be the primary topic per nominator (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and Polyamorph.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge dab pages Diego's arguments are spot on. As for the concerns about having "bands and TV shows, (etc.) in the same (dab) system", it is commonly done on WP. "Immortal" is one such dab page that comes to mind.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Very strongly opposed to a simple merge of the two disambiguation pages. There may be a case for duplicating the entries at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) on Big Bang (disambiguation), but for readers looking specifically for things titled "big bang theory" or "the big bang theory" (case insensitive), I see little benefit to forcing them to sift through a longer list including things not sharing that title. I am more or less indifferent to whether Big Bang Theory redirects to either the tv show or the cosmological theory or is a disambiguation page. As I indicated in the move discussion above, I weakly supported moving Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to Big Bang Theory, since without the initial definite article, the phrase is ambiguous. I also have no objection to using a multiple primary topic lead for the disambiguation page as suggested by David Levy above. older ≠ wiser 23:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bkonrad, they are not "forced to sift through a longer list", they can use the table of contents to jump to the section on the relevant topic and skip the rest. Diego (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even with the TOC, the reader must sift through a list that includes titles that are noise for those looking specifically for "big bang theory". older ≠ wiser 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory should be the primary topic. The real universe is inherently more important than any fictional one. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

  I do not think you mean that no fictional topic can be the primary topic for any title, but that's what you've said. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  If a fictional topic clashes titles with a real-world one, then the default should be to give precedence to the real-world topic. Only if the real world thing is really, really obscure and the fictional one stupendously well-known would you even consider making the fictional one the primary topic. That's obviously not the case here. We're talking about a real-world phenomenon of huge and enduring importance to all of humanity, and an American sitcom. The realityverse wins out. Easily. Reyk _YO! 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Happily, the topics here don't clash. One uses a capital T, the other a lowercase t. There is nothing to "win", but it's the perception of this being a competition that has yielded a bunch of hubbub. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory is the primary topic, and capitalization or a leading "The" does not suffice to disambiguate. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  It does currently suffice, and the previous 3 or 5 move requests have left the consensus that the TV show is the primary topic. It's a workable arrangement, particularly with the current hatnotes, and the only problem appears to be one of umbrage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, but it's funny how consensus changes once the discussion is open the the entire Wikipedia community rather than the restricted subset who were aware of the previous move discussions. Consensus means hearing from people outside the echo chamber. Reyk _YO! 01:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  I doubt the entire Wikipedia community is here now. It's no funnier than having previous consensus (not local consensus, mind you, but previous consensus -- the previous consensus here did not contradict any broader consensus, so that comment too is off-base) cast as an "echo chamber" just because you disagree with its result. The supposed "echo chamber" was not restricted to one opinion being chanted by all participants. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory. I noticed this a few months ago, and thought it was very odd indeed that Big Bang Theory redirected to the article about the sitcom. I don't think any reader could legitimately be surprised at being redirected to the article about the cosmological theory. By contrast, readers are surprised (myself as an example) at being redirected to an article about a TV show. We should follow the principle of least surprise in our redirects. If readers accidentally navigate to the wrong page, that's what disambiguation pages and hatnotes are for. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cosmological theory Well doesn't this entire argument sum up Wikipedia in one neat little package? I know that editors here tend to have a cultural bent, not least contemporary media, but in most cases out of any given hundred, I'd wager the population at large would hear "Big Bang Theory" and think "space" not "sit com". I am a Brit, and therefore "Big Bang Theory" automatically makes me think of Professor Brian Cox rather than Dr Sheldon Cooper. What fascinates me about this discussion is how important people make a television show over the formation of Earth, the Universe and everything. It's almost to the point of sublime satire. It would seem particularly odd if Wikipedia, which has always strived to be credible, chose to direct users to a sitcom over an article discussing the beginnings of life. I respectfully suggest that policy in this regard does not choose that which we attend to be modern over that which we know to be relevant to a wider audience than slogan t-shirt wearing clever clogs. doktorb _words^deeds 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's the readers' bent that we're serving. See the previous move discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep As Is It's worth pointing out that Big Bang Theory