Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

FIAF

Hi, I am not familar with the rules of the en.wp as this is not my homewiki. My question would be: Is FIAF supposed to be a a disambig. page? If yes, can someone fix that page? thx --Teilzeittroll (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. --Teilzeittroll (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello, I would like for someone to please move the actual article "School of Tropical Medicine" to the "Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine" (The proper title) since there are various shools of Tropical Medicine, therefore making the current title a misleading one. Then I would like someone to convert the "School of Tropical School" into a disambiguation page which would include: School of Tropical Medicine (Puerto Rico), London School of Tropical Medicine, the Harvard School of Tropical Medicine and the Calcutta School School of Tropical Medicine. I tried doing it myself, but some one undid it and I would like to avoid a misunderstanding in the event that I am wrong in my suggestion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid those changes because of WP:TWODABS: there are only two articles that could conceivably use this title, and one of them (the Calcutta school) clearly appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Therefore, disambiguation by hatnotes is sufficient, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure TWODABS applies here. "School of Tropical Medicine" is essentially a generic name, not unlike a "School of Dentistry" or "School of Engineering". There are couple of other schools of topical medicine with articles or redirects with the form PLACE School of Tropical Medicine. For example, London School of Tropical Medicine and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. There is also the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. And it appears there may have been more previously that have since been renamed or repurposed, such as a Harvard School of Tropical Medicine[1]. Whether all of these require a disambiguation page or are partial title matches is hard to say, but it seems wrong to imply that Calcutta School of Tropical Medicine and School of Tropical Medicine (Puerto Rico) are the only articles with content possibly ambiguous with the generic school name. older ≠ wiser 18:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was relying on the disambiguation page that User:Marine 69-71 created, which only listed these two articles; I probably should have investigated more thoroughly before acting. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It might make more sense to redirect School of Tropical Medicine to Tropical medicine, analogous to how School of Engineering or School of Medicine or School of Dentistry redirect to the subject article. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• It seems as if the situation has been taken care of and the proper disambiguation page created. I would like to thank User:R'n'B for his cooperation, contributions and civility in the issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary Topic: Plea for clearer wording

I came here seeking clarification of the policy, but the wording of "Is there a primary topic?" is too vague. Having read through recent discussions I appreciate that this formulation may be deliberate (or the result of an unhappy consensus), but it cannot be left in its current state because of the confusion it can generate across a wide range of topics.

There appear to be two schools of thought regarding the meaning of the word "primary".

• Primary usage: Article naming should be determined purely on the basis of visitor statistics. Advocates believe that for an online source accessibility is most important.
• Primary importance: Article naming should incorporate common sense consideration of relevant factors including, among others, visitor statistics. Advocates believe that for an encyclopedia educational value is most important.

I would like to concentrate on the improving the current wording. I think there are three problems with it:

1. It favours the 'primary usage' school by according too much importance to statistics;
2. Where it does list other factors it does not articulate what they mean or how to measure them against one another;
3. It misses out key factors, some of which are already used by editors in certain fields.

I do not wish to reopen old arguments (although I suspect this is inevitable) so before going into more detail and spending time drafting alternative text does anyone object to me raising this issue again? I don't think we can leave this page as it stands. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think most people would find 1) to be a problem; 2) is unavoidable, as the factors involved vary from case to case; 3) this is not the place for that kind of detail -- subject-area-specific criteria belong elsewhere. Powers ^T 13:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The first point is the subject of some debate in the discussion archives; clearly it is a problem. The second is avoidable by rewording to enable editors to understand the concepts behind the extant statements without having to read 34 discussion pages. The third point: key factors should belong on the relevant guideline page (i.e. here). Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I came here to start a thread about this, and I see one already begun. People are requesting page moves per "primary topic", giving page statistics as the only argument. I think this should be strongly discouraged. We should be basing decisions on something other than page-view stats, but the guideline doesn't really say anything about how to do that.

  An example that comes to my mind of a page where the primary topic is not somehow automatically the one with the most page views is Anne Hathaway. I saw people arguing during (and following) a recent move discussion at Anne Hathaway (actress) that a currently popular actress is "obviously", by "common sense", primary over a person with centuries of enduring historical notability, the wife of one of the very most important writers in the history of the English language, and a source of interest and inspiration for dozens of generations of scholars and writers.

  Page view stats make it very clear that anyone currently popular on the internet is far-and-away primary over someone of more academic than pop-culture interest. This is not encyclopedic, and I think we should address this directly. I'm not sure exactly how to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Well you can see this currently in one days nominations at WP:RM. Not picking on the editor that made these nominations or stating an opinion. However this is an good example of what GTBacchus is pointing out. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
    • People here may want to review this discusion, which led to the intentionally vague "educational value", which seems to cover the Anne Hathaway scenario. Does it not? I'm thinking consensus here is already in agreement with GTBacchus' position, so maybe we only need to clarify the wording, if that. --JaGa^talk 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I was one of those arguing that the actress is the primary topic, although I really hope I didn't use words like "obviously" and "common sense" (no matter how obvious it may be). I often analyze pageviews to see what most readers of WP are searching for when they use an ambiguous phrase. I also analyze incoming wikilinks to see what articles editors are linking to, and when those two are inconclusive I sometimes go to Google for an appropriate search when possible. The reason is that while none of those are perfect, they are objective. I've seen fundamental differences of opinion as to whether article titles should direct readers to what most people are most likely looking for (objective) or to what is most important or "vital" or educational or historical (subjective). "Historic notability" is not inherently and incontestably more important than "popularity", or vice versa; it's simply a choice. This has been discussed often before and frankly I don't think there is a true consensus as to which way we should go. The primary topic guideline should reflect that, and not "strongly" encourage or discourage any considerations that multiple editors use in determining a primary topic. Station1 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Station1: I disagree with your assertion that statistics are objective. They are not; They reflect systemic and internet bias. Wikipedia will never be taken seriously as an educational resource if it panders to arbitrary Google stats. This article [2] from The Onion illustrates my point. It still makes me laugh, but there is a serious side to the problems it highlights. JaGa: I did read that discussion - which raised some interesting points - and my proposal is that we do indeed go a bit further to clarify the wording. The guidance here might not necessarily encourage/discourage particular considerations (Station1's point), but it should explain how to analyse factors and compare them against one another. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree that statistics require analysis, and perhaps something could be written about that, although I fear that would open a can of worms. Although they may be biased or incorrect or misinterpreted, statistics are objective by definition. Systemic bias has to do with what gets put into WP by its editors, but once an article is in here its viewership can be objectively if imperfectly measured, and primary topic has to do only with topics already covered by WP. Internet bias is irrelevant and inevitable since WP is part of the internet and we serve only internet users. Pageviews (note, not "Google stats"), when properly used, often show what WP readers are seeking. As I said, it can be reasonable to ignore objective measures in favor of subjective criteria, but even assuming that it is a (realizable) goal of WP to "be taken seriously as an educational resource", as opposed to being a popular internet resource, I doubt the naming conventions are a significant factor in that regard. Station1 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)I think Wikipedia is taken seriously as an educational resource by millions of people. Although I agree with the position you're taking here, Wiki-Ed, there's no need to invoke such ideas. Station1, I appreciate that you avoided the language "obvious" and "common sense"; that's helpful. My issue with the current guideline is that it gives very specific ways to determine what's more popular, but doesn't really address how we can determine what's more important or educationally significant. I think this contributes to people not even taking the latter into consideration. We could encourage a more balanced approach. I'm not sure I see how "historical" = "subjective", either. We can look at sources that address history, and we can do so objectively. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
            • I understand what you are saying about the current guideline. I think it gives specific ways to determine what's most popular because we can point to specific tools that will give us objective statistics to help determine what is more popular. On the other hand, what is more important or educationally significant is purely a matter of opinion; there are no tools or standard methods that I know to help determine that, other than discussion and consensus. Station1 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I wouldn't say it's "purely" a matter of opinion. Insofar as there is any consensus, we can describe it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I think those of you who are ranting "internet bias" are missing the point of primary topic. Primary topic is "the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". Primary topic is not an issue of merit or importance. It's for convenience. We cater to our audience. To do otherwise would defeat the purpose entirely. 99.999% of our readers are accessing Wikipedia from the web. We are not a paper encyclopedia. Marcus Qwertyus 05:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
            • "Ranting" is a nice choice of word. I see reasonable people making valid points, on all sides of the question. You're not ranting. Neither am I. Let's continue to not rant, nor to accuse others of it. Erring on the side of more respect is always best.

