Misplaced Pages

talk:Disambiguation: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:57, 11 January 2013 editBkonrad (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators219,308 edits →Dont start negatively← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:36, 16 January 2025 edit undoTiggerjay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,569 edits →clickstreams higher than redirect page views?: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header|WT:D|WT:DAB|search=yes}} {{talk header|WT:D|WT:DAB|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|at}}
{{Notice|Threads older than 3 weeks may be archived by ]}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{DisambigProject}}
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 37 |counter = 57
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(21d)
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive index |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive index
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive <#> |mask1=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive <#>
|mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Quotations |mask2=Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Quotations
|leading_zeros=0 |leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}


== how reader navigation functions without our navigation elements set up right ==
== Categorization of Dab pages ==

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

<nowiki>
== Categories ==

</nowiki>

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


Any thoughts? ] (]) 19:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:But what of the dab pages containing, among other things, short lists of last names (i. e., when a separate surname set index does not yet exist)? I understand the rationale behind the proposal (and mostly agree with it), but in case with the last names it seems that removing a "surname" category would be somewhat counterproductive...—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); December&nbsp;18, 2012; 20:06 (UTC)
:] alludes to it. Note that when lists of surname-holders or lists of given-name-holders are included on a disambiguation page, it is acceptable to put the more specific ] on the disambiguation page, or to split the list of name-holders to its own article with the more specific category. But the exception for surname and given name categories is the only one I'm aware of, and I clean out any other categories (such as your ]) on disambiguation pages I clean. -- ] (]) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
::It should not be acceptable to put ] on the disambiguation page - a new article with sources must be created to contain reliable sources to show that the name is indeed Fooish - anything else is pure conjecture and surmise, and where applied to living people, ]. ] (]) 23:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
::@Ëzhiki surname is a parameter that can be used with {{tl|disambiguation}} - it generates the category of "Surnames", which needs no sourcing - what is unacceptable is to "claim" the surname as "fooish" without reliable sources, in the same way that ] has been claimed to be an Albanian toponym (I guess the French just borrowed it?). ] (]) 23:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
:::I understand that, but since the dab guidelines do not permit sources on dab pages, it's simply impossible to justify a "fooish surname" cat on dabs which include short lists of last names, even as such inclusion is an allowable practice per WP:DCAT. Looks like another example of bureaucracy standing in the way of encyclopedic work, if you ask me. If sources were allowed (at least to address this kind of situations), there wouldn't be a problem.—]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(]); December&nbsp;19, 2012; 13:12 (UTC)
::::Carlossuarez46, you are welcome to split any surname-lists + surname categories from any dab pages to new surname articles, but there's no "must be created" nor any BLP violation (since having the category "Fooish surnames" on the page "Bar (disambiguation)" does not mean that ''every'' holder of the surname Bar is Fooish, only that some might be). Keeping short surname lists on dabs (with their categories, if any) is one of the compromises we reached through consensus. I am no fan of surname-holder lists, but I suspect that changing that compromise is going to be difficult. Ezhiki, whenever your encyclopedic work requires a citation, you are also welcome to split the surname list + categories + citations to a new surname article; there is no problem, bureaucratic or otherwise, standing in your way. -- ] (]) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sources could be added to an article page discussing the surname or whatever and have sources. Statements and categories that need sourcing simply shouldn't be on dab pages, which are not articles and serve to guide users to articles. There's nothing encyclopedic about sourceless information. ] (]) 00:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
::::::Please do not add restrictions to the disambiguation guideline against consensus. -- ] (]) 16:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
:::::::It's a logical conclusion to ALL categories requiring reliable sources; you seem to disagree with that, now a RFC will solve it. ] (]) 22:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
: I would note that ] is appropriately in ], which makes sense because all of the locations on the disambig page are in Michigan, and there are many such disambiguation pages. I generally agree that disambig pages should not be in regular article categories, but if ''all'' of the topics on a disambig are, for example, places in a particular state or country, it seems reasonable that the page should be categorized in the general intererst topics for that country. ] ] 03:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
::That's appropriate, as long as the cat is a "disambiguation" category. ] (]) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I see Carlossuarez46 also created ] and ]. I've reverted the edits to ] and ]. CFD to follow, but not immediately. -- ] (]) 12:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
:The categories have finally emptied. CFD at ]. -- ] (]) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

*I have to agree 100 persent with Carlos Suzrez here. The idea of placing disambiguation categories into categories is just plain wrong. Most of these pages will have things that are not about the surnames at all. It is a bad idea. Disambiguation of things should be in disambiguation categories, not in regular categories.] (]) 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
*:Disambiguation pages are in disambiguation categories. Disambiguation pages that also hold a list of non-ambiguous, partial-title-match name-holders might also be in the appropriate surnames or given names category, per the compromise that was reached earlier. I agree with you that placing disambiguation categories into (other) categories is just plain wrong, so I've proposed that the two categories that do that, ] and ], be deleted. You appear to disagree with Carlossuarez46 there. -- ] (]) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

== broken toolserver link ==

redirects to itself. It should point to . Can someone notify the author? --] (]) 14:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


== RFC ==


Here's an interesting example I stumbled upon:
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=4EF9B88}}
There appears to be a difference of opinion on whether (a) placement of a page in a category must be supported by ], and (b) whether disambiguation pages may have explicit categories other than disambiguation categories, such as ]. The community should form a consensus on how to handle this. ] (]) 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
:Article content needs reliable sources; disambiguation pages are not articles. ] already describes the community consensus. When lists of surname-holders or lists of given-name-holders are included on a disambiguation page, it is acceptable to put the more specific ] on the disambiguation page, or to split the list of name-holders to its own article with the more specific category. Editors are welcome to split any surname-lists + surname categories from any dab pages to new surname articles, but there's no "surname article must be created" mandate nor any BLP violation (since having the category "Fooish surnames" on the page "Bar (disambiguation)" does not mean that ''every'' holder of the surname Bar is Fooish, only that some might be). Keeping short surname lists on dabs (with their categories, if any) is one of the compromises we reached through consensus. -- ] (]) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
::The manual of style shows that dab parameters should be used. More specific disambiguation categories (such as counties mentioned above) are tolerated but adding substantive categories like ] is just wrong without reliable sources. "Fooish surnames" is not a subcategory of ] nor ought it be. I - and most readers - would expect anything categorized as Fooish surnames to have some encyclopedic content about the surname; not just a list of people and things, some of which may or may not even have the supposedly Fooish surname. As for your argument that not everyone in the dab page needs to match the category - there is no encyclopedic value to adding the cat; the user expects some content. As for your "no BLP violation" - then you'd agree to adding ] to any dab page with at least one LGBT person's article in it, since adding ] is ok with one Fooish person on the page? Illogical. ] (]) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
:::No. -- ] (]) 02:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
::::Please provide a link showing where this was discussed and the consensus you claim exists reached. ] (]) 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::], so probably its Talk archives. Please provide a link showing where ] does not actually represent the community consensus, and where the consensus you claim exists was reached instead. -- ] (]) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
: I agree with JHJ. In general, categories (other than disambig cats) should not appear on disambig pages. However, surname and given name categories are a necessary exception, because of the many cases in which proper "name articles" have not yet been split off from the disambiguation pages. Where a distinct name article does exist, that article and ''not'' the disambiguation page should be categorized in any appropriate name-related categories. --] (] Russ) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
::Is there an assumption that the surname is notable? ] (]) 22:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Not by us. But see ]. -- ] (]) 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
:Articles about names, including lists of people with a name, are not disambiguation pages. Any such lists on dab pages should be split to separate pages. ] sets out the difference. WP Anthroponymy is not particularly active but such splits are ongoing. It's good to see from the contents of ] that the splits have been practically completed for A to Q. Once R to Z are done, there should not be a need for that category. – ] '''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>'''] 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
::The contents of the ill-considered new ] are dwindling I believe because the WP engine is catching up to the revision of the ill-considered changes to ] that switched ] to the new ] in late December. -- ] (]) 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