only directs to the tv show article if you capitalize it exactly as I did. Lowercase big bang theory goes directly to the cosmological theory article. Adding "the" directs to the tv show regardless of capitalization. I remember searching for it a few weeks ago and I'm pretty sure it was exactly the same then. I have no problem with this whatsoever, capitalizing every word deliberately is very suggestive of a proper noun title (as in a work of fiction), as is deliberate inclusion of "the" as the verbatim title of the show. I also believe the page visit numbers suggest that forcing DAB when the verbatim title or capitalization is used would just be imposing values on readers. I certainly believe the cosmological theory is of profoundly greater overall importance but the tv series is sufficiently segregated already, there's no need to force readers to go through an extra cycle of links to get there. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Checking to make sure my "common sense" instinct matched up with Wikipedia policy, it would seem that after reviewing WP:PRECISION there is little need to change things. Happily, "Big Bang" is a perfectly acceptable name for the article on the cosmological theory, and "The Big Bang Theory" is a verbatim title for the TV series, and since it doesn't conflict with any other article of that precise title, there's little need to specify it with (TV Series). Hence natural disambiguation. The only point that seems even mildly contestable is whether "Big Bang theory" should differ from "Big Bang Theory." I would guess that in most cases we would actually direct caps variations to the article title most similar to it, which in this case would result in "big bang theory" or "Big Bang theory" going to the TV series, but I'm perfectly willing to concede that it's appropriate to just leave it as is in this case. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Move this dab to Big Bang Theory, or, failing that, merge dabs. It's not obvious to me that someone typing Big Bang Theory (no the but capital T in Theory) would be more likely to want the cosmological model than the sitcom, or vice versa. (I usually type Big Bang for the former and TBBT for the latter.) ― A. di M.​  13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Talk:Big Bang Theory#Proper target? has not found it obvious, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Global scientific theory used and studied for half a century is the primary topic here, not the a-few-years-old American TV show. 18jellyfish (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Global scientific theory with a lowercase t. We're familiar with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which has additional criteria right before that selective quotation), and the theory is the primary topic of Big Bang theory for the reason you quote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory. per jellyfish. Obviously the theory is where the TV show got its name. Nobody Ent 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  And "where it got its name" is not one of the criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cosmological theory as everyone agrees is the most encyclopedic by far. The variations in s capitalization and whether it has an article are all things that people might type in looking for either of them, and do not determine the priority. What does determine the priority is the importance and encyclopedic nature of the subject. That we would privilege the show indicates what our critics rightly call our primary failing: the absurd overemphasis on popular culture of relatively transitory interest. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cosmological theory or disambig As per jellyfish. Also, the lower case version already directs to the cosmological theory. I don't think any user would even think to capitalize to go to the tv show and not to capitalize for the theory (I myself got accidentally redirected to the tv show before) so this seems a bizarre arrangement. 17:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cosmological - I find it a bit ironic that a tv show named after the event currently has the higher billing than the event. This should be handled exactly like Bleach is now, where going to that term takes the reader directly to the chemical and not Bleach (manga) (and I am even a fan of that). Tarc (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the current disambiguation structure

JHunterJ, there are two lines reasoning for merging the DAB pages, of not only the search engine one. Analyze this scenario:

1. An unsophisticated user (who happens to be blind and is using a screen reader) is looking for the TV show, enters the words "big bang" at Google and follows the first link. This brings her to Big Bang.
2. Noticing that this is about the universe thingy and not the show, points her reader to the top of the page that literally says "This article is about the cosmological model. For other uses, see Big Bang(disambiguation)."
3. Upon hearing this, she follows the "Big Bang (disambiguation)" link, arriving to Big Bang (disambiguation).
4. Now this article begins repeating the definition of the cosmological theory of the universe. Next, a table of contents has a pointer to the "2 Film and television" section, which she follows.
5. In this section the third link is for a The Big Bang (TV series), (a children's TV...)". By this point, the reader already has already clicked the link and been sent to the wrong TV series article.
6. As an epilogue to the story, the top hat at The Big Bang (TV series) finally points to the right article with "For the 2007 sitcom, see The Big Bang Theory" but only after having hopped through two wrong articless, the wrong disambiguation page and two suggested links that pointed to the wrong place; and finally founds the right one just because I've added it today to fix this nonsense; the original top hat just sent her back to the circular Big Bang (disambiguation) as the first option.

