Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

"Covered by"

I just noticed the comment from B2C on Talk:On My Way (Charlie Brown song) that "ambiguity [on WP] has no meaning other than WP article name conflict", as stated in the first sentence of WP:D. --B2C 06:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)"

Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles.

Perhaps we should expand "covered by Wikipedia articles" to "covered by the text of Wikipedia articles" since B2C (a self proclaimed "title expert") is reading "covered by Wikipedia articles" as "covered by the title of Wikipedia articles" - ? Seriously. Is this sentence open to this misunderstanding? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if that sounds catty against B2C, he's not the only one misciting this by any means In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Many of us would dispute that it is indeed a misunderstanding. On the specific subject of songs, it just doesn't make sense to displace an actual article in favor of a dab that lists song titles linking to, at best, an album page. While there are occasional exceptions, standalone articles generally get preference over list items (cf. the semi-recent Larry the Lobster RM). And indeed, "list item" is probably the best we can call most album tracks. If essentially all we can say about a song is that it exists, again, why make it harder for readers to find an actual article on a song of the same name? If I want to find out about, say, DJ Khaled's "On My Way", I'm going to find out there isn't an article, and I'll be disappointed. Short of creating an article (if it meets notability standards), there's nothing really we can do about that. But we can choose to streamline the experience for readers searching for songs that we do cover.

What I don't know is where MOS:DABMENTION comes into play. Should a song only be mentioned on a dab if there's a reasonable expectation that it will have an article? That seems extreme, but might actually be an area of compromise on this issue. Personally, I think such listing are still useful as navigational aids. --BDD (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the way we usually do it - having a line for the song with a link to the album where it is covered - is signal enough that we don't have an article on the song. Anyone who is going to be disappointed by that will be disappointed whether they learn of it on the disambiguation page, or in further fruitless searching. I support having those links on a disambiguation page if one exists, but would not bump a song out of the primary topic spot to create one, nor would I bother to create one if we only had one article whose title was the song. bd2412 T 04:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

BDD, hi, if you think that B2C is understanding the guideline correctly, shall we put it to an RfC?

Re songs it's a particular problem with songs because we have two forms of article handling songs, single articles and album articles; constantly notable album tracks by notable artists will have no article. Then we get left with Example (unknown artist single) vs. Example (Rolling Stones album song). WP:DAB ... an alternative to an RfC would be to enshrine a Example (unknown artist single) vs. Example (Rolling Stones album song) in WP:DAB to show we don't require standalone articles for songs to be notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know the original intention of the text or whether many people believe it, but I think the language use is a very bad idea. It is a bad idea to redefine common words for Wikipedia purposes. Doing so hurts the accessibility of the project to newcomers. Ambiguity is most likely to be understood as real-world ambiguity to a newcomer. If the intent is to describe technical article titling ambiguity, then describe it as technical article titling ambiguity and don't redefine dictionary words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no redefining here... Only an understanding of context.

    Contrary to what In ictu oculi thinks I think, I know "covered by WP" does not mean "covered by the title of Wikipedia articles". Some topics are covered in subsections of articles. WP's process of disambiguation applies when a term can be used to refer to more than one topic covered by WP, whether that topic is the main topic of an article or a sub-topic of an article.

    For example, we don't have an article about the kidnapper named James Dimaggio, but he is a sub-topic of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson. Therefore, if we we ever need to cover another James DiMaggio, that name will be subject to our process of disambiguation. But, for now, despite the known existence of many other James DiMaggio's, as long as none have sufficient notability for coverage on notability, this James DiMaggio remains the primary topic, and James DiMaggio redirects to the article that covers him as a sub-topic.

    To clarify this, we could change the current wording to say the following:

  Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles (either as the main or a secondary topic of an article). Terms that are ambiguous only with uses not sufficiently notable to have coverage on Wikipedia are not subject to Wikipedia's process of disambiguation.

--B2C 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe that redefining "ambiguity" to refer only to a restricted subset of its English meaning is a bad idea. I like the addition in parentheses, that clarifies that ambiguity is not something restricted to article titles. The second sentence, though, is contrary to common (and quite recent) practice at DAB discussions, and B2C knows that this line of reasoning has been strongly opposed by several editors. So let's keep definitions short and allow editors to apply guidelines a they see fit for each particular case, and reduce WP:CREEP by making guidelines that are descriptive instead of prescriptive. Diego Moya (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia redefined "ambiguity" long ago, much like Wikipedia redefined "consensus" long ago. Nothing inherently good or bad about the ideas. And we can (and do, I think) avoid the (English) ambiguity by normally referring to the (Wikipedia) ambiguity as "Wikipedia ambiguity". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the phrase "the main or a secondary topic of an article"; what is a secondary topic? How about "as the subject of an article, or discussed in an article"? I think the second sentence is fine. As a matter of practice and good policy, we do not list terms on disambiguation pages unless they are in Wikipedia, or clearly belong in Wikipedia. bd2412 T 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave an example of a secondary topic above.... James DiMaggio is covered as a secondary topic of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson (of which the main topic is the kidnapping itself). But your wording is clearer. --B2C 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ships have sailed on redefining "consensus" and "ambiguity" long ago. There are countless words written with these redefined meanings implied by the uses of these terms, in comments as well as in policy and guidelines. I don't know where or how we would even begin to change this.

