Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Disambiguation of adjectives

As I see, the guideline does not cover disambiguation of adjectives. Please see the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayesian. I filed the Afd because I see the page is a list of terms with one word in common, rather than list of articles which could have the same title. But then I see a bunch of other similar pages, such as Euclidean, digital, Pythagorean etc. They do not seem to conform the definition of WP:DPAGE. But since they exist and in abundance, then obviously there is a need in such pages. At a first glance they are closer to WP:DABCONCEPT: Bayesian lists things that exhibit "Bayesness", so to say ; same with "digitalness". But at the same time it does not feel right to list "Long bow" in the page "Long (disambiguation)".

So how do we distinguish adjectives which call for navigation from "mundane" ones? Do we need a yet another category of dab-like pages, in addition to WP:BROADCONCEPT and WP:SETINDEX? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We have disambiguation pages for terms that are likely to be wikilinked but are ambiguous. In many cases, those terms are adjectives, and the entries in the disambiguation page should be the standard uses of that adjective. This seems unproblematic. They are not partial disambiguations, because if they were then there would be a more generic disambiguation that they should be merged into and in these cases there isn't. Or, to put it another way, if "Bayesian" lists things that exhibit "Bayesianness" then we are doing it wrong, because a list of that type should be tagged as {{sia}} not {{dab}}. The disambiguation page for "Bayesian" should list things that are likely to be the intended meaning for wikilinks to "Bayesian" (generally, articles named "Bayesian X"), not things similar in concept to the primary meaning of "Bayesian". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My major point stads: We do not have any guideline of that. Especially how do we distinguish cases of Bayesian from Long or, better, from Triangular (disambiguation)? Triangular pyramid, Triangular matrix, Triangular function, Triangular number ... Triangular alopecia ("This matrix is square, but if it were triangular" <-- wikilinked but are ambiguous) -- eh? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW, take a look at All pages with titles beginning with Bayesian: "Bayesian" page is a tip of an iceberg. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We do have a guidelines for that, but it's WP:PTM. A list of "Bayesian X" articles is a list of partial title matches. Bayesian should cover that concept of Bayesianess, or if it's not a concept (encyclopedic topic), it should be unlinked, just like we don't link Long everywhere it occurs (long bow --> long bow). If there's a problem with definitions, it could be a soft redirect to Wikitionary instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, there's already of List of things named after Thomas Bayes that Bayesian can redirect to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PTM is formally applicable. However since there are so many violations of WP:PTM with "technical/scientific" adjectives, I guess the guideline needs clarification/expansion, either to "legalize" or delete all these pages. In particular, your solution about "List of things" will not work for "digital" (List of things named after digit haha ;-). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't recommend a general solution of redirecting to "List of things". That solution was for "In this case". The general solution is deletion (and fixing the WP:OVERLINKing as needed). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

We have List of articles about things which are artificial. PamD 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Adjectives for maths topics were discussed at some length in 2016: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 41#Adjective phrases as titles, partial title matches and broad concept articles. – Uanfala (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• WP:PTM states: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference." [My emphasis by using italics. --L.] In all cases, application of editorial judgment is required to assess the "risk of confusion or reference". So one cannot categorically state that WP:PTM "formally" applies to some dab-like page with an adjectival title. The stated reservation is, of course, informed by the consideration that we should seek to do what is most helpful to the user of Wikipedia, which for adjectival page titles must be based on a case-by-case examination.  --Lambiam 10:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

These so-called dab pages (Bayesian, Newtonian, Pythagorean, etc.) all have list pages which perform pretty much the same function. I don't see the point of maintaining two when one will do just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated Bayesian for merger: see Talk:Bayesian#Merger proposal Feb 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of entries from dab pages and name lists

I have noticed that User:JesseRafe has removed lots of valid entries from dab pages and list articles. See [1], [2], [3], [4] for some examples, there are presumably many more. It appears nobody has raised this with them before so I would like some more eyes on it, since I'm inclined to revert most of the removals. Most of the ones I checked were fine per MOS:DABMENTION. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see a brightline disctinction between "Maggie Anderson may refer to:" followed with non-notables (who may have passing mention, such as non-notable individual members of a notable band) compared to a "List of notable people named Maggie/Anderson" in which blue links (or redirects to embedded subsections of characters) seems to be the standard, per my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list. JesseRafe (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION is a bright line rule allowing the inclusion of a topic on a disambiguation page if it is validly mentioned in another article. Individual notability is not a condition for inclusion on a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