*
== Ship index articles and (disambiguation) titles ==


The village article was effectively set as a primary topic for "Tivadar" since it was created in 2006.
Discussion related to the use (or misuse) of (disambiguation) in set index article titles is going on at ]. -- ] (]) 16:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


The name article was written in late 2019, and it immediately got some persistent traffic, which is not what I'd expect when it wasn't linked from "Tivadar" itself - a hatnote was missing throughout this period.
== References ==


In early 2020, someone adds an indirect link to the name by linking ] in a Name section, and the traffic at Tivadar seems to start dropping, while the traffic at Tivadar (given name) starts rising, and since 2021 it regularly overtakes the village traffic.
"Do not include references in disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not articles. Incorporate references into the articles linked from the disambiguation page, as needed."


All this time, the list at Theodore (name) was still linking back to the (misplaced) village article, and again there was no hatnote even.
What about red-links? I think this part needs more clarification. -- <span style="border-radius:3px;border:solid 2px DodgerBlue;">]</span> 18 Dey 1391/ 12:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:If you need a disambiguation entry for a red link and have a citation for it, turn the red link into a blue link by making it a stub with the citation, and then add the entry. Or, add the citation to an existing article that ] the topic of the new entry if the entry is to have a blue link in the description. -- ] (]) 12:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::I hope JHunterJ doesn't mind if I clarify that the entry '''must''' have a blue link in the description, and the bluelink must mention the disambiguated topic. So a citation would presumably be appropriate at the blue link. ] (]) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::OK. Thanks. Just one more questions: What does "almost every case" mean in ]? (Could you give me an example of a situation where no blue link is needed?) ] says: "If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages" "keep a blue link in the description". According to ], is it right to say that blue link is needed only when the red-link is not used in any other article?-- <span style="border-radius:3px;border:solid 2px DodgerBlue;">]</span> 18 Dey 1391/ 18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::I have no idea why it said "in almost every case". I just deleted that phrase. No, the blue link is needed for every red link entry or unlinked entry. The red link is to be removed (leaving an unlinked entry with a blue link in the descritpion) if it's not used in any other article. The key is the purpose of disambiguation pages: to navigate the reader to the encyclopedic coverage for the topic sought. If there's no encyclopedic coverage, no navigational assistance is possible. -- ] (]) 18:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::: Just to be clear, "a blue link is needed for every red link" does ''not'' mean that a red link that meets the criteria of ] or ] should be deleted because there is no blue link; it means that, in this situation, the blue link should be added to the disambiguation page. --] (] Russ) 19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::: I think that "in almost every case" is useful: there will be some rare cases where two blue links are much more useful than one. A couple coming to mind are where the disambiguated term is a joint name for two people (literary pseudonym, double act, etc), or where it's a bridge from A to B.
:::::: I opened a couple of pages in tabs, from my watchlist, but then read ] itself before coming to this talk page, so I reverted JHJ's change before coming here - but I think I would still have reverted it, even having read the discussion first. ]] 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Thanks. I've split that guidance into two, to clarify the answer to دالبا's question. -- ] (]) 19:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, that's now clear, although somewhat clunky! We might be able to come up with something smoother, but we seem all to agree that every entry needs one blue link and it will be very rare that it benefits from more than one. Of course the entries which start off as redlink plus bluelink will often become two-bluelink entries, when the redlinked article is created and the editor, quite reasonably, doesn't check all the incoming links to their newly-created article. But they'll get cleaned up in time. ]] 19:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


Seems like search engines learned where our navigation was lacking and worked around the problem - at least most of the time. --] (]) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
== The "Primary Topic" ==


:And in turn, since then the new pattern has emerged: . Given name list is at peak volume, while the traffic at the base name fell to its lowest volume ever. --] (]) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::''The primary topic should, in terms of both usage and of long term significance, be the topic any reader is much more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics identified for disambiguation. ''


I happened to find another example: ] did not have a hatnote for ] since , which did make a significant dent in how much traffic the latter receives, cf. . Yet, some amount of traffic remained consistently, driven by ] as well as . A look into clickstream archive shows {{tq|other-search Libertine_(disambiguation) external 10}} in January, which is also the anonymization threshold. --] (]) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I propose to insert the above definition of "primary topic". The words are taken primarily from ]. Currently, there is no reasonable definition on the project page. (conseqeuently, people imagine their own definitions).


== Merging dab pages ==
I inserted it , but have been reverted for little more than ]. Are there any substantive objections? --] (]) 00:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


I couldn't find any guidelines on the process for a possibly contentious disambiguation page merge. Perhaps the process for articles applies: ]?
:It is much better than the present mess at ], but will probably get pushback from those who always like to be able to pick a primarytopic even for very ambiguous terms. I'd support it, or something along that line if better suggestions come along. And that template ] should be deleted; it's just Born2cycle trying to hide away a definition where he can control it; he has been advised many time to stop that harmful and confusing practice. ] (]) 00:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


::Pushback is good. It is an excellent way to find boundaries. I don't agree that everything Born2cycle does is evil. --] (]) 00:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Discussion is at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I support it as well (although the current text is not a mess). It probably will get pushback from those who always like to be able to ignore a primary topic even when the readership would be better served with a primary topic for the title, and who always like to be able to overqualify titles from ambiguous terms. -- ] (]) 13:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*JHunterJ's edit, to
::'' The primary topic is the topic with long-term significance or the topic the readership is more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics for the ambiguous title, or both.''
:was productive and should be reinstated. Noetica should stop reverting progress without substantive objection. --] (]) 12:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


== on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics ==
*I don't think the last words "or both" are needed. --] (]) 12:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*:I'd happy to exclude ", or both". Any editor should feel free to reinstate that progress despite Noetica's reversion. That text simply restates the existing Primary Topic criteria that's still in the guidelines. The template's text is wrong; the primary topic does not need to be "both" long-term significance and usage. It also does not need to be "much" more likely than the combination of all others; only more likely than the combination of all others and much more likely than any of them. I was unaware of the template's existence until now. -- ] (]) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*::And now that I've looked, I'm not sure I see the problem with the template. It doesn't hide anything away. It simply says whatever this guideline says. Changes here will be reflected in its output. -- ] (]) 13:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I have reverted edits made in the last thirteen hours or so (see ). In the section "Is there a primary topic?" Together the changes affect the conditions for determining that there is a primary topic. We shifted from this:


This is a bit of a continuation of ]. Reusing the old section name might not be the best as I'm also updating the methodology, but it seems useful to have a few old incoming links keep working :)
<blockquote>Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the '''primary topic'''. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a ], as mentioned above.</blockquote>