              On what do you base your claim that "primary topic" is not an issue of merit or importance? Why is it only for convenience? Considering how few people access Anne Hathaway (actress) (no more than 6% of her viewers, at the most) via the dab page, for example, I don't see convenience being a major issue. Where and when was it decided that it's all about convenience? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

              • Convenience is the root of the whole primary topic idea. There would be no "primary topic" if Wikipedia could telepathically know which topic each reader was typing in. On the lack of traffic on disambiguation pages you mentioned, I acknowledge this. The majority of our page views come from clicks on search engines. But if we aren't going to decide primary topic based on convenience, why would we base primary topic on merit or importance if this structure yields no benefit to the reader (from conveniency)? Marcus Qwertyus 08:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                • If we're going to base primary topic at least partly on merit or importance it will be for reasons of merit or importance. Let's see what other people think. I think you've made your position quite clear.

                  I sure never suggested that telepathy should enter into it; thanks for representing my position that way. Have I tried to disparage or ridicule your position? If so, please give me a chance to apologize. Erring on the side of more respect is always best. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

                  • No one is ridiculing anyone. I just like posing my thoughts as questions. Marcus Qwertyus 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • "There would be no "primary topic" if Wikipedia could telepathically know which topic each reader was typing in." That's not a question. It's apparently an attempt to suggest that someone, somewhere, is suggesting that Wikipedia "telepathically" know what people are looking for. Nobody suggested that, and that is ridiculous, hence my use of the term "ridicule". If that wasn't an attempt to equate any argument with something ridiculous, then I guess I don't get what was going on in that sentence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • "Convenience is the root of the whole primary topic idea." If WP could know what you were looking for automatically, the concept of primary topic would be obsolete. Just trying to back up my claim that navigation is the whole reason behind Primary topic.Marcus Qwertyus 15:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                        • "If WP could know what you were looking for automatically, the concept of primary topic would be obsolete." I don't see the relevance of that. Nobody is talking a situation where Wikipedia knows anything automatically. Given that we don't know anything automatically, do we try to cater to convenience alone, or to other considerations as well? Answer: we do what consensus supports. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                    • Separately, there's something very odd about the question (which is a question) "If we aren't going to decide primary topic based on convenience, why would we base primary topic on merit... if this yields no benefit to the reader (from conveniency)?" If we aren't basing it on convenience, then I don't understand questioning the convenience-value of other considerations. That's a weird kind of switch. It's like asking "If we aren't going to serve bacon, then why would we serve something that has no nutritional content (as bacon)?" That last parenthetical is very strange, considering the initial clause. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                      • What benefit does the proposed naming scheme have to the reader if it just takes you to the wrong article? Marcus Qwertyus 15:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
                        • I'm not sure what "proposed naming scheme" you're talking about. I'm proposing that the guideline, and our actions, reflect consensus. No matter what naming scheme we choose, some people are taken to the "wrong article". The question is whether minimizing that number should be our only consideration. I don't believe that there is consensus support for that position. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Replying to no one in particular, I'll reiterate what I've written in previous discussions. When there is ambiguity in the titles of topics, a primary topic essentially means that one topic is so much more likely to be expected to be found at a particular title that it is worth inconveniencing anyone who might happen to be looking for one of the other topics. Personally, I think that bar should be relatively high and the guideline should have a stronger default to having a disambiguation where there are conflicting indications. older ≠ wiser 23:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that inconveniencing people is an issue here. In the Anne Hathaway case, lots of people talked about this, but very few noticed that almost nobody looking for the actress ever has to expend a second click, due to internal links, Google searches, and auto-complete in our own search box. It's not about convenience, one way or another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I very much disagree with that. 43,659 viewers hit the Anne Hathaway dab page in August, of whom roughly 93%, or 40,000, wanted Anne Hathaway (actress). That's not almost nobody. One can argue that the deliberate decision to slightly inconvenience tens of thousands of readers per month is worth it for more important reasons, but not that they don't exist. Station1 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I went back to July, to avoid the month of the page move discussion itself, which would certainly skew the statistics. I see that in that month 23,150 people viewed the disambiguation page, while 26,600 people viewed Shakespeare's wife. By what argument can we say that most of those viewing the dab page were looking for the actress? How can you tell that 93% of the people visiting the dab page wanted the actress? Are you seeing some stats I don't know about? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I didn't find any diffs for this, sometimes the disambiguation page links are deliberately pointed away from the actual articles to see how many people clicked certain links. Marcus Qwertyus 05:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That is one way to learn more about reader behavior. I'm not aware that it's been tried in the case under discussion here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer GTBacchus: 23,150 readers viewed the dab page in July. 379,222 viewed Anne Hathaway (actress). 26,630 viewed Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). It is true that most people who access any article on WP do not come through a dab page; those people are irrelevant when considering pageviews except as evidence of the proportion seeking each article. It's also true that we do not know directly how many clicks come off a given dab page per month, but it is logical to assume that the proportions will be roughly the same as those who come via a different route. Since 93% of all the people seeking Anne Hathaway land on the actress's article, it's reasonable to assume a roughly similar percentage of 23,150 people per month click on her article after reaching the dab page. Even if we discount that to, say, 80%, it means 18,520 people in July were inconvenienced by the current set-up. Additionally, if even a bare majority of readers landing on the dab page clicked through to Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare), it would mean that 43% of her readers came through the dab page but only 3% of the actress's readers came through the dab page, which seems extremely unlikely. Station1 (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Station1: "it is logical to assume that the proportions will be roughly the same as those who come via a different route". I don't see the logic behind that assumption at all. How do people get to the dab page? If you Google Anne Hathaway, then the top Wikipedia hit is to the actress' article. If you click on an internal link, you go straight to the article you're interested in. If you type "Anne Hathaway" into the search box, you see your auto-complete options. I suspect that a lot of visitors to the dab page are there because they're curious to whom or what else "Anne Hathaway" may refer. That's the only reason I'd be there.