What about this sentence on this very page Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists of names, "To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their first or last name only if they are reasonably well known by it." suggests two things: 1, that these lists shouldn't get too long, i.e. bloated with non-notables, and 2, "reasonably well known by it" suggests that they are reasonably well known to begin with, which a reasonable person would interpret as having the same criteria as general notability standards. JesseRafe (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is a different issue. We don't include Cincinnati Zoo at Zoo (disambiguation) or Cincinnati (disambiguation), not because this is a non-notable example, but because it is a partial title match. I do note, however, that some of the pages referenced by Xezbeth above are surname pages, not disambiguation pages, so WP:DABMENTION does not apply to them at all. bd2412 T 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Also do given names apply to that same standard? If so, that's then 3/4 of the ones referenced and almost all of the unlinked actions Xezbeth is referring to are on name pages, not disambig, which is where I look for them. JesseRafe (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) There is a difference between a specific name like "Maggie Anderson" which should include WP:DABMENTIONs of the name and pages that include people with the surname or given name. In those cases, unless the person is commonly known mononymously, they are candidates to be moved to a separate page for the surname or given name. However, persons who are commonly known by the single name should remain on the dab page, even if they are only mentioned in another article. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-reading, yes, I think we are in agreement (Bkonrad and BD2412), per my first comment I said I saw no problem with "Maggie Anderson may refer to:" followed with non-notables" which would apply uniquely to disambigs and thus under these rules you've explained, but did have a problem with "a "List of notable people named Maggie/Anderson" containing red links" which would be found not on disambig pages, but on pages for the names Maggie or Anderson. Is that a correct understanding of the distinction? And to follow, is that a correct application of the notability standard at the given and surname pages? JesseRafe (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have linked to MOS:DABMENTION, since that's somewhat misleading. Most of these removals are to fictional characters that are covered at either an article on a work of fiction, or a list of characters. They have been removed because they're a direct link, whereas other fictional characters have been kept because they were linked to via a redirect. These don't even count as redlinks since there's a blue link pointing the reader to the correct location. Take Kato, which I reverted: Megumi Kato and Marika Katō were both removed as they were perceived to be redlinks, despite being a major character and a protagonist respectively. Meanwhile Katō Kyōji was not removed since it's a redirect, even though he's so minor that the character list it points to doesn't even mention him. I'm aware that a lot of these aren't dab pages, but I was struggling to find any guidance on the inclusion of fictional characters in lists, even though I'm sure there must be somewhere. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Xezbeth is going through undoing dozens of my useful edits wherein I removed non-notables, but these are not disambiguation pages. Is this appropriate? Per Bkonrad and BD2412 in this thread it seems like this was NOT the case for anthroponymy articles as distinct from DAB pages. JesseRafe (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• A general comment on WP:DABMENTION. The threshold for inclusion as an entry on a dab page is usually much higher than merely having a passing mention in an article. This is especially true of people: any reasonably developed biography article will include mentions of dozens of people: family members, associates, various people the subject has interacted with etc. These shouldn't be included unless the article in question has significant content about them or they're notable (or almost notable) individuals who are known primarily for their association with the subject. – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Well then, I'm at a loss, it seems what I was doing was right then, yes? And those non-notables should be listed on all of these pages? Xezbeth is adding them back to dozens of pages. JesseRafe (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit of a judgement call. Dab pages really shouldn't be a catalog of every minor person or character mentioned in an article. However, the threshold Uanfala mentions is entirely subjective. older ≠ wiser 17:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Your judgement of a "non-notable" is way off. You removed major characters and protagonists yet left minor characters, purely because their name had a redirect. I doubt you even checked any of them. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Bkonrad, but these aren't dab pages. Xezbeth is restoring non-notables to main space articles, which fall under the guidelines for notability for inclusion in lists as I quoted above, no? JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

JesseRafe This is becoming hard to follow without specifics. The criteria for inclusion on lists of Anthroponymy pages are similar to that of dab pages -- i.e., does the linked article have content indicating there is a character or person by that name. Questions regarding the notability of any such characters or persons should be addressed on the talk pages of the articles that mention them -- not summarily removed from the list article based on a subjective interpretation of the guidelines. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure, what about this at Veronica? Xezbeth indiscriminately reverted. Those Czech film articles where the non-notable actresses should probably be deleted, no refs on almost any of them, and the lists of Hungarian weightlifters also seems tenuous. But what about the fictional characters? There's no Veronica on Questionable Content or Fallout: New Vegas pages. This is just indiscriminate "vengence" against me it would seem. Or, I've point out numerous times that from a formatting perspective saying "*Veronica [[Ronnie Mitchell]]" is much less pleasing to the eye than *Ronnie Mitchell, especially at Cassie where it was done abundantly. This user is claiming to be "rescuing valid entries" but is blanketly restoring invalid entries (as seen above) and also restoring glaring formatting errors. Seems more like a vendetta to me, rather than a thoughtful case-by-case process. JesseRafe (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesse, from my reading of this, you made edits and removed entries. Another editor objected and restored the entries. Now is the time to go to the talk pages and explain why you believe each entry does not belong on the page. This can lead to consensus that maybe some do belong and others don't. ~ GB fan 15:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Because it's been dozens of pages and there's reference made to a policy that I don't see written anywhere. I didn't start this, btw. The other editor did about me, and I'm concerned about what to do since they're seemingly following my contributions and undoing them with objectively false edit summaries and allusion to a policy that doesn't seem to apply. I've tried asking them direct questions (on my talk page) and they refuse to answer. I don't know where the appropriate venue is, but from what I can glean from the policies quoted above, my edits are in the right because these are not dab pages and this editor should stop? JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There are no policies involved, there are editing guidelines and manual of style references. I gave a suggestion on a way forward because I do not think this thread will yield an answer that your removals were correct or wrong in every instance as there are way to many nuances over the dozen of pages and dozens of entries. What you do with my suggestion is all up to you. ~ GB fan 16:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think JesseRafe did good cleanup work, which should not be mass-reverted. Indeed, addition of individual entries should be discussed on the relevant talk pages. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. Just looking at Veronica, Jesse removed many valid entries. older ≠ wiser 16:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can explain how these constitute good cleanup work: Removed several main characters while keeping some minor characters purely because their names had redirects; Removed at least four major characters while keeping a very minor Ouran High School Host Club character, purely because she has a redirect while the others didn't; accused some poor new editor of vandalism because they had the temerity to add a major fictional character. I haven't actually fixed that many pages; I cleaned up about a dozen before getting bored. Am I going to have to build a dossier of evidence when I visit the others? Because that will make the whole process take a lot longer. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a reasonable assumption that an editor using a common first name and a common surname as a username then adding that full name to an article as their third ever edit in their first 5 minutes of creating that account is adding themselves, I've seen it hundreds of times, so, yes my reaction is to call that "vandalism". But sure, keep taking potshots at me, in any attempt to besmirch me for some reason? You still refuse to answer direct questions on now multiple talk pages, about some of the characters you added back at Veronica don't even meet your standard or where this standard is published as it fits anthroponmy articles (not dab pages). Even it's not published then fine, that's your interpretation then, so please don't say I'm breaking a law that only you know. I provided references to my interpretation of the rules and MOS that these non-notable inclusions are violating. JesseRafe (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a fictional character. You could have worked this out if you spent just one moment looking at The Lorax (film). This proves that you aren't even looking at the articles in question before removing them. You also have very little understanding of what a "non-notable inclusion" is. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit referred to is this one where an editor whose editname is that of a fictional character had added that character quite reasonably to a dab page, in the "Fictional characters" section, as their third of four edits to date, to be reverted as "vandalism" because JesseRafe thought they were adding an autobiographical link. Hmmm. Not a lot of care going into these removals, it seems. PamD 17:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not a dab page. It's an article about the given name with its history and translations. And I didn't think they were adding an "autobiographical link", but adding their own name to the page. Hmmm. Not a lot of care is going into these responses. JesseRafe (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