I should note that almost every endeavor, from science to politics to law to engineering, requires specialized terminology that includes "redefining" commonly used words to have specific narrow meanings in the relevant contexts. Remember, this is not terminology that readers encounter - it's terminology for efficient communication among the editors. Insisting on using the dictionary definitions of these words rather than the specialized WP meanings in WP editorial discussions is not helpful. --B2C 21:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Redefining common words is inherently bad in terms of accessibility of Wikipedia to new editors. Requiring enculturation is bad, as should be minimised. Ambiguity and consensus are not lost, B2C in particular is particularly wrong about WP:Consensus. The ship may have sailed for WP:Notability, but the precedent is no justification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It stills seems there is a problem here MOS:DABMENTION allows mention of e.g. album tracks, but then when it comes to titles we count those MOS:DABMENTION as if they don't exist? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not about pretending they don't exist; it's about not giving them primacy. Once we resort to parenthetical disambiguation, naming becomes a matter of real estate, constrained by the inability to have two articles with the same name. So when deciding those titles, it's entirely right and proper to only compare against other titles. We shouldn't have an article Foo (Bar song) without an article Foo (song), any more than we should have an article Foo (topic) without an article Foo. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

BDD says "We shouldn't have an article Foo (Bar song) without an article Foo (song), ...." So if I understand this correctly, you are saying at least one song must remain ambiguous before you can disambiguate other songs? That doesn't make sense. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just plainly wrong, BDD. Any topic may be the primary topic for a number of different terms. Only one of those terms can be the title for the article about that topic - all the other terms for which that topic is the primary topic must redirect to that article. For example, New York City is the title, but the primary topic of "New York, New York" is also that article, and so New York, New York redirects to New York City despite the existence of many other uses of "New York, New York". If it were true that "We shouldn't have an article Foo (topic) without an article Foo", then we couldn't have New York, New York (film) since we don't have an article at New York, New York. --B2C 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But Why? Doesn't the first line of WP:DAB say exactly that that we don't disambiguate by titles. We could have Eric Blair (Ontario politician) (in fact it's also a redirect) with no Eric Blair article, for obvious reasons. So why can't we have Under the Sun (Cheryl Cole song) (before moved by Unreal7) when the other 9 songs are only mentioned on albums? We can and do have articles Foo (topic) without an article Foo. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Petitio principii, my friend. I don't read the first line of WP:DAB that way, nor am I alone in not doing so. With the Eric Blair example, I half feel like you've tricked me, but really it's my fault for making too sweeping a statement. Of course as a matter of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we can have a Foo (bar) if the primary topic for Foo is the article Bar (I believe there are editors out there who may disagree with that, though they are decidedly a minority). I don't see the relevance of this sort of case to song articles, however. --BDD (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean now. We should not have an article at Foo (disambiguation) if we do not have at least one other use on WP for 'Foo'" (whether that use is represented as an article title, one of several on the dab page for "Foo", or as a redirect, does not matter). Similarly, we should not have an article with title Foo (Bar song) without an article or redirect at Foo (song). If that's what you meant, I agree.