You say it "seems extremely unlikely" (extremely subjective!) that very few of the actress' readers come through the dab page, but look how many internal links point to her, versus the historically notable Anne Hathaway. The vast, vast majority of readers about the actress come via Google, via internal links, and via the auto-completed text in the search box. I find it extremely easy to believe (yes, subjective!) that 3% or fewer arrive via the dab page. Even if all the dab page viewers are looking for the actress, that's only 6% of her page's views. The vast majority never see the dab page, no matter how you cut it.

As for the historically notable Anne Hathaway, I expect that a significantly larger proportion of her traffic is driven via the dab page. She's not getting as many visitors, and she's liable to get views from the curiosity of readers who wonder who besides the actress is called "Anne Hathaway". The actress probably gets views in the same way: someone looking for Shakespeare's wife wonders who else is called "Anne Hathaway". It is very easy for me to believe that the historically notable figure gets a much higher percentage of views via the dab page than the currently popular actress.

All of this aside, what do you have to say about the actual topic of this thread? I suggest we take the argument about Anne Hathaway to a more relevant page, and address here how this guideline can inform editors about primary topic decisions. What are your thoughts on that issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's understood by all that we're both using Anne Hathaway just as an example, per your first bullet above (no need to discuss the specific case again elsewhere). And I think it's a pretty good example to show the competing values of different editors. As stated at the top of this section, some editors see an article title as mostly a navigation aid to get most people where they want to be with the least inconvenience, to the best of our ability; those editors would make the actress the primary topic with a hatnote to Shakespeare's wife. For a long time, that postion was the consensus, or at least that's what was reflected in the guideline. I think a majority of active RM editors probably still land in that camp to varying degrees, and therefore I'm not in favor of your proposal to strongly discourage using statistics as arguments when discussing page moves. But I also recognize that other editors think other considerations can be equally or more important. I wouldn't discourage those arguments either. The guideline should only reflect consensus, not try to impose rules. Station1 (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm more opposed to rules than 99% of editors on this site. I don't think the guideline should reflect anything other than consensus, which is what this site is based on. Consensus is one of our 5 pillars; convenience is not. If there is a broad consensus of Wikipedians to base primary topic purely on convenience, then I'll assent to that. So far, I don't see it.

It's not clear to me that there's consensus support for giving very concrete guidelines for using statistics to determine primary topic, while giving almost no concrete guidance as to what is meant by: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users."

If such a consensus has emerged in multiple cases, which the quoted text seems to suggest, then perhaps it would be acceptable to give a bit more detail? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need rules for consistency. Consensus various from topic to topic. I was going to propose we say something like: 'Wikipedia is not Google and does not duplicate its function; Wikipedia does not need to arrange its structure to correspond with the way that Google's search engine directs people to Wikipedia articles. Google uses some algorithm to calculate popularity. We do not need to use this method because Google does it for us. We should not use it because:

1. Usage changes over time and if followed exactly would lead to chaos;
2. It reflects internet bias (previous discussions have already raised hypothetical examples of a new band calling itself "Jesus" or Justin Bieber changing his name to "water"); and
3. The first and foremost purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate (that's where the word comes from) and that is why core policies (NPOV, V, NOR) focus on this rather than accessibility issues.

The fact that Wikipedia happens to sit on the web does not mean that its educational value should be compromised in order to save a user a single mouse click. Next thing someone will be suggesting having "like" buttons to determine article quality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So we should redirect every article in existence to Cold fusion? They are going to end up at the article they wanted regardless of what you force them to view so why force them to make the extra clicks? Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial. No knowledge is more or less important to another. Marcus Qwertyus 10:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what people are saying. Cold fusion. That's man's made of straw; there's no way he'll fight back. If no knowledge is more important than any other, what's the point of WP:VITAL? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Vital is about articles that are empirically or hierarchical (i.e. Actor is empirical to Anne Hathaway (actress)). Plus I don't think that was ever written as a guideline or policy. The argument Wiki-Ed seems to be making is that we should be in-impartially ranking articles by perceived educational value. This project is an attempt to document all the world's knowledge not go on some crusade to educate the public. Marcus Qwertyus 14:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this project is precisely to educate the public. At least, I think a large proportion of Wikipedians would say it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

If I type in Robin Wright and land on Robin Wright (author) I'm going to just go strait to the actress's article regardless of what you believe is educational. So why not save me a few clicks? Marcus Qwertyus 15:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion of what's educational has nothing to do with anything. We decide nothing based on my opinions, and everything based on consensus. I make no argument against consensus. If consensus supports the all-for-convenience viewpoint, then I will complete moves accordingly. So far, that's not the case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion. I don't think the guideline ever advocated "ease of navigation" as a reason for primary topics. I think that rationale has been derived from the principle of least surprise, which was explicitly the basis behind primary topic, both at this guideline and at the article title (formerly naming conventions) guideline page. But I think the principle of least surprise encompasses more than just ease of navigation or page view statistics. I've always felt page view statistics are the weakest indicator of primary topic, though unfortunately because they are the most easily obtained evidence they often are given inordinate weight in discussions. IMO, the mission of wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia, not to create a web site that perfectly optimizes page views. Determination of whether there is a primary topic is a matter of consensus and a variety of factors should be taken into consideration. Where there are conflicting indications, as between a historically significant subject versus a contemporaneous hot topic, I think would suggest that a disambiguation page is appropriate rather than designating one as "primary". older ≠ wiser 13:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the solution we settled on in the Anne Hathaway case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't. There was no consensus in that discussion, "so we'll fall back on our usual practice of not moving an article in the face of significant opposition", according to the reasonable decision of the closing admin (i.e., you). Station1 (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess that is a more fair description. I concur, and apologize for letting my memory be colored by my opinion in the current discussion. The effect of the lack of consensus is that we didn't select a primary topic there, but you're right about how it came about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Made an edit

Here. I think it's accurate, anyway. Thoughts? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A comment on the section about links, but not an objection to your rewording. In my mind, links can actually be a better case for why something is not the primary topic. Using them to establish primacy is more problematic. I wonder if an appropriate rewording to reflect this would have consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a really good start. I was going to start drafting something, but got bogged down by the bit you've just rewritten. However, I think we also need to look at expanding the section on the factors that editors should use to consider cases, as per my first post. If no-one else does it in the meantime I'll have a look at that tomorrow. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's more to say, and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on the matter. It was your original post that inspired half of what I wrote. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Whither recentism? --JaGa^talk 08:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't care about losing the link, because it's... how do people say?... "just an essay", and people don't take it very seriously. That's only half (or a third) tongue-in-cheek. If there's a nice way to re-add it, then please feel free.

Every time someone says "X is just an essay by Y is policy", God kills a kitten. When it's said in response to someone using the word "X" without linking to - or thinking about - the essay, it's a whole litter of kittens, plus two baby seals and a hard-working pastry-chef. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The definition of primary topic has always been stated relative to usage in reliable sources. Creating a competing and especially vague definition based on something as nebulous as "importance" (even stated as "significantly greater enduring notability and educational value") accomplishes nothing except opening the door even more for JDLI rationalizations. If this sticks, just watch the RM backlog grow even more.