Note that the same situation would have been faced by someone who is a slow reader, who arrived to the first DAB page by typing the shortest query term ("big bang"), i.e. by the people more likely to make navigation errors and most in need of a well-structured disambiguation page. I never claimed that is wrong for all the possible readers, but the provided example shows that it is bad for those that would benefit most from it. Now what part of all of the above is not a problem or not the most likely course of action for the stated scenario?

(For those interested, here is the link to several research studies on the average length of queries at search engines, and here the one for the link most likely to be followed at a web page). Diego (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If this hypothetical reader were so "unsophisticated" as to click on the hatnote link at step 3 for Big Bang (disambiguation) instead of the equally prominent Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) link, there is quite honestly little that can be done to help them. Wikipedia goes to great lengths to make it easy to navigate the maze, but what more can be done if readers make deliberately obtuse choices? older ≠ wiser 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Your "deliberately obtuse choices" are the ones with the most information in them and thus the ones more likely to be used. The hypothesis above is a cognitive walkthrough, i.e. an analysis of the actual information that we have provided to the reader. You may "go to great lengths" to make it easy to navigate, but if you are placing the information at wrong places all your good will won't make a difference.

You comment on the two links to disambig at step 3; both have the words "Big Bang" in them so there's a 50/50 probability to follow either of them. That means that 50% of the readers in this scenario will face the stated problem. (You could also read about inattentional blindness and eye tracking to understand why someone will miss the second link - short answer: this is how our brains are wired). Diego (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You make some faulty assumptions though. A person looking for the tv show titled "The Big Bang Theory" is unlikely to be unaware of that title and to deliberately select the link for Big Bang (disambiguation) rather than the equally prominent Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). With clever rhetoric, it is possible to make just about any hypothetical sound reasonable to the unwitting. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing faulty assuming that some percentage of users looking for a title with "Big Bang" in it will click on a link with the words "Big Bang" in it. You're making your own faulty assumption that readers will read both links before making the decision, but it's a fact that people don't read web pages while navigating[7], and another wrong assumption is thinking that the small difference between the two links is enough to make an informed decision (it isn't). The assumption that "readers will know to look for the word 'theory' because that's how editors have arranged it" is not in line with how people navigate web pages. Diego (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why make things more difficult for readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for when they see it with the dubious proposition that some minimal number of clueless readers who click on the first link they see need to be spoon-fed information?

(ec with above post) IMHO We ought to expect readers to make semi-deliberately obtuse-ish choices. Lotta people do dumb searches, I know that I do lottsa times. Who searches for something they already know? (2pennies) NewbyG ( talk) 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but to what lengths should we attempt to anticipate the innumerable ways in which people might make dumb choices? And especially, should we simultaneously make it more difficult for those readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for when they see it? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We should anticipate the most likely ones. Diego (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but I see no solid evidence of likelihood other than suspect hypothetical suppositions. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No need to single me out. The past 3 or 5 move requests that have resulted or maintained the current arrangement were not isolated to my opinion. Yes, per Bkonrad, the current arrangement's hatnotes will assist even very restricted users in the navigational needs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am looking at it this way, maybe I am wrong. I reckon, someone who enters "big bang" in a Search, no the, no theory, no CAPS, ought to easily get to either (main-ish or primary-ish) article, because they could be looking for either article. So, if they have to wade through 10 or so entries on a Dab page, that works for me, the other entries are for free and might entice a look.