How is adding a notable fictional character with that name to the page vandalism? Did you click the link to provided to see if there was a fictional character by that name in the film or did you just look at the username adding it and see it was the same and decide it was vandalism? ~ GB fan 17:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake there, yes, as acknowledged, but it was a reasonable one. Lots of people, largely kids, add their own names or their crushes' to anthroponymy articles and film casts and lists of alumni etc all the time. If it weren't for the username, yes, it almost certainly wouldn't've been removed, but I jumped the gun there, as acknowledged. Especially as I didn't remember any characters having names in the book, it looked like some kid named Aloysius O'Hare adding himself as an Aloysius and saying he was in his favorite movie. Happens all the time here. The question is, whether it belongs on the list, not whether I made a mistake labeling its removal "rvv". JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above examples, this is not good cleanup, and actually impedes reader navigation by using an arbitrary criterion. The existence of a redirect is only tenuously linked to the importance of the subject matter. In fact, at WP:RFD, editors routinely cite WP:REDLINK to argue for deleting redirects on notable topics with no significant coverage on Wikipedia in order to encourage article creation (see: [5]). So in some cases, the non-existence of a redirect might mean that the topic is more important and more likely to be searched for. And based on the above thread, it looks like in at least some cases, JR is not even checking the linked articles to assess if the entry should be included or not, meaning that their removals are likely not backed by diligently checks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but on the other hand, removing minor athletes, actresses or band members called "Veronica" who don't have an article looks like good cleanup work to me, and they shouldn't have been restored wholesale. Inclusion of manga or movie characters should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. I think both editors are acting in good faith, and they should be able to find consensus. — JFG ^talk 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, JFG, I tried, but the other editor absolutely refuses to engage in conversation and is incapable/unwilling to answer any direct questions as seen on my talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

PK: As stated, I understand there to be a distinction between DAB pages and those that are a "List of notable people in which blue links (or redirects to embedded subsections of characters) seems to be the standard, per my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list. Have still not heard explicitly that this is not the case, based these three rules, where am I misapplying them? JesseRafe (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion as an entry on a dab page is usually much higher than merely having a passing mention in an article." No, it's exactly that threshold. If it's mentioned on an article and someone adds it to the dab, the two possibilities are either remove its mention from the linked article as non-encyclopedic or leave its entry on the dab page per MOS:DABMENTION. The addition of the entries to the dab does not need discussion. The deletion of such entries would require discussion. Barring ambiguity, the mentioned entries could have been created as a redirect to the articles that mentioned them. Since there's ambiguity, they can have the redirect. Since there's a disambiguation page, searching for the name won't land on search results, but rather on the disambiguation page. Removing them from the disambiguation page means that reader navigation is hindered. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ, sorry, I don't see why people keep talking about dab when I've said time and time again that these are not dab pages, they're articles. Lists of people should fall under the governing principles found at the following: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Lists of people, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list, is this not correct? Xezbeth is restoring scores if not hundreds of non-notables to these lists. Has nothing to do with dab pages or dabmention criteria. JesseRafe (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably because this is the talk page for disambiguation pages and the section header says "dab pages". If you want to talk about name listicles (separate from disambiguation pages of human names et al.), this should take place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Luckily Trent is a dab page, and this revision demonstrates yet again that you have no idea what "non-notable" means. A heroine of a Charles Dickens novel is non-notable according to you. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

JHunterJ, I didn't bring this up here and I don't know why my argument should suffer because the other party made a mistake. Is my removal of non-notables from listicles that not dab pages appropriate or not? I've found several sources from the MOS that suggest it is, but no one is confirming that here, yet Xezbeth is still removing them from dozens of non-dab pages as well as the dab pages where I was mistaken. JesseRafe (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm responding to the argument (not yours) as presented. The quote I gave (not yours) mentioned dab pages, and I replied to it. You took that response as if it ignored what you've said time and time again, probably because I was ignoring what you've said time and time again and was instead responding to the other user talking about dab pages on a dab talk page. Your argument, if not about dab pages, neither suffers from nor is aided by my response to another editor. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Xezbeth, please keep this conversation civil. This is just the latest of a half-dozen attacks and aspersions you've cast about me. Discuss the edits, not the editor. JesseRafe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Long-term significance vs usage

I made a change to the primary topic section, switching the order of the two criteria given. Wikipedia:Five Pillars are our core values, and chief among them is that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". In an encyclopedia, long-term significance of general knowledge topics is the primary value for inclusion. "Usage" (aka page views, search results) certainly has value, especially in a digital medium such as us, but should not be presented as the top criterion. Usage is a fluid and fickle thing - it is heavily dependent on time, region, and context. Taking the example in that section, apple is given primary topic because it is a general knowledge topic compared to the transient commercial popularity of Apple Inc.. Usage is perhaps better presented as a "tie-breaker" when two topics have roughly equal long-term encyclopedic significance.