By the way, the relevance of your sweeping statement error to song articles is that we have New York, New York (Moby song) even though we have no article at New York, New York (song) (it's a redirect to the Music section of New York, New York (disambiguation)). --B2C 06:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think part of what In ictu oculi may be getting at is there appears to be a bias among some editors that if there is only one "article" about a song, that by default becomes the "primary topic" for the title Foo (song) regardless of whether there are other songs with that title on the Foo dab page (and without any discussion about primacy). older ≠ wiser 11:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can and do have articles titled disambiguated as Foo (disambiguation) without an article at Foo, as long as Foo is a redirect to the primary topic for the term "Foo", or "Foo" has no primary topic and so the Foo dab page is at Foo. --B2C 05:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my view, if a subject is listed on a dab page (e.g., the title of a song) with a link to where an article is found that discusses that subject in any depth whatsoever (even just one sentence within a larger article that provides a context for the subject, and perhaps even just identifying the subject explicitly without further elaborating on it), or (similarly) if a redirect exists for a subject that points to an article that discusses that subject in any depth whatsoever, then that subject is "covered" on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's what B2C means by "a secondary topic of an article" or not. The sentence "Terms that are ambiguous only with uses not sufficiently ..." seems wordy and unnecessary. I really hate the phenomenon where someone claims that one particular song or album should be considered the primary song (or primary album) with a particular title and should therefore be moved to the ambiguous title "My Favorite (song)" instead of residing permanently at "My Favorite (Particular Artist's Name song)", when there are several other songs or albums listed somewhere on Wikipedia that have the same title (especially when the candidate primary article has little depth or was recently released). That just creates an unending churn of arguments about whose song is the most important and is why it is a generally good idea to avoid partial disambiguation. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, if a subject is discussed "in any depth whatsoever (even just one sentence within a larger article that provides a context for the subject, and perhaps even just identifying the subject explicitly without further elaborating on it)", as demonstrated by a dab page link, redirect, or hatlink to that discussion... that's what I mean by "a secondary topic of an article". The only reasonable interpretation of "topic covered by WP" I can fathom is any topic which is either a main or secondary topic of an article (using "main" instead of "primary" here to avoid confusion of "primary topic" of an article with "primary topic" of a term). --B2C 23:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I have added a foot note clarification regarding what "topic covered by Wikipedia" means. It follows the first sentence of the page. The text of the note "hovers" over the cursor when the cursor is moved over the foot note. I hope that addresses the issue initially raised in this section --B2C 06:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this should fix the main problem. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So let's get on and add it? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The footnote's already there. To me, it seems fine. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew that but forgot, I guess that illustrates User:Cuchullain's comment in relation to Talk:Good for Me (song) that the footnote is both recent and not very visible. It seems to me that songs represent a special challenge for WP:DAB in that for few other prolific subjects we have the (standalone song) (song on a collection of songs) divide. We don't have to disambiguate [Village Z (standalone)] from [Village Z (mentioned in a album of villages)] for example. Doesn't happen for bios much, though in theory I guess it could : [John Smith (standalone musician)] vs [John Smith (musician in a band article)], [John Smith (standalone hockey player)] vs [John Smith (hockey player in a team article)]. Less of a perennial problem than for songs though, given that most songs, by far, don't have articles, but still have Google Book and iTunes hits. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Now it is part of the page it seems reasonable to add into the main text, rather than hiding away as a footnote. After all it's addition has already been debated above. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: please go ahead. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(entertainer)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) as suggested.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The questions for this RfC are: 1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Recent months have seen a number of requested moves to replace the "(entertainer)" disambiguator. Results have been mixed. Each individual RM has had relatively limited participation, so it would be nice to see if we can come to wider consensus on the issue, or if going case-by-case is necessary. A sampling of recently concluded RMs Talk:Craig_Owens_(singer)#Requested_move Talk:Mario_(American_singer)#Requested_move_1 Talk:Psy/Archive_1#Requested_move_2 Talk:Ashanti_(singer)#Requested_move_21:28.2C_21_July_2013_.28UTC.29 Talk:Usher_(entertainer)#Requested_move_.28August_2013.29 Talk:Chris_Brown#Requested_move_3 Why drop (entertainer)? It can be a vague, ambiguous catchall that in itself is not very descriptive. It's often only used sparingly in sources to describe a given person. One editor has suggested that the term only rightly applies to jesters, vaudevillians, burlesque acts and the like. Why keep (entertainer)? In the case where a person is notable across multiple areas of entertainment (i.e., as a singer and a dancer), choosing one of those areas to disambiguate may be misleading or less accurate than using an umbrella term. There are two fundamental questions to answer first. One is the definition of the word itself. One definition of "entertainer" is "a singer, comedian, dancer, reciter, or the like, especially a professional one". This would seem to at least allow for the possibility of its use on WP. The second question is how important WP:AT is in choosing a disambiguator. We rely heavily on sources for the actual name of a subject. Is that reliance lessened when we choose disambiguation? Does "entertainer" itself need to be found in sources, or can it be used to disambiguate when it makes sense otherwise? What are the options? Eliminate (or strongly discourage) "(entertainer)". There is (almost) always a better option. Use "(entertainer)" only in the rare case where a person is most often referred to as an entertainer, or where no other reasonable alternative exists. Allow "(entertainer)" only in cases where no particular area of entertainment predominates over another. Allow "(entertainer)" whenever a person is notable for more than one area of entertainment. Allow "(entertainer)" even when a person is notable for only one area of entertainment. Disambiguate using each area for which a person is notable (i.e., "(singer/actress)" or "(comedian/musician)"). Please feel free to alert the relevant WikiProjects or others. Dohn joe (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Survey Please indicate the number(s) of your preferred options here, along with a brief explanation if you wish. Leave it alone - per WP:CREEP - for the time being at least. The majority of RMs (around 20 of them) have already gone against use of "entertainer" as a neologism and/or imprecise per Talk:Drake (rapper), Chris Brown, Talk:Sinbad (comedian) etc. The only 2 exceptions as far as I know are Talk:Madonna (entertainer) and Talk:Usher (entertainer). Although for certain pop-star articles there is strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favour both of the FOO (entertainer) title dab, and "the entertainer FOO" in leads", fundamentally (entertainer) is an umbrella Category:American entertainers which per WP:CRITERIA for recognizability and sources can normally be entrusted to WP:RS without legislation. If editors recognise the principle of using language found in sources they hopefully won't hold out for "the entertainer FOO" against "the actor FOO" "the singer FOO" forever on the basis of 1% or 2% of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Incidentally we do have some "and" dabs already on en.wp Junaid Khan (actor and singer). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Wrong project. The naming conventions for articles determine the titles (including qualifiers, if the desired title is ambiguous and not primary). The disambiguation guidelines determine the titles of disambiguation pages. This should go to WP:NCP or similar. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Discussion