In the meantime we've had some fresh examples in this vein, so I wanted to keep tracking this matter.
To this (change affecting the definition is underlined):


Because of numerous findings of how search engines take a lot of hints from our navigation and guide user traffic to wherever we hint them to, I have stopped focusing on trying to make sense of every little bit of stats WikiNav generates, because it often compares apples to oranges.
<blockquote>Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the '''primary topic'''. <u>The primary topic is the topic with long-term significance or the topic the readership is more likely to be seeking than the combination of all other topics for the ambiguous title, or both.</u><br>If there is a primary topic, the ambiguous term leads the reader to it. If the article is not titled with the ambiguous term, then the ambiguous title redirects to the primary topic. The primary topic might be a ], as mentioned above.<br>If there is no primary topic, the term is the title of a disambiguation page or a redirect to the appropriate disambiguation page (if it covers multiple similar ambiguous titles).</blockquote>


* ]
Now, the rest of the page is unaffected. It contradicts the addition that I highlight above. For example:
** primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
*** it consistently exceeds the volume of page views for the presumed primary topic
** hatnote traffic for it barely visible compared to incoming traffic, somewhat visible comparing outgoing volume, quite visible comparing outgoing ranking
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** listed first, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix, Latin) with some popularity and long-term significance
** clickstreams show less than a third of incoming readers choose the most popular topic, ~60% of identifiable outgoing, ~15% filtered, several topics noticable outgoing
* ] (discussion is at ])
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** listed in the first section, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
** clickstreams show ~70% of incoming traffic matches the most popular topic, ~80% of identifiable outgoing, but ~37% filtered, and second index noticable outgoing
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** listed in the second section, second subsection, probably visible on the first screen of desktops, probably requires tapping once and scrolling on mobile
** page views show a positive trend but no overall advantage over several other topics of obvious significance
** clickstreams show a scattering of incoming traffic, less than half to the most popular, three more visible; more than half of identifiable outgoing, but 37% filtered
* ] (discussion is at ])
** primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
*** hatnote traffic was the first thing visible in WikiNav, then another related topic, but also 38% filtered
** several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with some popularity and long-term significance
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** foreign abbreviation but found in English-language sources as well, some seasonal
** one possibly generally relevant topic otherwise, but couldn't measure well because no ] was in place before the discussion
** clickstreams show ~62% of incoming viewers went there, and 100% identifiable outgoing, but ~39% filtered
* ]
** primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate instead
*** numerous internal incoming links to the redirect
*** redirect overall traffic pattern did not quite match destination article, was a better match for hatnote traffic pattern
*** ratio of identified hatnote clicks to redirect views was consistently ~13%
** numerous individual topics, both mononymous and those matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix - given name) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
** after the move, previous primary redirect destination gets a bit less than half of incoming traffic and a bit more than half of identifiable outgoing traffic, but there was ~35% filtered, and a handful of other topics are noticable outgoing
* ] (discussion re primary topic was at ])
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** common abbreviation (finance), article later actually moved to use it instead of expanded name
*** was linked second in the common section at the top
*** a quarter of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, with ~5% filtered, and a bit over a half of all identifiable outgoing
** several other topics with some significance
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** common abbreviation (music)
*** a bit over a third of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, ~95% of identifiable outgoing
** few other topics of readership/significance


--] (]) 10:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:&nbsp;...<br>...<br>There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move.</blockquote>


* ]
And more. Such a contradiction is no good for anyone; and undiscussed moving of the goalposts for primary topics is bound to be controversial. Personally, I am against making it any easier to discover a primary topic, and I would like to see the matter discussed here with wide participation to find where consensus lies.
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** another recent RM moved that article as well to a primary topic position for a slightly different title
*** ~15% of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, and there was traffic in the other direction as well
** some other topics of readership/significance
* ]
** primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
*** island with near-country status, small but had a major disaster and relief effort in the UK in recent memory
*** thousands of incoming links, contributing to half the incoming traffic
** eponym and other topics from Spain of substantial readership/significance
** overall traffic around 55-60 : 40-45 in favor of the island
** several other topics of readership/significance, including naturally disambiguated classes (biographies)
* ]
** primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
*** a bunch of incoming links contribute half the incoming traffic
*** hatnote sees a lot of traffic
** some controversy in the discussion, no consensus twice
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** recent mononymous use of one spelling of a common given name
*** receives about two thirds of incoming traffic from disambiguation page, though ~37% filtered
* ]
** primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
*** recent mononymous use popular
*** other uses of the human name with natural disambiguation with arguably more significance
** hatnote in top 20 but dwarfed by other traffic
** several contentious discussions, no consensus
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
*** receives a third of the identified clickstreams
** one other general topic popular, and some other specific entertainment topics
* ]
** no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular as primary redirect
*** receives considerable general interest, but derived works also do
*** receives a third of the identified clickstreams


--] (]) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I have removed "the" from the section heading here, so that it does not prejudge in favour of there ''being'' primary topics by default. No accuracy is lost by that omission.


* ]
(Editors, please remember that we are in various time zones around the world. Don't expect quick responses!)
** primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate
*** singular of a lowercase plural, but uppercase also a naturally disambiguated name and eponym
** logarithmic pattern of views of primary redirect and destination didn't match too well, while views of redirect and hatnote seemed to match better
** two matching topics in the top ten outgoing clickstreams, hatnote views compared to redirect views around a third, some 'other' clickstreams detected
** ngrams inconclusive
** after the move the previously redirect destination gets less than half of the interest


--] (]) 12:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --] ] 04:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
Hi Noetica,
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


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


] was brought up recently in ].
I agree with you about contradictions. I don't see the contradiction, just lack of clarity.


Sadly the "Who Wrote That?" extension doesn't work in Misplaced Pages namespace, but a quick search of the talk page archives indicates this was added after ]?
I am also against making it easy to assert that a topic is "Primary". I think the way to do this is increase the obyectivity of the measurement of primacy. Currently, it is pretty weak, and allows any editor to assert that their favourite topic is Primary without risking a contradiction to the the guideline they bluelink.


Does this change to the guideline actually have proper consensus? There's some level of organic consensus stemming from the fact nobody reverted it, but that is pretty flimsy :) --] (]) 08:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think a Primary Topic should be in respect to *both* usage and long term significance. Where the two contradict, we should assume that we have two groups if readers, readers interested in current, popular usage, and readers interested in more serious, academic or historic long term significance. We should not ignore either group, and if the topic is ambiguious, it should be disambiguated.


:Thanks to WikiBlame, I actually traced this to , so the discussion was actually ] where it's apparently two to three people talking about it. --] (]) 08:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
When JHunterJ changes the "and" to "or", I think it is still better than the previous versions, but that we need to find something in the middle. If one meets <s>the</s><u>one</u> definition, but not the other, it may be completely fine. The problem with a straight "or" is that it can in theory define two different Primary Topics for the one topic. This is a point of rare frequency, and I think it best to define a reasonable definition as a starting point.
:Fundamentally, the question is what does this sentence actually have to do with ''disambiguation'':
:: {{tq|English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.}}
:What would be some examples where a foreign spelling is still ''ambiguous'' with an English spelling of a term? This seems like a solution in search of a problem, because foreign terms are usually fairly distinct. The idea that there would be ''ambiguity'' between ''different'' words just seems like a non sequitur here. --] (]) 08:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


We also noticed the contradictory nature of these principles a few months ago in ]. --] (]) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
A benchmark I have in mind is "]". I think it absurd that this is considered to be the primary topic, from a historical perspective, across all of the English speaking world. I think it is a"Primary Topic" for Tom Hanks fans, but not for a global audience. Recent ] and ] discussions revealed multiple editors could claim opposite conclusions of the interpretation of WP:PIMARYTOPIC, thus revealing the ineffectiveness of the guideline.