Else, do the compromise that user:DL suggested, I don't know how the full details of how that will work, myself, but it seems workable and suitable at the current state of consensus. Ty NewbyG ( talk) 00:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, so do you see a problem with the current arrangement of hatnotes and redirects? If you're not actually sure whether what you're looking for is called "big bang" or "big bang theory", then you might have to visit two both pages, but as it appears you may be browsing semi-aimlessly for things with some combination of "big" and "bang" in the title, is that such a bad thing? Such casual browsers might welcome a less focused listing, but for why force readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for to filter out the noise in a less focused list? older ≠ wiser 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Most readers don't mind "the noise"... They will understand that a merged dab page is being as inclusive as possible to aid navigation. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For those who are inconvenienced, I doubt it will seem so. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Readers looking for The Big Bang Theory won't be inconvenienced, because that link will be placed in the first paragraph and thus the length of the list doesn't matter. Diego (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Who are these "most readers" you've polled about the noise? How did you reach that conclusion, which is not part of the disambiguation guidelines? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bkonrad, 1) users may be fully aware of how what they're looking is called, but have no idea how Wikipedians have arranged things; 2) the show is called "The Big Bang Theory", and the scientific principle is called "the Big Bang theory", so links for "big bang" and "big bang theory" are not enough to differentiate between both targets; 3) readers who recognize correctly guess that they should be looking for the second and not the first classification will find a very short list under the "Film and television" header, so a merge doesn't hurt anybody; and 4) skipping content in a single page that you don't want to read is easier than locating content in a separate page that you don't know is there because it's not in sight. Diego (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

5), the merged page would be exactly four lines longer than the current one. I don't believe that your opposition to a merged dab comes from a rational concern about the length of the list. Diego (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how much longer that the relevant current one? Yes, the concern is rational about efficiency in navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant link to the most visited article will be at the top of that dab page, so the length of the list below it does not affect the efficiency in navigation. Or are you arguing for the convenience of those people looking for the Styx album, the Harem Scarem album and the Family Guy episode? Diego (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For both groups, yes. Since the Styx album, Harem Scarem album, and Family Guy episode are not known as "Big Bang", those readers are best served by the shorter dab page. Since the elements of the longer list at the "Big Bang" disambiguation are not known as "Big Bang Theory", even those readers are better served, with a smaller impact, by the separate dab pages. The only people who benefit from the combined dab pages are editors who take umbrage that the TV show is listed above the theory on Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) (even though Big Bang, Big Bang theory, etc., etc., all correctly get the readers to the theory first). Readers who intend one of the albums or episode but shortcut the search will still find the correct dab page in the hatnotes on Big bang. But all of this has been said before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that readers will be best served by a short page that is difficult to find better than one long page that is unmissable. For example those looking for the Family Guy episode will remember "that one where Stewie caused the Big Bang". With that information, both Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) are equally likely targets. Its extremely rare that will remember the exact title of one episode; such reader will benefit from having "The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy)" listed with all the shows titled "Big Bang" under "Film and television"; that way they are not forced to know in advance in which of the two separate classifications the editors placed it, like the current classification mandates.

Your unproven wild guess that people will correctly navigate to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is based on the assumption that they know the exact title, and/or understand that Wikipedia editors are differentiating articles with respect to the capitalization in one single word. Readers that don't know how editors have classified the pages (i.e. ALL the readers that need disambiguation) will make a choice at random, and once at the wrong page there is no easy way they can recover from the error. Diego (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop with the accusations of "unproven wild guess" -- your proposition, although purportedly drawn by inference from some research is equally unproven. Unless you are proposing to conduct some well-formed usability studies, nothing is "proven". older ≠ wiser 12:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that and call both positions unproven. Now, I have shown several research studies pointing out the first principles that explain why structures like the one used here are likely to cause problems. What are your third-party evidence that readers will correctly know to distinguish between "Big Bang", "Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory" in most cases? Diego (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You are making some big leaps to establish what you call first principles. Primarily that the research you reference is analogous to the issue under discussion here. Has the published research made any claims about navigation in the Wikipedia? Have third-party sources established the first principles to which you appeal? I challenge you to point to specific evidence that there is actually a problem that needs to be fixed? Why should we assume that most readers will not be able to distinguish between "Big Bang", "Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory"? There are page view statistics, which provide some indications that readers by and large able to get to where they want to. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions: 1) yes [8][9][10] [11][12] (there are many studying navigation at Wikipedia using usability principles) 2) yes [13][14] (the principles of information foraging are well stablished), 3) the problem I found is the problematic flow shown in the cognitive walkthrough below which has found one potential problem with non-cero probability using a well established method[15][16], 4) Why should we assume that a choice between three links is easier than having a single link?, and 4) page view statistics don't show what navigation path users are following, nor how much of those readers left the site at a disambiguation without finding their desired page, so they aren't informative about the success rate for the users with problems (i.e. the ones that are using dab pages). Diego (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Navigation options