Needed: a simple "how to create a disambiguation page" section

I spent a few minutes googling "how to create a disambiguation page" and variations thereof. There's no simple, easy-to-follow guide for how to figure out how to change an old redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Britten&redirect=no to a simple disambiguation page that also includes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britten and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten_Motorcycle_Company and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britten_V1000 If we on Wikipedia want more and new users, these arcane and complicated information pages really need to be streamlined and user-friendly and convenient. Spending half an hour learning intricate syntax is fine if you want an exclusive boys club, but not terribly convenient for the amateurs. Could also start with automatic signing of posts like this one, lest I forget the four tildes. Pär Larsson (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. We might be able to set up a "preloaded" disambiguation page template, along the lines of:

Foo may refer to:

• [[Foo (bar)]], a bar
• [[Foo (yang)]], a yang in Ruritaria
• [[Foo (album)|''Foo'' (album)]], an album by the Ruritarians

{{disambig}}

I have asked whether this is possible at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Creating a form to make a new disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you asked WT:WPDAB? They are likely to have considered such matters before. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@BD2412: excellent, do it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yunak (disambiguation)

Second opinion and action requested on this from experts in MOSDAB. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're probably right for the time being. Since the term isn't mentioned anywhere at Slavic mythology, the Slavic word isn't a very useful inclusion there, and since dabs don't have reference sections, information included there should be backed up by article content. I can't read Bulgarian, so for all I know, the whole thing is a hoax. Perhaps Bigzteve should create a sourced stub for Yunak (mythology), which could be listed much more elegantly on the dab anyway. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:PDAB

An attempt to modify, keep, or remove the partial guideline would have resulted no consensus, especially since no one closed it. Also, I tried to rename The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), but the proposal failed. This calls for further discussion before we can make a survey. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It was archived automatically due to nobody wrote in the section for a few weeks, but that doesn't mean we can't re-post it here. Also, it was requested to be formally closed but no one has done so. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". There is no differing guideline for the addition of policy without consensus; therefore, a lack of consensus as to this policy means that it gets removed. I will do so now. bd2412 T 01:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:BD2412, there was a large majority supporting saying clearly what the WP:DAB guideline already said anyway. Removing it is an invitation to the same old nonsense about WP:PRIMARYCHEESE, WP:PRIMARYICEHOCKEYPLAYER starting again... except it won't start because it is only pop music where the agitation for ambiguous disambiguation is happening. Talk:Thriller_(Michael_Jackson_album)#Requested_move_4. This nonsense could be killed quickly by someone submitting a RM for selecting one of dozen footballer at John Smith to be WP:PRIMARYFOOTBALLER. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Removing the name of an artist from the title of an article about the artist's song or album seems exceptionally unhelpful to me. Most readers would probably actually rather see the title "Arbitrary Phrase (Dohn Joe song)" than "Arbitrary Phrase (song)". Not including the artist's name makes the whole thing rather confusing and generally less recognizable, and dooms us to perpetual future discussions, instability, and broken cross-references when different artists have songs of the same name and when new songs appear as time moves forward. The ebbs and flows of popularity guarantee that any identification of a "primary song" will be impermanent and will be challenged with each new release. (The "primary cheese" example gave me a bit of a giggle – thanks for that.) —BarrelProof (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @In ictu oculi, I would be delighted if you could give me a headcount showing this "large majority". bd2412 T 11:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has moved around all over the place, I'd be delighted also if I knew where it was. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if you claim to have support for the proposition, it is your burden to demonstrate this support. I have not seen it. Perhaps a new discussion is in order. bd2412 T 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought this discussion at the village pump inserted PDAB and although there is much disagreement there is no consensus to remove. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is, quite frankly, not at all clear what there is consensus for from that discussion, since the parameters of the discussion changed while it was ongoing. For example, it remains unclear from that discussion whether Kiss (band) would need to be renamed, and if so whether that title would have to be redirected to Kiss (disambiguation), or to the renamed American band. It is impossible to say that consensus was achieved if the question can not be answered from reading the entire discussion as to what consensus was achieved. Furthermore, in the follow-up discussion now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 40#WP:PDAB, which received much broader participation and is therefore a fairer reading of community consensus, only three editors supported keeping PDAB as it was at the time (Dicklyon, In ictu oculi, and 76.65.128.222); nine editors supported removal of PDAB (Tbhotch, BDD, B2C, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Zanhe, Lil-unique1, Enric Naval, David Eppstein, and Amakuru); another editor (Neelix) stated, "I would be happy for WP:PDAB to be removed so long as WP:INCDAB remains in tact"; and six editors proposed that PDAB be revise, clarified, or modified to allow titles like Kiss (band) and Thriller (album) to remain the titles of the best known users of those names, which would effectively reverse what PDAB said at the time - JHunterJ wrote "For disambiguation, either allowing or permitting a "primary song" will work"; I, BD2412, supported replacing it with a policy that would allow Kiss (band) to stay where it is; WikiRedactor propose that "this situation should be handled case-by-case", and that "If it remains, WP:PDAB should only be a guideline to suggest a possible solution"; Jackson Peebles suggested that we could use IAR, but that the policy needs clarification as to "what to do for partially disambiguated pages", and jc37 stated "this is a subjective determination that needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis". If anything, there is a clear consensus from the last discussion to remove PDAB. Again, a new and clearer discussion is needed before we make so sweeping a policy change, one for which proper notice is given to affected projects. bd2412 T 16:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