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


The first entry at ] has as its only blue link, ']', which seems singularly unhelpful at a D-page. And yet (at least for me) the idiom covered at ] is by far the primary topic here. In the absence of a Misplaced Pages article by that name, how should this be handled? The current situation seems very unsatisfactory. ] (]) 12:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that ] is a Big problem. Even if we agree that it's the primarytopic (due to no other article vying for that title in WP), it makes little sense to use such an ambiguous topic name as an article title, when ] is so much more precise and recognizable. But the disambig guidelines are written in such a way as to encourage naming a primary topic, and having named one, using it as title. This should be fixed. ] (]) 04:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:I'd link to the Wiktionary entry as the primary topic if there's nothing explicit against linking to a sister project in policy. I see the fourth entry has no link, and I just removed some terminal punctuation from the first and second entries per ] RE sentence fragments. <code style="background:#DFF;white-space:pre">] · ] · ]</code> 13:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:] applies. <code style="background:#DFF;white-space:pre">] · ] · ]</code> 13:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


==List of Hindi films of xxxx==
::Yes. Primary Topic should not be defined in terms of existing article titles. Usage and long term significance goes beyond the standard contents of an encyclopedia. We should also think of downstream and external usage. Can the link en.wikipedia.org/Big be considered a Primary? I think Primary should be considered the antonym of ambiguous, though softer than unambiguous. --] (]) 05:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The known link-breaking nuisance is back, this time as 2A00:23C5:A15:5400:2489:53D:4C68:C30D on ] and elsewhere. Revert on sight. ] (]) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Merely fixing DABlinks will leave behind bad links to name pages such as ] and ] and to PTOPICs such as ] and ]. ] (]) 04:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::PS feel free to upgrade my {{tl|uw-vand1}} warning if they keep at it; but they're an IP-hopper, and I suspect a combination of ], ], and assorted other guidelines; so I doubt whether a ] would be of much use. Should they persist, I have an idea for a ] request which would be both concise and precise ({{tl|ping}} me). but it's too soon for that while the problem can be handled manually. Sigh. ] (]) 15:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Catch all cat for {{t|One other topic}} <span class="anchor" id="Catch all cat for One other topic"></span> ==
:::OTOH, Primary Topic should not be defined in terms of downstream usage (if downstream means future; if it means something else, let me know). Future Misplaced Pages can handle future usage. Primary Topic is already defined in terms of external usage, of topics that have Misplaced Pages coverage, which is how it should be. "Primary topic" only has meaning in cases of ambiguity; if a term is not ambiguous, then it has only one topic, whether you call that position first, last, or middle. Dicklyon's disagreement with ] (putting qualifiers on titles that don't need them) should be addressed there. The Primary Topic guidelines do not encourage using the term as the title; they rely on the article naming guidelines for that, and if the article is named something else, the disambiguation guidelines simply say to make the ambiguous term with that topic as primary should redirect to the title given by the naming guidelines. -- ] (]) 11:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
===Dont start negatively===
Noetica, this ] was a bad edit. The asserting of a negative fact in introducing something is intellectually weak. The asserted fact is also quite dubious. The whole section is a dogs breakfast, and is demonstrobably ineffective a guidance. Suggesting an important emphasis on what? And do you even appreciated the substance of the paragraph, or are you too busy elsewhere to allow editing here? Please consider the applciability of ], please read ], and please tell me what part of ] I am not following. --] (]) 04:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


What do people here think about creating a catch all cat for {{T|One other topic}}. Currently, ] lists only monthly subcats. Should ] be created, in line with ] for example? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Briefly, Smokey: Yes, I am flat-out busy with a hundred things. It doesn't help anyone, if edits are made to a central guideline (deferred to in policy at WP:TITLE) ''while'' the issues are being discussed here, and ''while'' precise applications of the guidelines are attempted at more than one current RM. '''There is no rush.''' Nothing is lost by orderly, methodical treatment here on the talkpage. This is what ArbCom has stressed for editing of guidelines recently; and it's especially important when we have strong advocates for one position or another posting both here ''and'' at affected RM discussions!
:I appreciate your careful reply above. I'm being careful also; and we share concerns about these guidelines and how they have been applied, or certainly ''mis''applied and misread in many cases.
:Let others have their say, and that takes time; we all want to see the range of opinions, right? I will come back here when I have a break in my other activities. Meanwhile, keep it on the talkpage? Please?
:O, and a word to the wise: linking Born2cycle's polemical custom-made essay is ''really'' not going to help keep the peace around here. Mmm-hm?
:<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


== Hatnote for Birger Jarl ==
::Hi Noetica. Discussion at WT:TITLE and ongoing RMs are endless. We shouldn't wait for these things to improve an obviously improvable guideline. I am well aware of the impract of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on RMs. I actually think the lack of clarity, of definition, or objectiveness, and even of correctness, of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a root cause for the non-productiveness of many RM discussions.<p>If I have time and interest in doing this today, it is not for you to tell me to wait for something else first. Sorry. I admit to being frustrated by your BRD reversions. I respect your reversion, try to discuss (very few seem truly interested), and try again with a smaller edit. You seem prepared to revert any edit not pre-approved. I strongly object to that, it drives the life out of the project, it wraps the editing process in red tape. The most enjoyable and lively editing comes from improving on others' edits. You should only revert as a last resort. Reverts disencourage lurkers from contributing. The best wasy to encourage others to contribute is to make a small reasonable edit and wait to see what other's make of it. If there is no new discussion, it is time for a new edit.<p>I knew Born2cycle was an author, but don't know about it being "custom made". For you? I don't recall seeing direct interaction between you two. I try to keep up with the essays, and I liked it. It does reflect an editing philosophy obviously different to yours, but I didn't see it as offensive. --] (]) 06:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::It is misleading to characterize ] as "Born2cycle's polemical custom-made essay". The template merely transcludes text of this guideline from the section "Is there a primary topic?" contained within the <nowiki><onlyinclude> </onlyinclude></nowiki> tags. As JHunterJ mentioned in the previous section, this template will reflect whatever changes are made to that text. However, that said, it certainly seems to introduce a rather curious circularity and duplication to try to insert the text from that template elsewhere into this same guideline. If there is an actual disagreement between text in the various parts of the guideline, that should be addressed, but with a little more thoughtfulness than circular duplication. ] ≠ ] 12:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::"custom-made essay" II think Noetica was referring to the stonewalling essay. --] (]) 12:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::Yes, that's right. The polemical one, not one of those for which he puts transclusion markup in Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for his own purposes. Ask Born2Cycle what prompted him to write the stonewalling one. And while you're there, ask him a related question: what happened to him at ArbCom, what happened to PMAnderson (the only other editor picked out for mention), and what became of his accusations against me in the same case. (Heh. I only mention it because it will probably get relevant here, sadly.)
:::::No time today. I'll be back in a day or so. Busy with other pages and with real life. Be consensual while I'm gone, y'all.
:::::<font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::Ah yes, sorry for misreading. While there are aspects I agree with, the stonewalling essay is clearly a polemic. ] ≠ ] 12:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