  We should be striving to refine our rules to reduce editor strife. Changes like this, which make them more vague, is just throwing fuel on the fire. Bad, bad idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC) --claim stricken. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You just made a prediction. Bet you $10? I'm incredibly certain that this will not have any noticeable effect on the RM backlog. Make it $100? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
    • No, I'm not certain it will grow the backlog. It is more likely to create more "no consensus" decisions because it gives reason favoring either side for any RM proposal that involves a name that can refer to a topic with wide usage in sources as well as a different one that can be argued to be most important. The longstanding original definition provided clear guidance on what to do in such situations; the current wording provides none. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
      • You seem to think that I'm making an edit that will change how people behave. This is the common superstition about policy... People already behave this way. I'm trying to document it accurately, instead of the inaccurate documentation that was there before. People empirically have been considering the criteria I described since the site's inception. Do you disagree?

        "The longstanding original definition provided clear guidance on what to do in such situations; the current wording provides none." The clear guidance you claim we provided has always been ignored as necessary. All we're doing now is admitting that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

        • It's circular: behavior influences policy and policy influences behavior. No matter what rule you choose, you will be able to find some number of cases where that rule is ignored and/or some other rule is used. We already account for that with WP:IAR. But if you also use such cases to justify "loosening" the rule, then loosening that rule will cause even more cases of the exceptional behavior.

          There is a good reason we limit how much we determine criminal law based on behavior. I mean, making a point with an admittedly very extreme example, by rules-follow-behavior reasoning, murder and rape should be lawful because people kill and rape.

          The whole point of policy and guideline is to help editors decided what to do - to guide them - in areas where guidance is needed. This section provides guidance for the process of determining primary topic. Before this change the guidance was clear regarding what to do when one use meets the traditional criteria (the most likely to be sought) while another use is perceived to be more important: go with the traditional criteria. Now, that doesn't mean in some cases a consensus can't invoke IAR, and they do, but by explicitly giving that IAR condition equal status (if you will) in the policy, you've effectively removed any guidance, and the whole point of having this section, at least in the cases where "importance" can be even dubiously argued to conflict with the traditional criteria, is lost. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

          • You're wrong, and that's why neither consensus nor practice support your theory. Watch what happens, and learn. Or perhaps you're going to teach us all about "rule of law"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
            • You call that a response to what I wrote? Apparently, there is no reasoning with you. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm tired of the same-old same-old, Born2cycle. Experience supports what I've been doing for years: helping to smoothly run the site in accordance with consensus, and documenting practice in guideline pages. You've been predicting chaos if we don't become rule-bound for a long time, and it hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen. Your ideas about the purpose of policy are not supported by consensus, and they never have been. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed guidance

I propose we split this section to reflect how we differentiate meanings of the term "primary" and also include a reminder of the key guidelines about writing neutrally. The factors I've listed only reflect the discussions I've been reading across the project; there may well be many others.

• Usage
  • Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
  • Wikipedia article traffic statistics
  • Google web, news, scholar, or book searches (NOTE: adding &pws=0 to the google search string eliminates personal search bias)
• Importance
  • Educational value: Certain topics are academically important and should take precedence over pop-culture uses of the same term, particularly when the meaning is different. This factor should be used to counter Systemic bias. For example Madonna is a disambiguation page because the term has greater religious, historical and artistic significance than the modern entertainer whose article attracts significantly more page views than all the other uses combined.
  • Historical legacy: Certain topics are perennially important or are the primary source of derivatives which share the same name. This factor should be used to counter Recentism. For example, the city of York is historically important and occupies the namespace even though there are many places/people/objects which have borrowed the name in recent centuries. This factor is also relevant to artistic works where recent multimedia derivatives may gain more page views than the original work upon which they are based (for example The Return of the King).
  • Pre-eminent contribution (use Churchill example)
  • Population (Ireland example? Could be a tricky one to include and would need careful wording)
• Contrary factors
  • Systemic bias, including (specifically) internet bias
  • Geographic imbalance
  • Recentism

(Or should this section link to the projects devoted to counter measures, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias?)

It's getting a bit late here so for now this is just a framework to illustrate where I think we should be going. Comments? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit discussed above, and this, is all asinine, for reasons I've given above. None of this providing guidance. It's describing chaos as policy, which makes the policy chaotic. That's not guidance. It's, well, asinine. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Asinine, very good. Get consensus support for your theory, Born2cycle. We'll keep doing what's succeeded here, and we'll keep succeeding. Your predictions of chaos have never come true, because your theory has never been right.

Are you badlydrawnjeff? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not badlydrawnjeff. Never heard of badlydrawnjeff, until now.

By chaos I mean "unpredictable outcomes", and I'd say that already applies to a significant number, perhaps a majority of RM decisions.

Here's a challenge, start a subpage in your user account where every day you review all of the new RM requests for that day and predict their outcome: move, consensus to not move, or no move due to no consensus, and we'll see if you can bat 500. I bet you can't. That's what I mean by chaos, and policy changes like this will only make RM decisions more chaotic (less predictable). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You have heard of him, because I've mentioned him to you before. It was when you started talking about "rule of law" on ANI before leaving the site for a while recently. I suggested that you look at his experience and learn from it. I still suggest that. I make no claim that I can predict what consensus will say, and there's no need for me to do so. My batting average at RM is that the vast majority of my closures are never challenged. Those that are, I invariably take to AN for review, and I've yet to have one overturned.