←

Where should the WP:PDAB shortcut be retargeted now that the section no longer exists in the guideline? Should it point to the archived discussion? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I have retargeted it to the section on partial title matches for now, since I think that is a reasonable target for a link titled "PDAB". I am not philosophically opposed to having a policy on partial disambiguation, but we should hammer out something that does not immediately draw howls of protest and get overriden in move discussions. There is a fairly obvious difference between truly ambiguous song title like Mother, where no one song can claim to be primary, and no one song should have the title, and Thriller, for which one song is overwhelmingly famous, but for which another song merely exists. bd2412 T 23:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, sorry, but please see the last lengthy discussion, and the last half dozen times Kiss (band) was cited as justification for WP:PRIMARYBAND, WP:PRIMARYSONG and WP:PRIMARYALBUM. It's an outlier, an exception, an extreme case: 키스 Kisu were active for 18 months in South Korea, the article doesn't even have a single English source. In cases like this we expect editors to use their brains. The cases we are discussing are not mega-notable English topics vs obscure non-English topics but for every single band, album, and song picking the [Nirvana (TOP band)] vs [Nirvana (English band)], [Thriller (TOP album)] vs 4 other albums, [Run for cover (TOP song)] vs 6 other songs.. and so on. This is already disruptive and potentially massively disruptive. What if all the other WikiProjects were to start doing what Tbhotch and Wikiredactor want and we have (TOP river) (TOP cricketer) (TOP film)? ...unlikely I know since Billboard doesn't have a hit parade of rivers or cricketers.

What is the point of all the previous discussion if it's going to be ignored simply because it was dispersed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Kiss (band) question is the most important question, because the policy as written does not allow for it. We should not implement policies without exceptions, but with the idea that people will ignore them where they don't make sense. We should instead implement policies that have those exceptions built in, because if Kiss (band) is allowed despite the policy, then why wouldn't Nirvana (band) be allowed despite the policy? bd2412 T 01:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents: both Kiss (band) and Nirvana (band) can very well be allowed per WP:IAR (since the benefits are self-evident). Doing so, however, does not mean that a "primary band" absolutely must be established for all eponymous bands or that bureaucratic nonsense of the likes of WP:PRIMARYBAND, WP:PRIMARYSONG, WP:PRIMARYALBUM, and WP:PRIMARYCRICKETPLAYERFROMANONCOMMONWEALTHCOUNTRY should be developed and enforced; User:In ictu oculi's position has my full support in that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 25, 2013; 01:45 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I gree with BD2412. Kiss (band) is an important example. It's no outlier. It's typical of exactly what PDAB is about. When one use of a common word is very well known, then it's almost certainly the primary topic within its topic area. --B2C 01:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@bd2412 - it is an outlier, it outlies so far out that it's lying out in non-English sources hangul websites. Nirvana isn't an outlier because both Nirvana bands exist in English sources and the US Nirvana band had to pay the UK Nirvana band's lawyers for use of the name. That is different from Kiss vs 키스 Kisu a Korean girl band with no English sources. If an argument is made let it be from Nirvana, comparing Kiss with 키스 Kisu isn't the argument the editors pushing for "Primary band" are making, and if Kiss is a concern a simple footnote in the guideline not to count non-Latin alphabet bands with 1 single can cover it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to the ongoing saga of partial disambiguation, there is a discussion at Talk:Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)#Requested move which may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