There's a minor dispute on whether a hatnote for "Birger Magnusson" is needed at the article ]. Please comment at . ] (]) 06:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


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


Can someone check my newly created ] for proper format and content? I created it because I found a double hatnote at ], and then found even more possible articles it could be confused with.
== Proposal: state the purpose of primary topic at ] ==


One issue I haven't attacked yet, is that of primary topic; currently, the person described at ] is a Mexican baseball player (b. 1972) which seemed a little surprising; I was kind of expecting to find no primary. So, I went to Google books , and lo and behold, seven of the top ten book results, and all of the top five are about Brazilian jurist Francisco Campos, cabinet minister (multiple offices), and author of the 1937 Constitution, for whom we have no article. So that seems likely to be primary (unless we count sports articles on the web as having equal weight to books, an open question in my mind). I am about to create ] (or maybe, ], although that seems needlessly long). After I get a stub created and linked from the D-page, any thoughts on what to do about the primary topic issue? ] (]) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Due to the discussion at ], I've realized that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation for ''the purpose'' of recognizing and establishing primary topics on WP.
: This is now released and linked as ], and I've added it to the D-page, but arguably it should be PRIMARY. ] (]) 12:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Perhaps so, although the ball player is linked in several templates making incoming links a mess to sort out. There perhaps is good case for no primary topic, at least temporarily until there is some better quality page view data with the ball player distinguished from any who might be looking for the jurist. As might be expected, the is primary topic in Portuguese wiki. Even Spanish has the player at and a disambiguation page at . ] ≠ ] 13:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FYI: Links {{tq|not}} from templates can be shown as a single link with this kind of search: {{source links|Francisco Campos}}. This does not show links from redirects. There is an extension "Source links" available somewhere in WP that provides this in Tools menu on every page. ] (]) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(Edited, word "not" was missing. 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC))</small>
::::Thanks, but I doubt I'd be able to remember that syntax. Also, it would be more useful as the inverse -- that is links to a page that are NOT from a template. Is that possible? (Or maybe I misunderstand -- is that what these links are? ] ≠ ] 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, I was running late and sent the above message without reading it through. The word {{tq|not}} was missing. This indeed gives links to a page that are not from a template. See ] for an example featuring ] and more information. ] (]) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
: Further on primary topic: in the , the three search results in the top ten that are *not* about the Brazilian jurist, are: a poet, a ] human rights official, and an cited in a book about Mexican crime. That is, neither the baseball player (current primary) nor any of the sporting figures currently on the D-page are in the top ten of the Books search. (I also tried as well, but the results are not helpful, because there are a great many papers authored by scholars with that name. If anyone knows how to exclude author names in Scholar search queries, that would help.) Web search tells , with the Mexican athlete prominently displayed (along with a World Bank employee, and a kid who threw a perfect game).
: I don't know how to weigh these web results against the very different story we get from the book results, but surely this must be a common pattern: that is, books and academic tomes us show one thing, popular web sites something else; how is such disparity usually dealt with? My bias favors the jurist, but I don't want to upset the apple cart. ] (]) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::The Books search seems indicative of long-term notability (]), while the web results indicate a lack of overwhelming usage (]). In this case, it could be justified to take the jurist as the primary topic, since there is no other topic which would satisfy PT1 either. ] (]) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Those PT1 and 2 links are new to me, thanks. Maybe I should wait a week or so to see if there are any objections, and then move ] to primary. Or, would it be better to split the difference, say nobody is primary so everybody gets a disambiguation parenthetical, and the one pagename lacking a parenthetical becomes the disambig page? ] (]) 11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Given than the evidence for primary is mixed or at the least very unclear, I'd default to putting the dab at the base name. ] ≠ ] 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I agree that this is the safest course of action. ] (]) 13:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Name question ==
Accordingly, I propose inserting the following lead sentence to ], to clearly state this purpose:


I'm thinking about creating a dab page for L'Union, but not sure what the expected name would be. ]? ] (]) 13:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:The purpose of recognizing primary topics is to best serve those readers using the Misplaced Pages Go search function when searching with a term associated with one particular topic much more than any other, by taking them directly to the article about that topic, rather than to a dab page.


:If ] has a primary topic, then yes. Otherwise, disambiguate the current page and put the new dab page at ]. ]★] -- 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Any objections? --] (]) 17:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:What did you plan to include? I've added a hatnote pointing to the newspaper, and also added ] as a "See also" in ]. That seems enough. ]] 14:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes. While I agree with the sentiment, I think the wording is terrible - I had to read it a couple of times before I understood it. Better, but not perfect, would be something like:
::Since L'Union translated means ], I would exclude those who are also know under their translated name and just use those that use the french name. ], ], ], ], ], ], {{ill|L'Union (french newspaper)|fr|L'Union (journal français)}}, ] which would redirect to ]. ] (]) 15:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Many search terms can refer more than one topic, in such cases the primary topic is the one that a significant majority of people expect to find when searching for or linking to that title. For example, most people searching for "Winston Churchill" will be looking for the article about the British Prime Minister rather than his grandson or any of the various schools and ships named after him. So, to enable these people to find the information they are looking for as quickly and as easily as possible, we place the article about the primary topic at the plain title (in this case ]) and the articles about the other topics at disambiguated titles (e.g. ], ], etc) accessible through a disambiguation page at ] which is prominently linked from the top of the primary topic article.
:This is almost certainly too long, but with some trimming would I think achieve your goal. ] (]) 18:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC) :::Note that a disambiguation page isn't meant to include all titles that begin with the term only subjects commonly known ''by'' the term. Look at ]: it doesn't include all articles about subjects whose names begin with "Union". ] (]) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::For five of the eight I mentioned I know that they are commonly called L'Union. For two it's possible/likely, for one it's unlikely. ] (]) 16:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Keep in mind it should not be based on your personal knowledge alone, but be supported by usage in reliable sources (preferably attested within the linked articles to address any editors who might later question it). ] ≠ ] 16:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@]@] I've created a dab page at ]; this assumes the commune to be the Primary Topic, and I see no reason to think it isn't. It does seem that we need access from "L'Union" to ], as it's the successor title (but how long did it go on for? No indication in either this poorly-sourced article or the fr.wiki one!), and I've also made a redirect from ] - both should probably have been created long ago.
::::::Creating the dab page gives us the opportunity to include the "look from" links, capitalised and non, which allow access to all those "Partial Title Match" titles which can't be included in the disambiguation page as individual entries unless we have evidence that they are actually also known as "L'Union" (and not just in the way one might call any university "the university" when writing or talking locally).
::::::I defer to BKonrad, an acknowledged disambiguation expert, over disambiguation, so will be interested to hear whether you think this solution is OK!
::::::I had a look at the French dab page ] (it's interesting to see their different rules about the appearance of a dab page), and can't see anything there which has a presence in en.wiki and ought to be included in our dab page (eg we don't have an article about the ecoquarter). ]] 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
::This seems to miss B2C's point, which is that it's about the "Go" button on the search box. I think he means specifically to admit that searching and linking provide little or no reason to have a primary topic. Am I right? ] (]) 18:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::Well, yeah, once links are established, primary topics don't matter for linking to work. In fact, titles don't matter for linking to work, as long as the link links to the intended article. But Thryduulf is right that a very important reason for primary topics is that when a given term X has a primary topic, editors creating a link <nowiki>]</nowiki> expect it to link (perhaps through a redirect) to the article about X's primary topic. My proposed wording misses that. I also agree the wording needs improvement in general.<p>But, yes, people searching with web search engines like Google, whose algorithms pay no attention to the content of URLs or web page headings (which is technically all that a WP article title is), are essentially unaffected by our choices for titles. That is, if we moved ] to ], users Googling for "Winston Churchill" would find it exactly as well.<p> It's those searching (and linking) within WP, particularly with GO, who benefit when the search term with a primary topic is also the title of, or redirect to, that topic's article. <p>One way or another I think we need to find a clear and succinct way to explain this. --] (]) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