Thinking about your challenge, though, I could bat over .500. Wanna put money on it? I do. I could use the money. How much, Born? Put up the money, and I'll bite. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Policies on article content should not be simply extrapolated to navigation pages. Coverage of various topics can be given without bias while still directing the audience to the likeliest target with navigational aids to get everyone to their unbiased coverage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen that consensus supports the "likeliest target" in all cases position. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about "the "likeliest target" in all cases position."??? Like I said above (which you ignored), we already have IAR based exceptions, which requires good reason to choose an alternative title (which importance is particularly strong), and sometimes that's a consideration. But to give "importance" equal weight to "most likely to be sought"? That's totally new, and not supported in practice, by the way. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about "equal weight"? Nobody's revisions or suggestions have said this. We've simply affirmed that there are two kinds of "primary topic" that people talk about. When IAR is used repeatedly, then we write it down so people don't have to consider it an IAR invocation anymore. This has always been the case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewording, since the point was dodged. Ahem, "Policies on article content should not be simply extrapolated to navigation pages. Coverage of various topics can be given without bias while still directing the audience to the appropriate target with navigational aids to get everyone to their unbiased coverage." -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to "dodge" this point, but I admit that I didn't understand it. I don't see why you bring up "unbiased" coverage, because I don't see anyone suggesting a danger of bias one way or the other. I'm not sure who's suggesting that anything be "extrapolated to navigation pages". Nobody's opposed to "directing the audience to the appropriate topic", either. There's just disagreement on whether the "appropriate topic" should be defined as the one sought by the greatest numbers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Contrary factors" in the opening list are all assumed from article content guidelines, but disambiguation pages are not articles. The article content can be made unbiased while still permitting the navigational pages to best serve the readership in getting to whichever topic they are most likely, or most appropriately, seeking. Trying to counter encyclopedia bias is one thing; trying to "correct" perceived readership bias is another. If the readers are biased toward the latest pop singer over a medieval monk of the same name (I don't have one in mind, just making that up), then we shouldn't try to ensure they first see the more "important" monk before allowing them to navigate to the article sought. The goal of disambiguation has been to deliver the likeliest article to the reader; that has been the long-standing consensus, with multiple criteria (not just traffic) since we cannot yet read their minds, and not in all cases, since no matter what criteria we put here some local consensuses will continue to ignore it in favor of a less likely but favored target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this is bogus. Content guidelines should apply to disambiguation pages as well as to articles. There might be some qualifications based on their function to aid navigation, but I don't there should be a blanket exemption for disambiguation pages. I'm not sure about geographic imbalance, but recentism and systemic bias can both affect the placement of disambiguation pages and should be taken into consideration. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If we apply content guidelines to disambiguation pages, then there can never be a primary topic, per WP:NEUTRAL. The ambiguous title must neutrally cover all ambiguous topics. IMO, that is bogus, as is extrapolating encyclopedia anti-bias concerns ("the encyclopedia should cover both recent and non-recent topics!", which is WP:RECENT) to reader anti-bias impositions ("the encyclopedia readers should be just as likely to seek recent and non-recent topics!", which is not WP:RECENT). If the readers are wildly more interested in a recent topic or a topic more closely aligned to the English-speaking geography, why should we try to "fix" them by interposing some other, more "important" or "unbiased" topic or disambiguation page in their way first? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not even remotely close to what WP:NEUTRAL demands. This isn't about "fixing" readers, it is about creating a free encyclopedia, and the most important part of that is the participation of a wide range of editors and editorial discretion in all aspects of the encyclopedia. Content guidelines are an attempt to describe the application of such editorial activity and disambiguation pages most certainly fall within that purview. older ≠ wiser 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree: using navigational pages to direct readers to articles other than what they are (most likely) seeking is about fixing readers. Once they get to the topic they are looking up, then they have reached the encyclopedia content level. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This guideline is as much about what to do when there is ambiguity in article titles as it is about navigation and as such it is absolutely part and parcel of other content guidelines. Pretending that disambiguation pages are not part of the encyclopedia content is disingenuous. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to be disingenuous. I am genuinely suggesting that the content be made unbiased per the existing content guidelines and the readers then be delivered the content they seek in the most efficient manner possible, even if that means that we serve up more articles on recent topics than on non-recent ones, despite having equal coverage of both. Navigation pages (redirects and disambiguation pages) are absolutely not articles (content). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And what guidelines describe what content be delivered to readers under a particular name? That would be this guideline (along with Article titles). This guideline does not operate in a vacuum and it is disingenuous to try to exempt it from content guidelines. There might be some qualifications based on the function of the pages, but they are not exempt. older ≠ wiser 17:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The article title guidelines determine what title to use and, if needed, what disambiguator to append. Those two questions are indeed independent (not in a vacuum, but in an encyclopedia) of the decision of which of multiple ambiguous-title topics, if any, to first serve up to a reader based on their request. And let me make my previous implied request explicit: stop ascribing disingenuousness to me; it is incorrect and insulting. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, my apologies for some careless invective. You are sincere, even though I think you're wrong. It is highly artificial to separate consideration of primary topic from that of article title. They are two sides of a coin. The determination that there is a primary topic often affects the title of that article (and perhaps other articles as well). older ≠ wiser 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The determination of a primary topic affects only the disambiguator portion of non-primary topics. And what that portion is or would be is determined separately from whether it is needed in the first place. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Natural disambiguation is also used. Whether a title has a disambiguating phrase or not is a non-trivial issue. And the factors to consider in determining primary topic are not deterministic and require editorial judgement which should draw upon content guidelines. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Same effect here, whether the disambiguator is natural or parenthesized. If (a) the article would have one title if there were no ambiguity and (b) needs another one because it is not the primary topic of the ambiguous title, then (c) it needs a disambiguator (natural or parenthesized). I never said that was trivial. I do still see that selection of disambiguator (step c) as independent of the determination of the need for a disambiguator (step b). A disambiguator could be identified in advance of the determination (and then not used if not needed), and the disambiguator selected by the naming conventions of the article project would not change based on the need for a disambiguator. The factors for determining primary topic, which I agree are not deterministic and unlikely to become so, require judgement. That judgement, though, has nothing to do with the judgement of the content of the article (content which will be unchanged) and the guidelines for content, nor with the judgement for the selection of disambiguator (the presence of which may change, but not the wording) and the guidelines for the wording of the disambiguator. The need for a disambiguator and the selection of a needed disambiguator are independent (non-trivial, but independent). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this simply baffling. How is an article title not content? How is it possible for editors to work on pages that affect how readers experience an encyclopedia exempt from guidelines describing content. It makes no sense to me to create such an artificial distinction. older ≠ wiser 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OTOH, I find it baffling to call the name part of the content. The content of a book is not its title, the body of an email is not its subject, the name of an animal is not its being, and the content of an article is not its title. The distinction between naming and content is very natural. Don't judge a book by its cover, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Choosing the name of a book is a highly significant part of the editorial process and can have a huge impact on the success of a book. It is true that it is a distinct component of a book (or other work), but it is nonetheless a part of what that book or work is. For an encyclopedia topic, the relationship is, I'd argue, even more integral. Determining whether there is a primary topic requires examination of the content and is not and never has been a numbers game or a matter of simplistic optimization of page traffic. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not calling it trivial. It is part of the work, but not part of the content. The numbers and traffic are irrelevant here. If the criteria for primaryness remain unchanged (or if they change), that decision is still independent of the content of the articles. And, as separate from the article content, attempting to force extrapolation of content guidelines to non-content aspects is not warranted or necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no forcing or extrapolation required. It is in fact more work to keep a boundary of artificial separation between them. older ≠ wiser 19:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Other proposed guidance

My own opinion has not changed since the last time this came up: it should be reduced to a simple traffic analysis, with guidance on how to experimentally get traffic results in the cases where test redirects are needed. Continuing to add more complications on top of the existing complication additions will lead to further additions of complications later. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a terrible idea, that will never receive consensus support, thank Zeus. No complications are being added, or being considered for adding. Reality is being reflected. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reducing primary topic to a simple traffic analysis is a terrible idea. Though I think in might be beneficial for the concept of specialized links on disambiguation pages to help gauge traffic to be articulated in the guideline. It often provides interesting results for consideration and can help decide between primary topic or disambiguation page in some extreme cases. older ≠ wiser 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Especially if you have a case with bad links driving those views. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There will be cases where local consensus would properly WP:IAR in favor of doing the right thing (or popular thing anyway), and we wouldn't be any worse off than with the current muddle of un-resolving guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