TWODABS needs an example

• Someone familiar (musician), American jazz singer
• Someone familiar (footballer), English footballer

This would help Users read and understand what TWODABS is saying. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. But then I think that the advice against dab pages in this case is too strong. Why should we not want dab pages with only two entries? How many 2 entry dab pages will never be expanded? And what are we hurting? If we change that section, maybe we can clarify this comment, roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page. What is a standard page and what is a line? Do we have a standard line? Do I test this full screen on my 27 inch display or my 10 inch display? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the guiding principles behind titles and dabbing is getting readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. In the two dab situation, if you go with a dab page 100% of those searching with the base name will need 2 clicks to get to the article they seek. Without a dab page, as long as the more likely target is at the base name, more than 50% will get to the article they seek in 1 click, and the remainder will get to their article in 2 clicks. Hence the preference to avoid a dab page when there are only two uses.

Personally, I disagree with the primary topic requirement. If there is no primary topic, and even if we put the wrong topic at the base name, it's still no worse than the dab page situation (2 clicks).

Now, if a third use arises, that can change everything, but we should wait until we actually have a third use on WP to address that in each case. --B2C 00:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. If one use is likely to get 51% of the traffic, then we basically move the navigational function otherwise served by the disambiguation page to the top of the article that gets 51% of the traffic. In a sense, the "disambiguation page" is still there, it's just handily condensed into a hatnote. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So let's change TWODABS to say that! --B2C 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you need more than just the two of you agreeing on this. I think the importance of the number of clicks argument is vastly overrated. IMO, it's vastly less confusing to have a disambiguation page than flipping a coin. For one, mistaken links to the wrong page are vastly easier to identify. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a legitimate concern, but it is as much of a concern for Mouse and Apple, and even George Washington, which have many possible uses but (to varying degrees) clear primary topics. bd2412 T 02:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with primary topics (and is one reason I prefer having a relatively high bar for a primary topic). But I don't agree it is as much of a concern. When there is a relatively clear primary topic, most links will be for the primary topic, and even for those that are not, the element of surprise should be minimal. When it is a toss of the coin, a significant number will arrive at the wrong page and scratch their heads. Some might even be ticked off that "their" topic has been dissed. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For a coin flip, I don't imagine there's much more head-scratching at landing on the "wrong" page than at landing on a disambiguation page. If the reader is looking for Joe Blogs (janitor) and ends up on Joe Blogs (plumber) with a hatnote saying they might be looking for the janitor, it is no less wrong for that reader than looking for Joe Blogs (janitor) and ending up at Joe Blogs (disambiguation), with pretty much the same note saying you may mean (among other things) the janitor. The disambiguation page still tells the reader their guy is not the number one topic. However, it is telling everyone that, including the people for whom their guy really is the number one topic. bd2412 T 02:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that many readers will see one marginal topic being primary as an insult to the other marginal topic (despite repeated remonstrations by various disambiguation regulars that this isn't actually what being primary topic signifies). While some might still be miffed that "their" topic is not primary, at least a disambiguation page indicates neutral treatment. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe capitulating to misunderstanding is good policy? That's what you seem to be advocating here. Or do you believe that being at a base name signifies greater importance over other uses? --B2C 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that in cases where there is no basis for determining a primary topic, we should not pretend that there is one by flipping a coin. older ≠ wiser 18:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bkonrad, what about the Shropshire cricket fan who is incensed that some American judge is given precedence over John Roberts (Shropshire cricketer)? What about the Bob's Burgers fan who thinks that John Roberts (actor) should be primary? Granted, a WP:TWODABS situation is a much smaller universe of choices, and usually a much lower threshold of notability, but we can't let the devotion of fans of person "A" overrule evidence that between the two possibilities, person "B" is more likely to be the subject readers are searching for. bd2412 T 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an clear and obvious case for a siting Chief Justice of the United States to be the primary topic, so I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to illustrate. Some editors are upset that Americans is about residents of the United States. Nothing that we can do about that since discussion has repeatedly established that there is a primary topic for the term. TWODABS only applies in cases where there is not a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 18:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in re-reading WP:TWODABS, I find the last paragraph to be almost unintelligible.