I would appreciate some editors well versed in disambiguation policies/procedures participating in this conversation. All opinions welcome.] (]) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The "Go" button was removed in the default Vector skin years ago and many editors probably don't know what "Go" refers to. And we don't need a long text for the purpose when the guideline is more important. ] currently starts:
:::"Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the '''primary topic'''. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article."
:::I suggest adding one short sentence after that:
:::"This ensures that readers using the search box are often taken directly to the article they are looking for."
:::Possibly add ", and wikilinks are less likely to need disambiguation."
:::] (]) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
::::Ha! Didn't know about the missing GO button! Thanks! But I see the default action when you type in a string and press Enter is to "GO" (rather than "Search"). <p>Anyway, I '''support''' PrimeHunter's wording/suggestion. --] (]) 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::I didn't know about the GO button not existing either (I find monobook a significantly more userfriendly skin for the way I work), but yes I mostly support PrimeHunter's wording, but think that the second sentence could be slightly improved as:
::::::"This ensures that readers using several common search methods are usually taken directly to the article they are looking for."
:::::I say several methods as it's the search box, the go button, direct URL entry (I and others do do this), and firefox's search from the URL bar (I don't know if other browsers have this function or not) all work this way. "Usually" I think seems more significant than just "often". ] (]) 21:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


== clickstreams higher than redirect page views? ==
*'''Oppose''' in favour of the above proposal to add a better definition of "Primary Topic". The two are too connected to have two discussions at the same time, and I think definition is more important to come first. --] (]) 04:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Maybe someone here could help explain ]? --] (]) 11:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' – yes, it may be a fair representation of the purpose of primarytopic. But this purpose is often misguided, in my opinion, by putting emphasis only on the one advantage of getting many readers directly to the article they might be seeking, at the expense of all the other readers who are taken to a wrong article where they have to do extra work to find the disambig page. It's as if web search usually defaulted to the "I feel lucky" result instead of giving you options. Not a great experience, even if the majority of the time the lucky result is what you want. So, emphasizing this purpose is a step in a bad direction, in my opinion. ] (]) 04:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


:They are likely referring to traffic flow using a tool like ] which shows the actual path a person takes after reaching a page. It can be helpful in multiple discussions areas as it is can be helpful in determining what a user clicks on after visiting a page. However, it is simply one tool, a single indication of user intention, and must be combined with other tools, data and analysis to be used effectively. For example, in this case, you could use it to see where people are going after they reach the disambiguation page however, it is important to realize that since ] goes directly to the operating system, we wouldn't expect to see many people first going to the DAB page just to later navigate to the operating system. ]&thinsp;] 15:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' Born2cycle's claimed motivation: he's "realized that there is a lack of understanding and appreciation for ''the purpose'' of recognizing and establishing primary topics on WP". Hmmm. So when one's own take on a guideline is questioned in a hotly contested RM that is not going as one likes, with hard argument one is at a loss to answer, one denigrates the opposition as "confused", and rushes off to change the guideline in midstream? Sorry: not the Wikipedian way as ''I'' learned it. We agree that the guideline needs sorting out, right? Given the extensive use it is gets at RMs, we need a big RFC. And a fair, properly constructed one (a rarity these days, but the only way to avoid trips to ArbCom I think). Please though: ''not now''. Too much else going on. <font color="blue"><big>N</big><small>oetica</small></font><sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you for the primer, but I'm generally aware of that :) I'm asking specifically about the difference between topical redirect views and clickstreams in favor of the latter. We usually identify more views than clickstreams, typically also because of anonymization. --] (]) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah yes, sorry I should have read what you also wrote in the RM discussion and didn't realize you were active in that actual linked discussion. Let me take a closer look, and I'll respond on that page. ]&thinsp;] 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:36, 16 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disambiguation page.
Shortcuts
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Misplaced Pages article titles policy and Manual of Style, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

how reader navigation functions without our navigation elements set up right

Here's an interesting example I stumbled upon:

The village article was effectively set as a primary topic for "Tivadar" since it was created in 2006.

The name article was written in late 2019, and it immediately got some persistent traffic, which is not what I'd expect when it wasn't linked from "Tivadar" itself - a hatnote was missing throughout this period.

In early 2020, someone adds an indirect link to the name by linking Theodore (name) in a Name section, and the traffic at Tivadar seems to start dropping, while the traffic at Tivadar (given name) starts rising, and since 2021 it regularly overtakes the village traffic.

All this time, the list at Theodore (name) was still linking back to the (misplaced) village article, and again there was no hatnote even.

Seems like search engines learned where our navigation was lacking and worked around the problem - at least most of the time. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And in turn, since then the new pattern has emerged: page views with the new layout included. Given name list is at peak volume, while the traffic at the base name fell to its lowest volume ever. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I happened to find another example: Libertine did not have a hatnote for Libertine (disambiguation) since this November 2003 edit, which did make a significant dent in how much traffic the latter receives, cf. page views. Yet, some amount of traffic remained consistently, driven by Special:WhatLinksHere/Libertine (disambiguation) as well as other traffic. A look into clickstream archive shows other-search Libertine_(disambiguation) external 10 in January, which is also the anonymization threshold. --Joy (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging dab pages

I couldn't find any guidelines on the process for a possibly contentious disambiguation page merge. Perhaps the process for articles applies: Misplaced Pages:MERGEPROP?

Discussion is at Talk:Alex Ferguson (disambiguation). Commander Keane (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics

This is a bit of a continuation of Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics. Reusing the old section name might not be the best as I'm also updating the methodology, but it seems useful to have a few old incoming links keep working :)

In the meantime we've had some fresh examples in this vein, so I wanted to keep tracking this matter.

Because of numerous findings of how search engines take a lot of hints from our navigation and guide user traffic to wherever we hint them to, I have stopped focusing on trying to make sense of every little bit of stats WikiNav generates, because it often compares apples to oranges.