When IAR is invoked repeatedly for the same reason in similar circumstances, we often try to write those circumstances down, to alert people as to what often happens. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought we already wrote in an exception for certain highly important topics that may be briefly overshadowed by another topic's ephemeral popularity. (The Hathaway case was not such a case, IMO, but that's neither here nor there.) I don't see why anything more than that is needed. Getting the reader to the topic they're interested in is the primary purpose of disambiguation pages, and if we can shortcut that for a large proportion of readers, we should. Powers ^T 13:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that the consensus position? That's all I'm trying to reflect. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is the most recent consensus, yes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence? Where was this consensus established? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The project page history. The talk page archives. Unless you're contending that the guidelines didn't reflect the consensus. In which case: evidence? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's easy. The current discussion. Also, each case where Wikipedians have chosen to "IAR" and use primary importance to determine primary topic. Also, each case where Wikipedians have chosen to "IAR" and not grant primary topic status to a topic of primary usage, such as Anne Hathaway (actress). Every time Wikipedians go against a guideline, it's prima facie evidence that the guideline does not enjoy complete consensus support. When we can determine a pattern to our rejection of a guideline, it's pretty clear that the guideline is incompletely written, so we update it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret why I mean by "most recent consensus". And ignoring a rule in a specific case doesn't change the consensus in general. Otherwise, yes, I agree, when we reach a new consensus, we update the guidelines. This discussion-in-progress does not yet reflect a new consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It reflects a lack of existing consensus, and from the trenches of Requested Moves, I can report that there's nothing new being said here. These attitudes go back years. I'm not talking about a specific case, I'm talking about an identifiable pattern of specific cases. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I raised this is because, as an editor, I find the existing guidelines are insufficient. It is a fact, currently, that there is no consensus across a wide range of topics and traffic is not used universally as the determining factor. This guideline needs to be updated to reflect what sorts of factors editors do use to decide primacy and place them in a logical framework. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that the primary purpose of disambiguation pages is to disambiguate, not navigation. I agree with GTBacchus that the consensus is against deciding primary topic on page hits alone and the evidence can be seen in talk page discussions. Furthermore, as a large number of requested moves cite page hits as a reason; I believe there will be less work to do at RM, not more as one editor supposed.--Ykraps (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are correct in that it has never been about page hits alone -- that's my suggestion and unlikely to attain any consensus. You are incorrect about navigation -- we disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia topics in order to navigate the reader to their sought topic. This disambiguation is navigation. That's why we only list Wikipedia topics, not other topics (dictionary definitions, editors' non-notable companies) that editors sometimes try to disambiguate without navigational purpose. It has be consensusfully about likelihood (with discussion informed by page hits, Google book/scholar/news/web hits, and incoming Wikilinks) for some time, with a relatively recent addition for various definitions of educational value. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was: The primary purpose of disambiguation is to prevent multiple pages occupying the same slot. Taking people to where they want to be may be a secondary purpose but it certainly isn't the primary purpose. There is no necessity to take someone to the least surprising most sought after subject, it is just something we choose to do. And not always with consensus, as far as I can work out.--Ykraps (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We could disambiguate article titles without creating disambiguation pages. The disambiguation pages, the list of articles that have been disambiguated, is a navigational tool. It allows the reader to efficiently reach the page-with-ambiguous-title-plus-disambiguator easily. That is the primary purpose of disambiguation pages, and it's navigational. Selecting a primary topic determines in what order one topic and the corresponding disambiguation page will be encountered: dab first (no primary topic) or topic first (primary topic). Still navigational. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While you and perhaps some others might like to see this as purely navigational, there has been abundant discussion suggesting that the selection of a primary topic is a decision with ramifications beyond mere navigation. Of course navigation is a core function of disambiguation, but the disambiguation process and the guidelines encompass more than just navigation. older ≠ wiser 18:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "of course navigation", Ykraps says "not navigation". I'm trying to close that gap. The process has become enhanced or bloated, depending on your perspective, with additional considerations, but disambiguation pages and redirects are non-article navigational tools, and adding enhancements (or changes to the priority given to some articles over others in selecting a primary topic in front of the tools) doesn't change that. -- JHunterJ (talk)

I, for one, agree with everything JHJ has said so far in this section. I will add this: it is my impression that because of the name of "primary topic", at least some people have mistakenly interpreted it to mean "most important topic", when it was never intended to mean that. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better name that more accurately means, "most likely to be sought topic". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Again I feel obliged to draw your attention to this early version of the disambiguation guidelines[[3]], which clearly states, "If the title clearly has one central most important meaning..............one alternative is to have the full article about the primary meaning under the simple title". So to say it was never intended to mean most important topic", quite simply isn't true and I don't understand why you continue to say it.--Ykraps (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this disussion is going around in circles along a set of well worn tracks. Whatever the intention of the guideline, a narrow statistical interpretation of primacy does not reflect reality (literally and in terms of how articles have been named). We can either (1) enforce a strict statistical interpretation; (2) restore the ambiguous wording and leave editors to fight it out; or (3) try to provide a framework for discussions that reflects what is already taking place. The third option is viable and would agree with core editorial policies (particularly those on neutrality). The other two lead to chaos. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ykraps, "again"? Where have you brought this to my attention before? I was not aware of that early interpretation.

Anyway, as they say, that was long ago and not true. For many years it has been stated clearly only in terms of likelihood to be sought.

Personally, I don't care what it says, as long as the definition is clear. If it's the most sought after topic except when some other topic meets certain "importance" conditions, then let's say that, and be clear about what those conditions are.

Wiki-Ed - I'd like to do better than merely reflect what already takes place, which, in those cases where one topic is supported by being most sought, and another is arguably "more important" (and those are the only cases that matter to this discussion), is chaotic. That's why I think we need to be clear on what conditions need to be present to go with "most important" rather than "most sought". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's clear that there's a set of well-defined conditions that must be present to go with "most important" over "most sought". What we do it let people discuss and arrive at a consensus in cases where there's such a conflict. If we can look at a bunch of examples, we might be able to abstract just where the line gets drawn, but until we can do that, the best we can do is to say that, in the event of conflict, consensus decides. You can call that "chaos", but I call it an honest admission that we haven't yet distilled precise criteria. Such distillation comes from experience.

If these well-defined conditions exist, then I definitely want to know what they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. If we don't determine and specify what those conditions are, the "consensus" regarding which is used is determined by the preponderance of JDLI arguments on one side or the other. It can only be JDLI arguments because, since we specify no basis (what those conditions are), people can use whatever basis they feel like using. Basically, it will come down to those who believe the more "important" topic is more important because of a supposed nebulous education value vs. those who believe readers are best served when more get to their desired topic with fewer clicks. What we're really saying, effectively, is that in each such case there should be a vote of those who happen to be participating, and the side with the most votes wins. I suggest we stop obscuring reality and just say that so that the contradiction with other fundamental principles in this wording (like WP is not a democracy) is clear. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem. It is rather precisely the strength of Wikipedia that brings people with a wide range of backgrounds (although there is system bias in this) who discuss and determine how best to handle particular situations that are not amenable to rule-driven criteria. older ≠ wiser 16:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What. He. Said. Also, just because we don't know ahead of time precisely what principles are involved in an argument doesn't make it "JDLI". Have you no faith in the ability of intelligent humans to discern good reasons from pure whimsy? Nobody is calling for a vote. We're calling for intelligent discourse. You can trust intelligent discourse to arrive at decisions that are different from chance or whimsy. The principles may appear somewhat nebulous when we've only dealt with a few examples, but they become clearer over time. Instead of equating reasoned discourse with "JDLI" and "democracy", why not cite a few examples, and then try to abstract the principles involved?