Here are the most informative options for navigation that are being offered to people that are looking for the current "The Big Bang Theory" show:

• The page Big Bang offers a choice between the following links:

1. Big Bang (disambiguation)
2. Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

• The page Big Bang (disambiguation) offers a choice between the following links:

1. Film and television:The Big Bang (TV series)
2. See also: Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)

• The proposed merged page would offers a choice between the following links:

1. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang": The Big Bang (TV series)
2. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang theory": The Big Bang Theory

• The proposed merged page with "The Big Bang Theory" as primary topic would offers a choice between the following links:

1. The Big Bang Theory
2. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang": The Big Bang (TV series)

What of the four options is the one that offer the least difficult choice for a (not dumb) reader that is looking for the 2007 sitcom (which is the one with highest audience of all the articles with "Big Bang" in their titles)? Diego (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Navigation options

I will get the ball rolling, my maths may be dodgy, but I count, if a a merged Dab page for Big Bang is the preferred option, just TWO (2) extra lines, (we lose some entries since we're losing one redundant dab-page). Check my maths, please, people, seriously, I don't wish to mislead, and we are finally getting some focused listing of options, should make this discussion more forwardy. NewbyG ( talk) 08:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I count four new entries at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) that are not at Big Bang (disambiguation): the TV show, the Styx album, the Harem Scarem album and the Family Guy episode. Diego (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How many extra lines over the current Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) page for the readers looking for one of those topics? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant link to the most visited article will be at the top of that dab page, so the length of the list below it does not affect the efficiency in navigation. Diego (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The layout of the dab pages is irrelevant to the readers reaching the primary topic; those readers won't see the dab page. Instead, compare the current navigation path for someone looking for "Big Bang Theory (Styx album)" vs. their path under the ill-conceived merged dab. There is a misunderstanding in the purpose of disambiguation pages -- it is not to settle a hypothetical question of dominance between science and pop culture, but rather to assist readers seeking topics under a title that is ambiguous reach the sought topic quickly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh? All your opposition to my arguments is because you think I'm arguing for the dominance between science and pop culture? I don't care a damn about the dominance between science and pop culture, all I want is to avoid the nonsense of two navigation links with exactly the same navigation scent, to avoid a 50% probability to get the wrong disambiguation. I though we agreed that the most likely topic to be looked for is The Big Bang Theory, and this structure is causing a non-trivial change that some readers will have to navigate through two separate dabs and end up at The Big Bang (TV series) instead. How's that good for the primary topic? Diego (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to apply your information scent expertise from Google to Wikipedia, I think you need a broader RfC than just "Big Bang Theory". Possibly at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (because encyclopedias are not Internet search engines). Otherwise, the 50% statistic doesn't apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The expertise is not from Google, it's from humans. Do we have human readers at Wikipedia, or just editors? If we don't have humans, I would agree that it doesn't apply. Diego (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you cannot distinguish between Google and Wikipedia, then this argument will continue to circle. It is possible that analysis of people's use of search engines such as Google may correspond to people's use of Wikipedia perfectly, not at all, or somewhere in between. You are assuming perfect correlation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting the provided studies. The browsing studies have not been performed at Google nor search engines, but at navigating web sites; those results have been replicated throughout all kinds of web sites, and thus are fairly general - so now it's your turn to provide some evidence that Wikipedia in some way has special characteristic that disprove the scientific general results that I have provided. I've added above some that have been performed at Wikipedia to illustrate that the principles I stated have been actively used at this place with some success (although not for this particular case). Diego (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The studies have only just been provided, so I can be forgiven if I've misrepresented them. Evidence is already given above and in the series of move requests that preceded the IPs canvassing that preceded this RfC: pageviews of the articles involved indicate that readers are reaching the sought articles efficiently with the current arrangement. No problem to solve. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The informaciton foraging articles and the Alertbox columns by Nielsen were provided yesterday, however; and the Nielsen Group makes the hugest survey studies in the world. Pageviews are only evidence of the successes, not the failures and navigation paths, which are what disambiguation pages should strive to improve. Do you have any evidence that the paths described above are not likely to happen, contrarily to what the principles in the field predict? Diego (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) The issue of specificity does not arise for those starting by looking for "big bang". Readers looking for things with the more specific title "big bang theory" will need to sift through a longer page with many entries that are not titled "big bang theory". older ≠ wiser 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There are reasons why that may be a good thing (and few reasons why that would be bad), see my comments above. Diego (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