  • Talk:Toner
    • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
      • it consistently exceeds the volume of page views for the presumed primary topic
    • hatnote traffic for it barely visible compared to incoming traffic, somewhat visible comparing outgoing volume, quite visible comparing outgoing ranking
  • Talk:Trans
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • listed first, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix, Latin) with some popularity and long-term significance
    • clickstreams show less than a third of incoming readers choose the most popular topic, ~60% of identifiable outgoing, ~15% filtered, several topics noticable outgoing
  • Talk:Erika (discussion is at Talk:Erika_(song)#Requested_move)
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • listed in the first section, positive trend, but several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
    • clickstreams show ~70% of incoming traffic matches the most popular topic, ~80% of identifiable outgoing, but ~37% filtered, and second index noticable outgoing
  • Talk:Parana
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • listed in the second section, second subsection, probably visible on the first screen of desktops, probably requires tapping once and scrolling on mobile
    • page views show a positive trend but no overall advantage over several other topics of obvious significance
    • clickstreams show a scattering of incoming traffic, less than half to the most popular, three more visible; more than half of identifiable outgoing, but 37% filtered
  • Talk:Thune (discussion is at Talk:Thune (company))
    • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate as another topic is noticed
      • hatnote traffic was the first thing visible in WikiNav, then another related topic, but also 38% filtered
    • several more individual topics matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (suffix - surname) with some popularity and long-term significance
  • Talk:PVV
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • foreign abbreviation but found in English-language sources as well, some seasonal
    • one possibly generally relevant topic otherwise, but couldn't measure well because no WP:DABREDIR was in place before the discussion
    • clickstreams show ~62% of incoming viewers went there, and 100% identifiable outgoing, but ~39% filtered
  • Talk:Orlando
    • primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate instead
      • numerous internal incoming links to the redirect
      • redirect overall traffic pattern did not quite match destination article, was a better match for hatnote traffic pattern
      • ratio of identified hatnote clicks to redirect views was consistently ~13%
    • numerous individual topics, both mononymous and those matching a natural pattern of ambiguity (prefix - given name) with a lot of popularity and long-term significance
    • after the move, previous primary redirect destination gets a bit less than half of incoming traffic and a bit more than half of identifiable outgoing traffic, but there was ~35% filtered, and a handful of other topics are noticable outgoing
  • Talk:ATM (discussion re primary topic was at Talk:ATM (disambiguation)#Requested move 4 November 2024)
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • common abbreviation (finance), article later actually moved to use it instead of expanded name
      • was linked second in the common section at the top
      • a quarter of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, with ~5% filtered, and a bit over a half of all identifiable outgoing
    • several other topics with some significance
  • Talk:EP (disambiguation)
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • common abbreviation (music)
      • a bit over a third of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, ~95% of identifiable outgoing
    • few other topics of readership/significance

--Joy (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Talk:The Dress
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • another recent RM moved that article as well to a primary topic position for a slightly different title
      • ~15% of identifiable clickstreams went there compared to incoming traffic, and there was traffic in the other direction as well
    • some other topics of readership/significance
  • Talk:Montserrat
    • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
      • island with near-country status, small but had a major disaster and relief effort in the UK in recent memory
      • thousands of incoming links, contributing to half the incoming traffic
    • eponym and other topics from Spain of substantial readership/significance
    • overall traffic around 55-60 : 40-45 in favor of the island
    • several other topics of readership/significance, including naturally disambiguated classes (biographies)
  • Talk:Sloboda
    • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
      • a bunch of incoming links contribute half the incoming traffic
      • hatnote sees a lot of traffic
    • some controversy in the discussion, no consensus twice
  • Talk:Jennie
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • recent mononymous use of one spelling of a common given name
      • receives about two thirds of incoming traffic from disambiguation page, though ~37% filtered
  • Talk:Suga
    • primary topic in place, proposal was to disambiguate
      • recent mononymous use popular
      • other uses of the human name with natural disambiguation with arguably more significance
    • hatnote in top 20 but dwarfed by other traffic
    • several contentious discussions, no consensus
  • Talk:Cobbler
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular
      • receives a third of the identified clickstreams
    • one other general topic popular, and some other specific entertainment topics
  • Talk:Godric
    • no primary topic, proposal was to promote the one most popular as primary redirect
      • receives considerable general interest, but derived works also do
      • receives a third of the identified clickstreams

--Joy (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Talk:Nacho
    • primary redirect in place, proposal was to disambiguate
      • singular of a lowercase plural, but uppercase also a naturally disambiguated name and eponym
    • logarithmic pattern of views of primary redirect and destination didn't match too well, while views of redirect and hatnote seemed to match better
    • two matching topics in the top ten outgoing clickstreams, hatnote views compared to redirect views around a third, some 'other' clickstreams detected
    • ngrams inconclusive
    • after the move the previously redirect destination gets less than half of the interest

--Joy (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ topics in Chile#Requested move 24 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH 04:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom 13:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

principles for naming

WP:DABNAME was brought up recently in Talk:Joaquín.

Sadly the "Who Wrote That?" extension doesn't work in Misplaced Pages namespace, but a quick search of the talk page archives indicates this was added after Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 30#Using redirects?

Does this change to the guideline actually have proper consensus? There's some level of organic consensus stemming from the fact nobody reverted it, but that is pretty flimsy :) --Joy (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to WikiBlame, I actually traced this to this August 2008 edit, so the discussion was actually Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 27#Next section requiring work where it's apparently two to three people talking about it. --Joy (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Fundamentally, the question is what does this sentence actually have to do with disambiguation:
English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.
What would be some examples where a foreign spelling is still ambiguous with an English spelling of a term? This seems like a solution in search of a problem, because foreign terms are usually fairly distinct. The idea that there would be ambiguity between different words just seems like a non sequitur here. --Joy (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

We also noticed the contradictory nature of these principles a few months ago in Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation/Archive 57#Capitalization of a disambiguation page title with both all-caps and lowercase senses. --Joy (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Herding cats

The first entry at Herding cats has as its only blue link, 'Idiom', which seems singularly unhelpful at a D-page. And yet (at least for me) the idiom covered at wikt:herding cats is by far the primary topic here. In the absence of a Misplaced Pages article by that name, how should this be handled? The current situation seems very unsatisfactory. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd link to the Wiktionary entry as the primary topic if there's nothing explicit against linking to a sister project in policy. I see the fourth entry has no link, and I just removed some terminal punctuation from the first and second entries per WP:DABSTYLE RE sentence fragments. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:DABDICT applies. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Hindi films of xxxx

The known link-breaking nuisance is back, this time as 2A00:23C5:A15:5400:2489:53D:4C68:C30D on List of Hindi films of 1969 and elsewhere. Revert on sight. Narky Blert (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Merely fixing DABlinks will leave behind bad links to name pages such as Dhumal and Mehmood and to PTOPICs such as Krishna and Prince. Narky Blert (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
PS feel free to upgrade my {{uw-vand1}} warning if they keep at it; but they're an IP-hopper, and I suspect a combination of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, WP:IDHT, and assorted other guidelines; so I doubt whether a WP:BLOCK would be of much use. Should they persist, I have an idea for a WP:EF request which would be both concise and precise ({{ping}} me). but it's too soon for that while the problem can be handled manually. Sigh. Narky Blert (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Catch all cat for {{One other topic}}

What do people here think about creating a catch all cat for {{One other topic}}. Currently, Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic lists only monthly subcats. Should Category:All disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic be created, in line with Category:All orphaned articles for example? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote for Birger Jarl

There's a minor dispute on whether a hatnote for "Birger Magnusson" is needed at the article Birger Jarl. Please comment at Talk:Birger Jarl#Birger Magnusson (link to the part concerning the hatnote). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Francisco Campos

Can someone check my newly created Francisco Campos (disambiguation) for proper format and content? I created it because I found a double hatnote at Francisco Campos, and then found even more possible articles it could be confused with.