Name three examples of cases where "primary importance" and "primary usage" are in conflict. I've only got one in mind right now: Hathaway. What principles are in play there? I know them, but treat this as an exercise, Born2cycle. What's going on with that distinction? Identify at least two concrete principles. I know you can do it.

You say: "It can only be JDLI arguments because, since we specify no basis (what those conditions are), people can use whatever basis they feel like using." What nonsense. If we don't hold people's hands, and tell them precisely how to think, then they're incapable of intelligence, and we're all infinitely gullible? Really? How about, we're a little bit savvy, and we can tell bullshit from reason? Identify the principles already, instead of repeating over and over again that they don't exist. You're not even trying. Stop complaining and start thinking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Anne Hathaway (though again I dispute that "primary importance" is in conflict with "primary usage" there), there's also Syracuse as a major example where the two are certainly in conflict. Powers ^T 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples, awesome. :D

I think the fact that you (and others) dispute the conflict in the Hathaway case, while I (and others) see a clear conflict, is what makes it a great example. If a conflict is determined by good-faith, intelligent editors conflicting, then there's a conflict. To me (and others), it's screamingly obvious that primary importance indicates Shakespeare's wife, while primary usage indicates the currently popular actress. Oh, and before someone insults participants in this discussion with another link to dubya-pee-jay-dee-ell-eye, we've all read it, and yes, I can enumerate specific, objective criteria. I'd rather see Born2cycle list those criteria, as an exercise in thinking about these things.

What's primary usage for "Syracuse"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're really being fair to B2C here, GTBacchus. JDLI doesn't mean one doesn't have an intelligent reason for not liking something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If he put 1% as much work into trying to read consensus out of discussions as he does into petulantly repeating that there isn't one, I'd feel a lot more generous towards him. If there are intelligent reasons, then some of them might be able to be abstracted into general principles that, it would turn out, enjoy consensus support. What are the intelligent reasons? That is the question I'm asking Born2cycle to consider addressing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the conflict at Ann Hathaway, but, absent consensus on what the guiding basis is for deciding such conflicts, there is by definition no basis to go with the currently popular actress, the wife of the famous writer, or a dab page. It's all whimsy, on both sides. We might as well toss coins to decide these. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In both cases, Anne Hathaway is spelled with an 'e'. You've clearly researched this. What are your observations of the principles cited in the discussion there? You have studied that discussion, right? Where is consensus regarding the guiding principles going to come from, except from observations of what arguments people buy, and why? Have you done any work on this question? Observe consensus, Born2cycle, and then tell us what you observed. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer has to be that, if there is no consensus on a primary topic, then the default should be a dab page at the primary title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would slightly tweak that: if there is no consensus for a change of primary topic arrangement (to or from no primary topic, or from one primary topic to another), then the default is the current state. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, absent clear guidance, what happens is people rationalize whatever their whimsical preference is, and there is no objective standard by which to judge one rationalization to be "better" than another. Only if we have clear guidance spelled out in policy can anyone say one reasoning is better than another.

Oh, and I can't think of any clear objective criteria that could be used in an effective and useful fashion to distinguish when to go with "historically important" over "much more likely to be sought". I also don't think it matters which one is used, and, to the extent it does, serving readers in terms of getting them to their desired destination sooner is preferred. More importantly, since we do have a reasonably objective means to determine "much more likely to be sought", I favor doing only that. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, if you "can't think of any clear objective criteria,..." then you're not trying. I can think of many. Have you studied the discussions in which this has come up, and looked at the arguments that people use? I'm assuming you have, and that you've tried to abstract the principles being cited. Otherwise, what are you talking about?

You have not begun to try to figure out what "primary importance" means to Wikipedians in context, have you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have thought about it. A lot. Again, I cannot think of any clear objective criteria that would clearly tell us, for example, whether Corvette should be the historical ship type or a redirect to the car, and which Ann Hathaway, if anyway, is of "primary importance". On both sides there are reasonable opinions, each of which uses difference criteria and weighs the same criteria differently. Which is best? Which is "correct"? There is no way to determine this, because there is no basis on which to make such a determination, especially since your edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think "Anne Hathaway" is spelled without an 'e'? Are you fucking with us? Is this funny to you?

What you've just said makes no sense: "especially since your edit". My edit means nothing! Whether or not there is a basis to make determinations of primary importance is not a question about a policy page, it's a question about the world! What you just said is equivalent to suggesting that my edit makes it harder to determine what color the sky is. Anyone who consults a guideline in order to determine whether a topic is primary is engaging in idiocy. You consult a consensus-building discussion to determine that.

This page has no effect on our ability to determine primary topic, unless we're slaves to the words written here. We're not slaves. When will you drop this ridiculous fantasy that these pages are so powerful? They're just documentations of what happens. You want to make it inaccurate again, revert me! I've practiced 0RR for years; I won't edit war with you! Make your edits, do your word magic. See how it affects decisions in the field; it won't. Neither do my edits.

You've proven that you haven't thought about this, because you refuse to address specific issues in specific examples. You don't even know how to spell "Anne Hathaway". I don't believe that you've read the discussion, because you apparently can't cite a single principle that was brought up, not even to refute it.

Name and discuss a single criterion, or I can't believe that you even know what they might possibly be. As for which criteria should get the most weight, we won't know that until we've observed what consensus does with it in action. We don't decide these things on these stupid talk pages; we're not lawmakers! These things are decided in the real discussions that you refuse to observe. You seem to think that failing to observe consensus-building discussions is how we should document what consensus is. That's so incredibly misguided. Just go make some observations, and then tell us what you saw. Not what you failed to see, but what you saw. Until then, you're wasting our time. You won't even edit the guideline; you just want to complain on the talk page. Do something, already, Born2cycle. Anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a primary topic for Syracuse, personally, though I haven't looked at the numbers recently. As for Anne Hathaway, it's not that I dispute that others think there's a conflict; all I meant is that the modern actress is at least as important culturally as Shakespeare's wife (at least the actress has actually created cultural works of lasting value, for instance). Powers ^T 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a purely subjective opinion. How do we measure cultural importance? There are ways. Of the ways I've listed, most favor the historical figure who has been a subject of scholarship and speculation for centuries, enduring through scores of generations of very, very popular actresses who are now forgotten. When you say "lasting value", you do mean on the scale of centuries, right? To me, it's a complete no-brainer, but I'm not the measure of these things. Neither are you. Consensus is.