As such, I would like to reinstate my edit, switching the order, as a first step. I think this community should also discuss rewording the two criterion so that it is clear that usage is used when long-term significance doesn't give a clear result - perhaps changing the line to "A topic may be primary for a term with respect to usage..." while the other line stays "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance...". -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. So when the reader types a search term, we're aiming to provide the page they expected and desired, even if another page might advance their knowledge of a topic that we consider more worthy. Usage, over a period of decades rather than months, is a good indicator of what's expected and desired. Where it conflicts with the general knowledge criterion, we probably have no primary topic and should put a dab at the base name. Certes (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, in one respect, if discussion here establishes consensus for the change then I'm OK with that. But it is a significant change. The criteria was based primarily of usage from the earliest days and the long-term significance criteria was added later (and is still disputed by some). I don't think a subjective reading of WP:5P justifies elevation of that criteria without some broader discussion and consensus. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's bad enough that long-term significance even got added as a criterion; trying to make it a higher priority is even worse. We are building an encyclopedia, but it's an online encyclopedia, and we're trying to serve our readers as well as possible. That includes trying to get them to the article they are seeking in the fewest clicks possible, when reasonable. I've long held that historical significance is inherent in likelihood of being sought. That is, if it's that historically significant, then that supposed significance should be reflected in how often the article is sought, thus page view counts, link counts, etc. There is no need for a separate historical significance criterion. It does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and just gums up the primary topic decision-making process. --В²C ☎ 02:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We have access to many techniques which can get a reader quickly to an article. A PRIMARYTOPIC debate rarely (never?) requires more than a single extra click for the reader who lands on a subject they were expecting, so the effect is negligible. Even the best encyclopedias (print ones) often had to include page references to guide the reader. We also have the major benefit of search engine technology, which I think almost makes this concern moot. Its a small sacrifice (if you can even call it that) for the benefit of being a reputable encyclopedia which prioritizes its topics appropriately by putting general human knowledge about commercial products, fan content, etc. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a long-standing and insoluble problem with page views. As for being a reputable encyclopedia, things like the NYRM2016 fiasco certainly don't help that. We will only be reputable to the extent we follow our own rules.

One of the problems with primary topic is that Wikipedia is becoming a citeable authority to others. Google search cites us for example. So our use of language, and in particular our choice of article title and in particular of primary topic, influences English usage. It has become in this sense content. However, it's not content that can be related to its sources by citations in the same way that article content can be, and in presenting it as content we are subtly violating both NPOV and NOR.

We would stand far more chance both of being regarded as a reputable encyclopedia and of attracting and retaining good editors if we got rid of the problematic and unnecessary concept of primary topic altogether. It seemed a good idea to the founders. It has proven otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Proven" how? We should move William Shakespeare (disambiguation) to the base name? Mexico (disambiguation)? Bread (disambiguation)? No, it may be at times problematic (and not necessarily insolubly so), but it most certainly is necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Proven by experience in many RM discussions and others such as this one. Yes, it would do no harm to have William Shakespeare (playwright) as the article title, and similarly for the others. It would take some getting used to by the old hands!

Why exactly is it most certainly... necessary? Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To keep exactly that from happening: to add qualifiers to a bajillion titles that don't need them, hindering both readers (predominantly looking for the, hm, "primary" topic for a title) and editors (who now have to figure out which qualifier to add to nearly every wikilink to a "primary" topic). -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and for answering the whole question, that is, you've said not only that you think William Shakespeare the playwright should be at the base name but that this is for three reasons: To avoid needing to change many articles (I agree that's a consideration but I think the task is manageable); To spare some readers (hopefully a majority) from loading a short page and needing then a single mouse click to get to the page they want; And to spare editors the need to choose and type a disambiguator. I don't think any of those are serious problems. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

They are serious impacts with negative return on investment. You say "some readers" and "short page" and "single mouse click" to minimize it, but that is exactly the negative return on this investment you're seeking: we do a bunch of editor work (and increase the ongoing maintenance editor work) in order to worsen the overall reader encyclopedia experience. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See my replies at User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Ongoing discussion. Andrewa (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the change. IMO it's an improvement, and will save a little editor time and improve overall reader experience a little. A far bigger improvement would be to abandon the whole problematic and Wikipedia-invented concept of primary topic and disambiguate whenever there is ambiguity, but I can't see that happening. Andrewa (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly Andrewa, your change would make Corvette a dab, and I don't think that's what Netholic had in mind! Certes (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I would indeed make Corvette a DAB, and would retire the pseudo-disambiguator (disambiguation) completely, as unnecessary. I concede that this is unlikely to be accepted, in fact I'm not sure it will ever have any (other) supporters at all! But I can see many positives, and absolutely no negatives, to this approach. One more click does no reader significant damage, and yet we spend many person-hours seeking this elusive primary topic, which achieves nothing significant. Andrewa (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

We would need to keep a redirect at William Shakespeare (disambiguation) to mark the few wikilinks which are genuinely intended for the dab page, so the long-suffering gnomes can skip them when editing the daily torrent of new links to dab page William Shakespeare to read William Shakespeare (playwright). Certes (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Exactly.