One issue I haven't attacked yet, is that of primary topic; currently, the person described at Francisco Campos is a Mexican baseball player (b. 1972) which seemed a little surprising; I was kind of expecting to find no primary. So, I went to Google books and searched, and lo and behold, seven of the top ten book results, and all of the top five are about Brazilian jurist Francisco Campos, cabinet minister (multiple offices), and author of the 1937 Constitution, for whom we have no article. So that seems likely to be primary (unless we count sports articles on the web as having equal weight to books, an open question in my mind). I am about to create Francisco Campos (jurist) (or maybe, Francisco Campos (Brazilian jurist), although that seems needlessly long). After I get a stub created and linked from the D-page, any thoughts on what to do about the primary topic issue? Mathglot (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is now released and linked as Francisco Campos (jurist), and I've added it to the D-page, but arguably it should be PRIMARY. Mathglot (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps so, although the ball player is linked in several templates making incoming links a mess to sort out. There perhaps is good case for no primary topic, at least temporarily until there is some better quality page view data with the ball player distinguished from any who might be looking for the jurist. As might be expected, the jurist is primary topic in Portuguese wiki. Even Spanish has the player at Francisco Campos Machado and a disambiguation page at Francisco Campos. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
FYI: Links not from templates can be shown as a single link with this kind of search: Source links. This does not show links from redirects. There is an extension "Source links" available somewhere in WP that provides this in Tools menu on every page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC) (Edited, word "not" was missing. 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC))
Thanks, but I doubt I'd be able to remember that syntax. Also, it would be more useful as the inverse -- that is links to a page that are NOT from a template. Is that possible? (Or maybe I misunderstand -- is that what these links are? older ≠ wiser 14:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I was running late and sent the above message without reading it through. The word not was missing. This indeed gives links to a page that are not from a template. See Template:Source links for an example featuring 971 (number) and more information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Further on primary topic: in the G-Books search, the three search results in the top ten that are *not* about the Brazilian jurist, are: a poet, a CREDHOS human rights official, and an unknown letter writer cited in a book about Mexican crime. That is, neither the baseball player (current primary) nor any of the sporting figures currently on the D-page are in the top ten of the Books search. (I also tried this Scholar search as well, but the results are not helpful, because there are a great many papers authored by scholars with that name. If anyone knows how to exclude author names in Scholar search queries, that would help.) Web search tells a completely different story, with the Mexican athlete prominently displayed (along with a World Bank employee, and a kid who threw a perfect game).
I don't know how to weigh these web results against the very different story we get from the book results, but surely this must be a common pattern: that is, books and academic tomes us show one thing, popular web sites something else; how is such disparity usually dealt with? My bias favors the jurist, but I don't want to upset the apple cart. Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The Books search seems indicative of long-term notability (WP:PT2), while the web results indicate a lack of overwhelming usage (WP:PT1). In this case, it could be justified to take the jurist as the primary topic, since there is no other topic which would satisfy PT1 either. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Those PT1 and 2 links are new to me, thanks. Maybe I should wait a week or so to see if there are any objections, and then move Francisco Campos (jurist) to primary. Or, would it be better to split the difference, say nobody is primary so everybody gets a disambiguation parenthetical, and the one pagename lacking a parenthetical becomes the disambig page? Mathglot (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Given than the evidence for primary is mixed or at the least very unclear, I'd default to putting the dab at the base name. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this is the safest course of action. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Name question

I'm thinking about creating a dab page for L'Union, but not sure what the expected name would be. L'Union (disambiguation)? Nobody (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If L'Union has a primary topic, then yes. Otherwise, disambiguate the current page and put the new dab page at L'Union. Iffy★Chat -- 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What did you plan to include? I've added a hatnote pointing to the newspaper, and also added L'Union as a "See also" in Union. That seems enough. PamD 14:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Since L'Union translated means The Union, I would exclude those who are also know under their translated name and just use those that use the french name. L'Union, L'Union (newspaper), L'Union Marocaine, L'union Suite, L'Union St Jacques de Montreal v Bélisle, L'Union Saint Jean-Baptist d'Amerique (Woonsocket, Rhode Island), L'Union (french newspaper) , L'Union monarchique which would redirect to La Quotidienne. Nobody (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that a disambiguation page isn't meant to include all titles that begin with the term only subjects commonly known by the term. Look at Union: it doesn't include all articles about subjects whose names begin with "Union". Largoplazo (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
For five of the eight I mentioned I know that they are commonly called L'Union. For two it's possible/likely, for one it's unlikely. Nobody (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep in mind it should not be based on your personal knowledge alone, but be supported by usage in reliable sources (preferably attested within the linked articles to address any editors who might later question it). older ≠ wiser 16:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bkonrad@1AmNobody24 I've created a dab page at L'Union (disambiguation); this assumes the commune to be the Primary Topic, and I see no reason to think it isn't. It does seem that we need access from "L'Union" to La Quotidienne, as it's the successor title (but how long did it go on for? No indication in either this poorly-sourced article or the fr.wiki one!), and I've also made a redirect from L'Union monarchique - both should probably have been created long ago.
Creating the dab page gives us the opportunity to include the "look from" links, capitalised and non, which allow access to all those "Partial Title Match" titles which can't be included in the disambiguation page as individual entries unless we have evidence that they are actually also known as "L'Union" (and not just in the way one might call any university "the university" when writing or talking locally).
I defer to BKonrad, an acknowledged disambiguation expert, over disambiguation, so will be interested to hear whether you think this solution is OK!
I had a look at the French dab page fr:L'Union (it's interesting to see their different rules about the appearance of a dab page), and can't see anything there which has a presence in en.wiki and ought to be included in our dab page (eg we don't have an article about the ecoquarter). PamD 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Stanley Green#Requested move 15 January 2025

I would appreciate some editors well versed in disambiguation policies/procedures participating in this conversation. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

clickstreams higher than redirect page views?

Maybe someone here could help explain Talk:Ubuntu#philosophy traffic patterns hatnote vs. article text? --Joy (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

They are likely referring to traffic flow using a tool like which shows the actual path a person takes after reaching a page. It can be helpful in multiple discussions areas as it is can be helpful in determining what a user clicks on after visiting a page. However, it is simply one tool, a single indication of user intention, and must be combined with other tools, data and analysis to be used effectively. For example, in this case, you could use it to see where people are going after they reach the disambiguation page however, it is important to realize that since Ubuntu goes directly to the operating system, we wouldn't expect to see many people first going to the DAB page just to later navigate to the operating system. TiggerJay (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the primer, but I'm generally aware of that :) I'm asking specifically about the difference between topical redirect views and clickstreams in favor of the latter. We usually identify more views than clickstreams, typically also because of anonymization. --Joy (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah yes, sorry I should have read what you also wrote in the RM discussion and didn't realize you were active in that actual linked discussion. Let me take a closer look, and I'll respond on that page. TiggerJay (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation: Difference between revisions Add topic