Regarding Syracuse, if none of the topics is primary with respect to usage, then there's no conflict between "primary usage" and "primary importance". There may be a conflict between "primary importance" and "no primary topic", and that's worth analyzing as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry; I misunderstood. (Some people say "primary usage" when they mean "primary topic".) Syracuse, New York appears to be the primary meaning when measured by popularity or usage. As for Anne Hathaway, I'm still trying to figure out what she did of note besides marry Shakespeare. Powers ^T 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Syracure, New York should be the primary topic for "Syracuse", since that best serves the readership. Using "cultural importance" as an excuse to send most readers to the historical figure that they don't care about and aren't going to read anyway is putting the editors ahead of the readers and reduces the usability of the encyclopedia. That's why primary topic navigational should reflect usage. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Syracuse, New York fit the long-standing criterion for primary usage: i.e., is it accessed more often than the other topics combined? Or are you arguing that we need a looser criterion, and that we should give the primary topic to a simple plurality of "page hits"? That would be a change; good luck getting consensus support for it! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is correct that there is no primary topic for "Syracuse". We don't send readers to the historical figure (whatever that might mean in this case). We do send readers to a disambiguation page because the term is ambiguous and there is no clear-cut predominant sense of the term. older ≠ wiser 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not the the place to be arguing about whether "Syracuse" has a primary topic. This is the place to be discussing whether the definition of "primary topic" on this page makes clear whether "Syracuse", and countless other titles, has a primary topic. I suggest the current definition provides not much more guidance than would the statement, "toss a coin: heads it's "primary"; tails it's not". Useless. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I will prove you wrong. You can take that to the bank.

You, Born2cycle, seem to persist in your ridiculous superstition that these pages are rules. They simply document what would happen anyway, whether or not this page existed. We can delete this page, and the principles will still reign in the field. You refuse to document what happens, because you won't even comment on your observations. You've convinced me that you've made no observations. If you had, you would be able to name at least one principle that's been cited in a "primary importance" argument. You've failed to do so, despite being asked over, and over, and over again. Are you going to make me hold your hand and spell it all out? Seriously? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Field observations

The fact that you can't extrapolate a trend from one or two data points is not proof that a trend cannot be extrapolated. Refusing to consult more data points, and at least make a good-faith effort at documenting a trend, is incredibly counter-productive. Those who are here to document what's actually happening on the Wiki, instead of make wishes about what might happen in the Never-Never Land version of Wikipedia, please help me collect a list of principles that are cited in the discussions we're talking about.

Three examples to start with: Anne Hathaway, Syracuse, Corvette. Is real discussions, that have really occurred, what principles have people cited that they find useful in determining whether a topic is of primary importance. When we start listing these, we at least have a chance of observing some patterns. Meanwhile, those who prefer ignoring actual practice can continue to repeat that there can be no patterns.

The churchmen who refused to look in Galileo's telescope argued that they didn't need to look; they knew Jupiter could have no moons. I'm here to be an astronomer, not a dogmatist. I'll start listing discussion links.

RM and hits and links

I'm seeing more WP:RM requests for moves that are not contested and are solely based on links and or view counts and or Google results. I'm becoming more convinced that these should be closed as no consensus or something else that does not result in a move since relying solely on counts does not meet the spirit of the guideline. Is my thinking here wrong? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say so, but I'm slightly biased. I only came here because some editors visited some pages I watch and decided to start moving them around solely on the basis of view counts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to complete those moves if I think they're appropriate, whether for stated reasons or for other reasons, but I'm uncomfortable with page views being given as the sole justification for moving. It doesn't seem appropriately thoughtful and considering of a broad set of factors. That's precisely what brought me here yesterday, to the above section. It's also what, together with the above discussion, inspired the edit I just made to the guideline today.

So, I'm with you in spirit, Vegaswikian, but I think the above section provides ample proof that some Wikipedians are not. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

An admin should not close an uncontested request as no consensus just because the closer disagrees with the request. In a case like that, the admin should either register his opposition as an editor and let someone else decide, or relist for comments, or just leave it alone. Station1 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that an admin should ignore policy and guidelines? That is the base problem with these. They are not supported by anything other then page views which are not the final decider of what primary use is. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that in cases where an editor has proposed a move in good faith, whether because he can't move it himself and thinks it might be controversial or genuinely wants input from others, and no one has opposed the move, there should either be discussion about the move before it's closed or an admin should just move it if uncontroversial, but an admin should not close it as no consensus if the only opposition is the admin himself. That would be acting as prosecutor and judge. That's regardless of the type of request or the reason for opposing it. As to specifics of pageviews, there's absolutely no consensus that pageviews alone cannot be a reason for a move. Many editors cite them. If John Xyz (carpenter) consistently gets 500,000 pageviews per month while John Xyz (painter) gets 500, many editors would agree that's probably all that need be said. Station1 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If I see a move with no opposition, and I think it's contrary to policy, then my approach is to register an oppose and let someone else make the call. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Station1 & GTBacchus. Admins should either contest or carry out uncontested move requests; that's honoring, not ignoring, policies and guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Another RM issue: if an RM request is to move a disambiguated page to the base title, at which there is currently a disambiguation page which will have to be moved too, there should surely be a notification of this on the disambiguation page. But there are a batch of such suggestions on the RM board at present, such as Sean Kelly (cyclist), where anyone watching the dab page (Sean Kelly in this case) would not be alerted to the move proposal. This seems wrong and I have raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Notifications_of_Requested_Move. PamD 09:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. Any affected page should be engaged on their Talk for a Move request. The closing admin should also recognize this when they attempt to carry out the move and find an unengaged page or redirect at the intended target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  Strongly agree with this. Too many times I only notice such a move on a disambiguation page on my watchlist after the move has been completed. Seems it should be standard operating procedure for those closing moves to not close a move involving multiple pages unless the other pages affected by the moves have been properly notified. older ≠ wiser 18:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  I call 'em as I see 'em. Redirect pages that are affected? Hard to care about. The more going on with the affected page, the more likely that I care about notifying it. Actual talk page traffic is enough to make it essential. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  So if someone wanted to move Usa, Japan over Usa, you wouldn't have any problem if the only place the discussion took place or was noted was at Talk:Usa, Japan? Redirects in general are easy to care about, even if specific trivial redirects are trivial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  You came up with an example where I obviously care unless I'm a great fool. Very clever. You may rest assured that I'm not a great fool, and that if you find a problem that incredibly dumb in the literal reading of my words, it means that's something I wasn't thinking about when I composed that particular sentence. That's such a screamingly clear case that I see no point talking about it. Specific redirects that are obviously very important... are obviously very important. Is stating very obvious things really worth our time? Remember that our policy pages are not meant to be interpreted by robots as strict algorithms, much less auxiliary discussions such as this one. Sheesh. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  You're welcome -- happy to help sharpen your position. Yes, stating the obvious is worth our time, since so many editors will ignore the obvious in favor of their pet topics, and point to their absence in the guidelines if challenged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  My position is not sharpened. It has always been to use my common sense, and that's served me well. The above was not a "statement of position". It was me having a conversation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

  I think redirect pages are a judgement call. But the original comment in this thread wasn't about redirects. I think it is a problem when there is insufficient notification of moves that affect multiple pages. older ≠ wiser 01:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, BK, for bringing this back to my original point: I don't see a problem if a page is moved to over-write a redirect which was pointing to the page anyway; I do see a problem if a page "(XYZ (whatever)" is moved to a title already occupied by an actual page "XYZ" (usually by a dab page which has then to be moved to "XYZ (disambiguation)"), without there being any notification at Talk:XYZ. It's been confirmed at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves that such moves ought to be nominated as Requests to Move Multiple Pages, but this hasn't always been done correctly. I hope indeed that closing admins will notice such cases and not make the move until proper notification has been made, but from BK's experience above this does not always happen. PamD 08:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)