We might even keep a long term concept of primary topic just to help partly automate this process. But primary redirects and pages named XYZ (disambiguation) would go. The DAB names would still be there for navigation, but they'd be redirects not pages, and ambiguous primary redirects would point to a DAB (or in some cases be one). And non-ambiguous redirects aren't primary redirects at all, and would be unaffected. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I too support the change. It seems clear from the move discussions I've participated in, that long-term significance is more important than page hits.--Ykraps (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, see user:andrewa/The Problem With Page Views, and please add to the Examples section there. And while it's not the only or even the best evidence of search term likelihood, it's almost always the only one cited, and the arguments above demonstrate this unfortunate tendency too. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with page views is that a large proportion of the community don't believe they should determine Primary Topic. When it first came into being, Primary Topic was about the "most important" and "central meaning" of a word or phrase.[[6]] Page views were later introduced, only as one of a number of ways to help determine this.[[7]] Since then of course, the importance of page views has been pushed to the forefront to the point that some people think they are now the determining factor. Rather than try to force this view on an unaccepting community,[[8]] the guidelines ought to be rewritten to reflect what is actually the custom.--Ykraps (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Great summary of some key evolutionary steps of this section. It really makes me wonder how we've strayed so far. I think the problem stems from human nature, and how we have a bias toward "countable" factors like page views over more in-depth criteria that is involved in determining long-term significance. We really need to add some alternative advice to replace the simple page view measures. Criteria like: "If you were forced to pick one article to delete from then encyclopedia, that article is likely not a primary topic". -- Netoholic @ 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The PT guideline is busted, see the latest evidence. Whether fixing it is practical... perhaps it's worth having a go, as it's a lot less work than abandoning it. But I'm not convinced that there's any more prospect of consensus to fix it than there is of consensus to abandon it. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Well analysed, Ykraps, and well put. I missed that post at first. Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There's no problem with "a large potion of the community" disagreeing with the consensus here in particular. Large portions of the community disagree with many of the consensus guidelines and policies. Wikipedia consensus is not unanimity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree.

But I don't think that's being challenged anywhere here. The question with regard to specific RMs is, what do we do when there is no consensus? The question with regard to the guidelines is, can we build consensus here to improve them, and how? Andrewa (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It was challenged above. My statement "There's no problem" is a direct contradiction of the "The problem with page views" claim (and the follow-up comments congratulating it). If the issue is with how to handle RMs with no concensus, WT:RM would seem to be the correct venue. The question here seemed instead to be "has consensus changed on the use of page views along with long-term significance". Which it doesn't seem to have. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

It was challenged above. My statement "There's no problem" is a direct contradiction of the "The problem with page views" claim (and the follow-up comments congratulating it). OK, so when you say There's no problem with "a large potion of the community" disagreeing with the consensus here in particular you mean that there's no problem with taking page views as the end-of-all-discussion in RMs. I didn't understand that. Yes, that view is both expressed and challenged both above and elsewhere.

If the issue is with how to handle RMs with no concensus, WT:RM would seem to be the correct venue. That's one of several correct venues, depending on how we propose to improve things. RM closers consider the instructions at WP:RM certainly, but also the closing instructions and other policies and guidelines, including of course this one. A change to the instructions at RM would need consensus on its talk page, certainly.

The question here seemed instead to be "has consensus changed on the use of page views along with long-term significance". Maybe. It's also possible that we just need to clarify the guideline rather than change its intent.

But the original question wasn't just about page views, it was long-term significance vs usage. Part of the problem is that page views seem to be taken by some as end-of-discussion evidence of usage, which of course they are not. They're an excellent starting point but a very poor closing. Which is what my essay says, and what you dispute, is that correct?

Which it doesn't seem to have. Too early to call IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2018 (

• No, I wasn't saying that.
• This is one of many more incorrect venues for discussing how to handle RM's with no consensus.
• You are seeking to change the intent of the current guideline to one, not clarify the existing guidelines.
• I've stated my position above, unsplintered. I'll await the eventual formal RfC or other proposal, rather than continue down this hole. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you weren't saying that there's no problem with taking page views as the end-of-all-discussion in RMs, but I can't then see what you were saying by a direct contradiction of the "The problem with page views" claim (and the follow-up comments congratulating it... (my emphasis) since that is the whole point of the essay in question. I can only hope that others read the essay rather than accept your dismissal of it at face value. And of course it belongs to the whole project, not to me, so help in clarifying what it does say (obviously not as well as it might) is always welcome.

I think I've already answered the second point, but I guess you could similarly say this is an incorrect place to discuss the essay. That didn't stop you, nor should it have stopped you. It's relevant to the project page, and therefore discussion on the project talk page (ie here) is appropriate.

The third point could be seen as a personal attack, or as irrelevant speculation. In either case it's just a distraction (whether deliberate or not). You say you disagree with my essay. You deny that you disagree with what it says. You just don't like it, but nor do you seem to understand it.

Thanks for foreshadowing the sort of opposition such an RfC would receive from yourself, I think that is helpful. I'm unlikely to move any such until the dust finally clears from NYRM, whose loose ends still include deciding whether NYC is primary topic for New York, and whether if so we should move the city to the base name. That's obviously related to this discussion. But I'd probably participate if someone else wants to get it started. Best. Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I support the change. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Or just drop PT altogether

I'm encouraged by the response... it's negative but not as negative as I had feared, and more encouraging still, the arguments against so far are very easily answered IMO. But it's not ready for this talk page IMO, and has gone off-topic for this section. See User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic and its user page, where I intend to try to develop the proposal. Comments welcome there of course! Andrewa (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am completely onboard with eliminating "primary topics", the use of (disambiguation) pages, and in fact, I'd love to get rid of all parenthetical disambiguation and replace it with a "subtitle" field so that each page could be named as they should, and the subtitle would be a of short phrase of clarifying text (very much like you see on Wikidata entries). This would also require that our wikilinking mechanism work like Wikidata's dropdown selection menu rather than straight text. This is probably a big change to the mediawiki interface. Your solution might be a good one in the meantime, since any conversion process could move anything in a parenthetical into that subtitle field. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I empathise with this position and can see the benefits (not least the potential to massively reduce discussions like the one about Corvette). However, if we remove primary topic entirely that introduces new problems shown by a couple examples:

1. Mathematics is ambiguous. Do we really want to disambiguate one of the top-ten vital articles? When the competing terms are 2 relatively obscure songs and a hip-hop producer? And even if we did, how do you clarify such a major topic further?
2. Bangkok is apparently unique. Even if it is today, that could change tomorrow. That means messing with stability, generating page moves and adjusting thousands of links, just because of a new article with less than 10 links. Is that good? We could avoid that by pre-emptively disambiguating everything? But is that wise?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe Mathematics (primary topic)? :-) Primary topic is a solution, not a problem. User essays are fine, but I'm not going to go read and comment on them when they have no chance of becoming consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I felt I needed to give you the opportunity as I have replied there to two of your posts here, and will probably do the same to the points you just made (such as a solution, not a problem). But if and when this comes back here, you'll have ample opportunity to comment then. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply now at User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Objection 3 if anyone else is interested. But even better, take a look at User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Creating new articles. The benefits of abandoning this tangled web of locally invented linguistics are far greater than I thought. Andrewa (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Two excellent points, thank you, and the example of Mathematics (disambiguation) is an excellent one, I doubt we will find a more challenging example. I'll add them to my user page and critique them there. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added them at User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Mathematics etc and User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Bangkok and there is some discussion there already, more would of course be welcome. Andrewa (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's an even bigger project. As you say, this would be a good first step. I'll need to digest the pros and cons of your proposal. Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Less radically

Interesting comment here As stated above, the fact that there is a legitimate argument over what the primary topic is is a good sign of the lack of a primary topic. I tried wading through the previous discussion and didn't find the as stated above but did see links to two previous archived RMs. Presumably it's there somewhere (diff appreciated if you find it... or perhaps Old Naval Rooftops might chime in here and give it).

Could this principle be usefully incorporated in the disambiguation guidelines, or the the closing instructions, or preferably both? It stands to save a lot of wasted editor time and ruffled feathers. The main problem I see is just assessing what is legitimate, and note that the emphasis is there in the original post.

Not to mention (which of course means I will... English is like that), some poor admin or page-mover or a very bold user who is neither will need to close this RM eventually. Give them a break? Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with you in wanting a dab but there is a subtle distinction. If there's legitimate argument over what the primary topic is (is it topic A or topic B?) then that's a strong argument for a dab. But if there's agreement that A is the only candidate and the argument is only over whether A passes the threshold, then things are less clear. I think Corvette may be the latter case, despite the quote. Certes (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the distinction is important.

I'm trying to avoid !voting on that particular RM. Certainly under my radical proposal we would have a DAB at the base name, but under the current rules it is less clear, and I think this matters.

Again, the devil is in deciding what's a legitimate argument. In both this RM and the farcical NYRM, there have been three camps, those who suggested A or B as candidates for primary topic as well as those who said neither, and in fact the foreshadowed NYRM2018 is to decide this very issue. But were their arguments legitimate? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

He might be referring to a sentence that used to be in the guideline: "There are no absolute rules for determining primary topics; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic." I never found it especially helpful; it only led to added discussion as to whether or not it was in fact a sign in the particular case. Station1 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Again, the devil is in deciding what is legitimate. Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this thread – so apologies if what I say is irrelevant – but if the motivation for these rather bold proposals is the existence of controversies over at RM, then I think the issue has less to do with the guidelines and more to do with editor behaviour. From my experience so far (not very extensive, let me admit), all the primary-topic-related controversies have seemed to be caused by a small number of tenacious RM regulars who apparently pretend that PTOPIC doesn't exist. – Uanfala (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Very relevant IMO, can you give an example (the best readily to hand) of one of these primary-topic-related controversies that have seemed to be caused by a small number of tenacious RM regulars who apparently pretend that PTOPIC doesn't exist? I've replied further here. Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Uanfala has now provided two examples as requested. One of these they proposed and we were both heavily involved in the subsequent discussion, and they were heavily involved in the other but I was not involved at all.
    • Both discussions were long, involved and passionate, with Uanfala arguing for a move of the DAB away from the base name on the grounds that a primary topic exists. Both closed as no consensus and therefore no move.
    • Both would have closed with the identical practical result under either of my proposals, just far more quickly, in fact possibly neither move would have been proposed.
    • Agree that neither was a good result, in that no consensus is never a good result.
    • Disagree that this is a behavioural issue.
    • In my opinion, both examples demonstrate that both of my proposals have at least some merit. See User talk:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#Behaviour of the regulars for more on this. Andrewa (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• I suppose, yes, I do need to give context for "as stated above". My comment was in reference to the lack of consensus in the RM itself, not to any specific proposal that the car is the primary topic for "Corvette". Take a look here: my "as stated above" referenced Certes's refutation of WP:IAR. ONR (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfect, thank you! Andrewa (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Still less radically

Which solution best serves readers who type in "Corvette", and surprises them least? The fact that a panel of experienced editors disagree suggests that the answer is a dab. [9]

This suggests to me that, at the very least, no-consensus decisions on primary topic should default to no primary topic, rather than to no move as at present. Particularly interested in Certes view on this as it's their comment and I don't want to be misquoting them. This would also clarify the two examples quoted by Uanfala above, confirming those decisions, and would have reversed my old hobbyhorse NYRM2016 without all the hassle of NYRM2017 and possibly now NYRM2018. Andrewa (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope that if one editor thinks topic A is primary and another thinks topic B is primary then each will see that the term is more ambiguous than they thought, and they may reach a consensus to put a dab at the base page. But if no such consensus emerges, the established procedure is that we keep the status quo. Certes (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly.