What if we remove the entry for the cosmological theory from this page? That way it wont appear to be "beneath" the TV show, and readers seeking the theory are never going to reach this page anyway. They'll:

• search on "Big Bang" and reach the sought article
• or search on "Big Bang theory", "Big bang theory", or one of the other redirects to Big Bang and reach the sought article
• or search on "Big Bang Theory" or "The Big Bang Theory", click on the hatnote there (which lists Big Bang before this disambiguation page) and reach the sought article.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Points for creativity, I suppose, but no. All possible items must be on the disambiguation page. Powers ^T 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Or WP:IAR if there's a good reason to do so (here, to avoid the presumed "importance" ranking of the upper-T TV show and the lower-t theory). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

IAR is only to be invoked to improve the encyclopedia. This proposal merely staves off editorial pique, which is better handled through other mechanisms that don't interfere with the quality of the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 19:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Another alternative proposal

A compromise was proposed by User:David Levy some 20 hours ago in this discussion, it seems close to workable to me, and with a slight tweak, it may satisfy some of us, or even gain consensus in the time-frame of this Request for commenft. On the other hand, it may not. I invite further comment here, particularly any cogent argument that reveals irredeemable flaws that would disqualify this (tweaked) proposal, or see the "original" compromise proposal as of 18:18, 14 March 2012 (user:David Levy)

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the universe, from which the American TV sitcom The Big Bang Theory takes its name.

Big Bang or Big Bang Theory may also refer to...

• First up, I say, none of these articles would be called Big bang anything, if Fred Hoyle had not coined the term, and it gained wide currency due to, I guess, how striking the phrase is. So all the names derive from big bang. Is not that the way to make sense of this, or, well I could be wrong .. But then, see WP:DPAGES ;Combining terms on disambiguation pages A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms. Sets of terms which are commonly so combined include:

Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article (i.e., "a", "an", or "the" in English). For example, Cure (disambiguation) also contains instances of The Cure.

Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks.

So, a combined dab page, Big Bang, and Big Bang Theory, and including the other entries, then work the various redirects out. ie. "TheBig bang Theory" would go straight to the sitcom page, while Big Bang theory goes to the cosmological article. That can work, can it not? Ty NewbyG ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• This shouldn't need to be repeated, but adding " Theory" is not the presence or absence of an article, nor differing only in capitalization, punctuation, or diacritic marks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But it's "variant forms of names".Diego (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose merger of the dabs, as discussed above -- the two titles have completely distinct sets of topics that could use the ambiguous title, except for the theory itself, which is handled specially with a mention in the hatnote on The Big Bang Theory. If you're only talking about changing the lede of the separate Big Bang (disambiguation) page, I'm not sure what this gains us. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Having distinct sets of topics in a single page is what disambiguationss are for, and the Wikipedia:DPAGES guideline gives direct advice to combine "variant forms of names" "terms which differ only in capitalization" and "terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article". Wikipedia guidelines recommend the merger; no need for a special treatment for the theory. Diego (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, since the two titles here are not "variant forms of names" "terms which differ only in capitalization" and "terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• No? In which way do "Big Bang" an "The Big Bang Theory" differ, other than those three? Diego (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no strong opinion on whether we should merge the two disambiguation pages or keep them separate. As I noted at the time, my compromise proposal is intended to apply in either case (so the above example is exactly what I had in mind in the event of a merger).
  I think that it would be helpful to discuss the two ideas separately, as there's no sense in opposing one simply because it's bundled with the other. —David Levy 17:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  That makes sense, this thread should be about the wording of your compromise text. Diego (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  If the dabs remain separate, I don't see the point of calling out the other page's primary topic on each page (other than to mollify editors who dislike seeing a TV show title above a theory). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the text by David Levy whether the dabs are merged or not. Diego (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)