If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two articles with the same title (one of them a primary topic), but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future, the {{about}} hatnote should be used to link to the disambiguation page. At the same time, the {{Only-two-dabs}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, and may be deleted if, after a period of time to allow readers and editors the opportunity to expand the disambiguation page, additional disambiguating terms are not found. The {{Only-two-dabs}} template will also list the article in Category:Disambiguation pages containing one non-primary topic, allowing other editors to locate these pages and help in expanding them.

So, to paraphrase, if a disambiguation page is not needed ... the {{about}} hatnote should be used to link to the disambiguation page? Huh? older ≠ wiser 19:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need {{Only-two-dabs}}? I'd vote to remove it given how little usage of it we have and the fact that it probably does not serve a useful purpose. I guess using {{about}} to list the dab page when it has only 2 entries could be confusing. But the flip side is that once you set up about it works no matter how many entries there are on the dab page. Also I could argue that for many of these two dab cases, we have not really determined if there is really and truly is a primary topic, in which case the dab page should be at the main namespace. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Only-two-dabs}} was a compromise arrived at after a long discussion; on one side, you had those arguing if there are only two topics, you MUST use hatnotes; on the other side were those arguing that Sexual harassment should not have a hatnote pointing to Sexual Harassment (The Office). {{Only-two-dabs}} was a solution that lets us create a DAB page in these (rare) cases, which will hopefully attract additional/useful DABs allowing the DAB page to be kept; if none are found, then you go back to hatnotes. If the explanation in the policy is confusing I'd be happy to help redraft it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I think I confused myself and perhaps others in misremembering or conflating previous discussions about TWODABS. It appears that in fact it only applies when there IS a primary topic and only one other non-primary topic. I think I was thrown off by the mention of 51% -- which is at best an extremely minimalist criteria for a primary topic when there are only two topics. If there is not a clear primary topic, I think a disambiguation page is the best option. Of course, editors are completely free to be BOLD and make a claim that one topic is primary, but if challenged, I think only 51% more traffic without any other supporting evidence would be viewed as rather flimsy. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already said too much, but just to clarify -- much of what I wrote seems more relevant for determining whether there is a primary topic rather than what to do if there is a primary topic AND only one other topic. For the latter, I agree that in most cases a disambiguation page is unnecessary and a simple hatnote to the other topic is all that is needed. There are some cases where it might be of some benefit to a disambiguation page, such as cognates, homophones, or to facilitate searches for partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, you say: "in cases where there is no basis for determining a primary topic, we should not pretend that there is one by flipping a coin". May I reword that without using the term "primary topic"?

In cases where we cannot determine which of two topics is most likely to be sought by readers searching with the name the two topics have in common, we should not place either at the base name.

This is your position, yes? If so, why? Why should we not place either topic at the base name in such a situation? Why not allow roughly half to land on their desired topic without having to go through a dab page, while still leaving the other rough half one more click away from their destination, just as they would all be with a dab page at the base name? --B2C 19:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is. I think the reason why is self-explanatory. If there is no primary topic, then why pretend that there is one? It simply makes a mess of things. Page traffic for the pseudo-primary topic becomes meaningless as there is no way to tell how many were actually intending that page or just landed there by mistake. This can make subsequent page move more complicated as well. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What if it is not "a coin flip"? What if, based on Google hits and page views while the pages are both at disambiguated titles and other measures like that, we can discern a clear 55%-45% split in favor of one topic? Or a 60%-40% split? Or a 67%-33% split? At what point does it make more sense to have a hatnote rather than a separate page? Surely we can not require the same dominance for a two-way split as we would for a ten-way split? bd2412 T 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If it is not a coin flip, then it seems like there is a primary topic. Like I said, editors are free to be BOLD and assert a primary topic, but if challenged they need to back up such claims. And if consensus determines there is not a primary topic we shouldn't let the non-primary remain simply because it happened to be the first topic or because some editor long ago thought there was a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I know this might sound pedantic, but can you explain your reasoning without using the term, "primary topic"? So instead of saying, "if there is no primary topic, why pretend there is one?", you would ask: "if there is no topic that is most likely to be sought, why pretend there is one?" We can answer that: Because then seekers of that topic get to their desired article right away, without any cost to others.

I don't buy the page traffic complication argument. That assumes significant numbers of people seeking topic B give up when they reach the article for topic A, rather than click on the hatlink to the article they are seeking. --B2C 19:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed, traffic statistics are not very reliable even in the best of circumstances. When a non-primary topic occupies an undisambiguated name, their value approaches nil. As for picking a primary topic by chance, I'm sorry but IMO it is simply nonsensical to do so. We are an encyclopedia and we should not be choosing article titles based on chance. And I don't agree that there is no cost to having a non-primary topic at the undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 20:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"One of the guiding principles behind titles and dabbing is getting readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks"

It is foolish for this to be a "guiding principle". It amounts to adjusting titles to optimise search engine success rates on a simple numbers basis at the expense of logical structure. It sound like people don't know that search engine algorithms are clever and continually learning. The search engines (google/yahoo/Wikipedia) learns what people are searching for, and if out of (1)Joe Blogs (janitor), (2) Joe Blogs (plumber), & (3) Joe Blogs (disambiguation), a large majority want the plumber, then a dumb "Joe Blogs" search will take them to the plumber's pages.