But the examples considered to date all suggest to me that this established procedure is not the best. Basically it reduces our article naming to the child's game of I bags. Andrewa (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A hopefully quick !vote

There are many detailed discussions above, but do we think we've reached agreement to swap the order by putting long-term significance above usage? Certes (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Long term significance is the more important. Usage is a quick and easy rough indicator. Avatar is a good example of where long term significance and original versus derivative use beats recent usage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Long-term significance is a subjective factor, so overemphasising it is problematic. Usage, if averaged out over a sufficiently long period (not excluding the future), probably approximates most understandings of "significance". – Uanfala (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• There is no real consensus among editors, either generally or often in individual cases, as to which, if either, criterion is more important. One is objective and one is subjective. The guideline doesn't and shouldn't favor one over the other, so there's no reason to change the order. Station1 (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Long-term significance is the more important. Usage is a handy tie-breaker between topics of equal (or both relatively low) long-term significance. Topics of general knowledge should always trump topics of fleeting popularity, like commercial products, entertainment, news of the day, and the like. These general knowledge topics may not "sexy" in the moment, but their presence is core to what it means when we call ourselves an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a zeitgeist and its not a popularity contest. In the era of modern search engines, primary topic status is relatively unimportant as searchers will generally get delivered immediately to the right article based on keywords and context. Yes, some people type URL address manually, but I think that's rare. In fact, high usage on a disambiguated topic is proof that people are finding the way to it without a problem. We need to stop worrying so much. The importance of primary topic isn't about usage, its about being taken seriously as encyclopedia. (added) It occurs to me that maybe we shouldn't even call it "long-term significance", but rather rewrite it to describe primary topic in terms of general knowledge trumping specialized, pop culture, or niche knowledge. At issue should be how many people are aware of a topic, not how many view the page (ironically, the more widely known a topic is, the less people look it up). Very few people view the apple page, yet most know what it is and would be astonished if it wasn't the primary topic over a company. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think we should promote long-term significance over page hits. Station1 is correct in that the guideline doesn't favour one over the other but having page hits at the top appears to have the psychological effect of giving it greater significance. Those who think I'm talking nonsense surely won't mind indulging me.--Ykraps (talk) 09:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Usage isn't just page hits. And usage by its nature (being used) encompasses much of significance. The significance is there as a reason to go against the usage to avoid surprise, like with "apple". The usage-then-significance order reflects the process, not the prioritization, so they shouldn't be swapped. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Long-term significance should trump recent usage, especially in light of WP:NOT#NEWS, when an article gets spikes in coverage and lots of editing. Example: Scott Walker (politician) came to attention during the latest Republican primaries and was crowned primary topic in July 2015 against Scott Walker (singer) and other less-notable dab entries. Editors a year later moved the dab page back to the unadorned base name Scott Walker, but much energy was wasted fixing links back and forth. Paying more attention to long-term significance would have prevented the 2015 PT grab. Several editors had justified their support for the 2015 move by interepreting the guideline as giving primacy to usage, e.g. Clearly meets the objective primary topic criterion, usage – I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The other criterion, long-term significance, is of course subjective. Personally I would say a governor and presidential candidate has more long-term significance than a singer, but I guess others could disagree.

This thread also reminds me fondly of the PT discussion about Fingering: is it primarily a musical or a sexual skill? I feel the proposed change will avoid much unnecessary drama. — JFG ^talk 15:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Should we add something to the relevant section about timescales? A chart-topping singer who was unknown last month may not be a candidate for primary topic, but a product that's been famous for 30 years may be. Certes (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I think more important is to preclude currently promoted topics from claiming PT over pre-existing topics or even common dictionary words. Last month's chart-topping singer will be subjected to her manager's promotion machinations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• For the record, long-term significance is more than adequately represented by the usage criteria (the extent to which a topic is historically significant is reflected in usage in reliable English sources), and, if it must stay, then it certainly has to be secondary to usage. --В²C ☎ 02:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note your opinion. Disagree on all points. Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support giving long-term significance priority over current usage, partly because of the difficulty noted in deciding just what timescale is current and what is long-term and what is just recentism. (Still prefer to abolish PT as a concept and still gathering evidence there!) Andrewa (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Disagree. Usage is the best (not the only!) way to determine what our readers and editors expect as the primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A second opinion, please?

I'm trying to come up with a reason why Dorset Coast should continue to exist. One item on the page, MSTS: Dorset Coast has a link to MSTS1 and that article does not mention either Dorset or coast. The second item is Dorset which does not seem to disambiguate Dorset Coast. I searched for other likely items but found none and DabFix had nothing to suggest. The page has been dormant since 2008 (with good reason). If no one has an objection, I think that I will AfD it. Leschnei (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It can go. Looking at the history it originally linked to MSTS: Dorset Coast. This was an article about a freeware download route for Microsoft Train Simulator. It was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSTS: Dorset Coast. There is nothing to disambiguate. ~ GB fan 21:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is no valid target, you can label it G6 for speedy deletion. Otherwise it can be changed to a redirect; I'd suggest that Jurassic Coast would be valid in light of the UNESCO World Heritage site. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I would replace it by a redirect to section Geography of Dorset#Coastline, which links prominently to Jurassic Coast and other relevant articles. Certes (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I will go with Certes solution as it includes Jurassic Coast as well. Leschnei (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Jim Mayer and variations thereof

There are disambiguation pages for various combinations of James/Jim/Jamie Mayer/Meyer. On the Jim Mayer (disambiguation) page, @Boleyn: suggested that it be merged with James Mayer (disambiguation). I'm wondering if it would make sense to merge Jim Mayer (disambiguation), James Mayer (disambiguation), James Meyer (disambiguation) and include Jim Meyer and Jamie Mayer as items. Leschnei (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

One option is to keep Mayer and Meyer separate, with "see also" links to each other (and James Myer), but combine Jamie and Jim into James in each case.

Mayer looks a bit of mess. I doubt that Jim Mayer is the primary topic over Jim Mayer (musician) (pageviews), so we could move him to Jim Mayer (ice hockey) then make Jim Mayer and Jim Mayer (disambiguation) redirect to James Mayer. I suspect that James Mayer (SOE) is just a cover name for James Mayer (spy)!

Meyer looks more reasonable. James Meyer seems like the correct primary topic (pageviews). Jim Meyer needs the hatnote changed to provide a route to James H. Meyer who was also called Jim; a simple "other uses" to a combined James/Jim Meyer dab page should do the job. Certes (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

While I don't want to discourage this helpful discussion, IMO it would be better at wt:WikiProject Disambiguation. At least give that page a look. Andrewa (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Certes (and Andrewa for the heads-up). I have made both James Mayer and James Meyer into disambiguation pages, and re-directed (or moved) everything else accordingly. They're looking a little more cleaned up now. I also put hatnotes on the various Jims, James's, and Jamie's. Leschnei (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

These minor surname variants can be a pest. I'm in favour of unifying them: that helps readers, who might just have heard a name and be spelling it the best they can phonetically. Be grateful that there doesn't seem to be a James, Jamie or Jim Maier.

As I have more than once said elsewhere: choosing a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in uncertain cases like these is a surefire way of accumulating links to the "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" which are wrong and are misleading to readers, are bad for the project, and are almost impossible to find and correct. Pageviews are a very unreliable guide – they count where readers looked first, not necessarily what they were looking for. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Short descriptions

There is a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Short descriptions regarding the (already-initiated) insertion of Template:Short description at the top of all dab pages that would likely be of interest to many editors here. Dekimasuよ! 22:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for determining whether someone is "commonly called X" for WP:NATURALDIS

WP:NATURALDIS says this:

"Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."

I'm seeking clarification in regards to what qualifies as "commonly called in English reliable sources".

For example, almost all sources about Sarah Jane Brown refer to her without any middle name or initial. I can't find a single reliable magazine article, news article or book that refers to her as "Sarah Jane Brown". There are some websites that do, but that's relatively recent, and could very well be the tail wagging the dog, since we've had our article about her at this title for around 10 years now. To me, this seems clearly a case where the topic is NOT commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown", but others disagree.

This is not about that title - there may be good reasons to retain that title even if she is not "commonly called" that. I'm just looking for input on the specific question of what qualifies as "commonly called", and, as an example, per such criteria, is Sarah Jane Brown commonly called "Sarah Jane Brown"?

Do we need to qualify this section any further?

@Wbm1058:? @Amakuru:?

--В²C ☎ 16:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly(reliably) called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names."

As long as there aren't competing sources claiming different names for something (in which case you need to sort out which one is accurate and which is in error), then the second-most commonly used name should be acceptable, even if this second-most commonly used name typically is only found in directories, biographies, obituaries and such, and not generally in ordinary news stories or in sources where who the person is is well-understood in context. wbm1058 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a reasonable position and argument. Here's the problem I see with it - the whole point of using the most common name if possible, and, if not possible, then using at least a not-as-common-but-still-common name, is recognizability. I think the intent is to not title our articles with names not commonly used in reliable sources. As one of the most popular sites on the web for research, we also have an obligation to not use names not commonly used because this can give the impression that it is commonly used, and cause others to start using it, who otherwise would not. That strikes me as a violation of our prime directive (to reflect the real world without influencing it in any particular direction). --В²C ☎ 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagine a high school student doing a biographical report on Sarah Brown. If WP did not exist, or if she did not look at WP, she'd probably title her report, "Sarah Brown". But if she did consult WP, she'd be more likely to go with "Sarah Jane Brown", even though none of the sources we use in our article do that. I just think there's something fundamentally wrong with that. After all, our articles should be NPOV summaries of what the reliable sources say about our topic - our articles should not present new or different information about their topics. --В²C ☎ 19:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Analogous to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) guidance for using legal status to disambiguate, a person's full legal name, or middle initial, is always a minimally acceptable, albeit seldom preferrred, means of disambiguation. Apple Inc., not Apple (company). wbm1058 (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That analogy fails because companies are generally well known and recognized by their official legal names; this is not the case for people who often are well known by one name which can be different from their official legal name to varying degrees. That's why we have Sarah Daniels (actress) (to use another Sarah with a middle name), Madonna (entertainer), Prince (musician), and not Sarah Elle Daniels, Madonna Louise Ciccone and Prince Rogers Nelson, for example. --В²C ☎ 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Birth notices, death notices, plaques, and obituaries often name the subject using their full name. For many biographies, the obituary is one of the most important sources. There is nothing wrong with disambiguating with middle names. The notion that a preference to title with a commonly used name has been shown to not be reversible, it is not true that a Wikipedia title implies a commonly-known name.
  I think it should be acknowledged that the guideline's stated prohibition of "obscure or made up names" does not probit the use of a known middle name for disambiguation purposes.
  This is clearly still about Sarah Jane Brown. Regarding B2C's high schol student's fundamental problem, I fixed the problem with this edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I’m strongly opposed to any sub-criteria to determine when the existing criteria for a natural disambiguation are met: that is the job of RM participants, and trying to change policies and guidelines when it is clear the majority of the community doesn’t hold your view on it is, IMO, bordering on disruption. I agree with SmokeyJoe’s point and am fine with wbm1058’s wording. I think that update would help beyond the SJB example to clarify how natural disambiguation and common names interact: we do not require it be the most common name, only common enough. The proposed change makes that clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Guys, come on. Don't be silly. Please note that saying "usually known as Sarah Brown", while accurate, is a gross understatement. It's "practically by everyone, everywhere, all the time", not merely "usually". Where and by whom is she ever known as "Sarah Jane Brown"? Here's the thing. Recognizability. What WP:NATURALDIS means, and what countless articles of people whose names require disambiguation shows our convention is, is that we use parenthetic disambiguation with information well known about the person to disambiguate, rather than a middle name or initial by which they are not well known. This is indisputable. Our articles about countless actors, sports people, writers, politicians, etc. are disambiguated parenthetically by what they are best known for, not by adding a middle name or initial which is rarely used in reliable sources. Using a middle name that is rarely if ever used in sources for disambiguation is not what our written policy is, and it's not what our convention is. That's a fact, not an opinion. Stop trying to rationalize around this. --В²C ☎ 16:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)