In an encyclopedia, people expect a logical structure. Finding Joe Blogs (plumber) at Joe Blogs implies that there is only one on-esoteric subject titleable as Joe Blogs. If that is true, than that's fine, but if there are many reasons people might search "Joe Blogs", and if these people aren't familiar with the plumber, then the non-use of a disambiguation is a confusing disservice.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Suppose that rather than saying "the fewest number of clicks" it said "with the shortest search process"? bd2412 T 22:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Shorten the search processes" is a far superior guiding principle than "reduce the number of on-Wikipedia clicks".

Less ambiguous titles mean that search engines work better, and that when a search engine returns a list of page titles, more descriptive titles greatly facilitate a shorter search process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Or take the other approach, and say that the guiding principal is to not send a significant number of readers to the wrong page. The number of clicks does not matter if too many readers are getting to the wrong article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The dab page is always the wrong article. --B2C 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The DAB pages contains a very nice summary. I often find DAB pages useful to the point that I don't need the articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Then what does it matter if that "very nice summary" is tucked into the hatnote of the more likely search target? bd2412 T 00:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons why a DAB page is better than showing a wrong article when there's not a primary topic, but two are directly relevant to this discussion:

• DAB pages have shorter load and render times than whole articles. This is invaluable for people accessing from older computers with limited resources, from mobile, or from countries with bad internet connections.
• DAB pages are optimized for, well, disambiguation. It's much easier to locate the article you're looking from from a short, well-classified navigation list that compares all existing topics that use the name than from a cramped hatnote that is displayed as secondary content in an article. Diego (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We are, however, talking about WP:TWODABS situations here. In my experience, where two topics share the same name, if both are obscure (even if one is clearly better known), both articles will be short and have fast load times. If one is obscure and the other is the clear primary topic, the primary topic will tend to be much longer, and to have a longer load time (and to be the page that the reader was searching for). Also, since the hatnote is the first thing the reader will see on the page, if there is only one other topic, it will be easy to find, as it will be the only thing there. The proposition that it's easier to locate what you are looking for from a dab page is false if the article you are looking for is, in fact, the primary topic. To give a very clear example, there are two articles on men named Barack Obama; one is the President of the United States; the other is his father, Barack Obama, Sr. Under your formula, Barack Obama would be a disambiguation page, so that editors looking for the Sr. Barack Obama could find that article after a shorter page load time. bd2412 T 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"if the article you are looking for is, in fact, the primary topic" - Nobody is suggesting to put a DAB at the base name when there's a primary topic. TWODABS is about having DAB pages in addition to the hatnote in the primary topic article (instead of replacing the hatnote). "since the hatnote is the first thing the reader will see on the page" - That's a very strong assumption to make. Hatnotes are small, italicized/low contrast, separate from the main article body of text, shifted to the right, and located right under the huge title in bold. All those visual make them hard to spot; the natural starting reading point after scanning the page is the beginning of the article text, as it should be; i.e. hatnotes are made deliberately hard to read, so that they don't distract from the content. Having a DAB is all about the principle of least surprise: if there's a primary topic, the reader should be expecting it (by definition) even if it's not the one they're looking for. Though if the article in the base name is not a primary topic, readers still would have to read the first sentences to notice that they are not at the article they're not looking for, which is worse than noticing they've arrived to a navigation DAB page. Diego (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That returns us to the question of what constitutes a primary topic. Is it the article that 51% of readers are likely to be looking for? 60%? 70%? bd2412 T 14:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Page view stats are only one criteria (and the quality is far from precise enough to make decisions based on small differences). Even if you had a 60/40 split, if other criteria indicated there were no primary topic, then we would need consensus to place one ambiguous topic as primary over another. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Smokey, titles are irrelevant to searches done via search engines. We could move an article to a random string and Google will find it. If you Google for "Samuel Clemens" the first search result is Mark Twain (as it should be). In terms of choosing titles to improve user search experience, the only searches that matter are those done via the WP Find/Go box. While modern browsers display the early search results, this is not always the case, especially if using a mobile device or any browser without java script. That's the user we need to have in mind when we are trying to help get readers to the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. And that has nothing to do with "adjusting titles to optimise search engine success rates". --B2C 23:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"titles are irrelevant to searches done" What? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If you search via a search engine like Google, the search engine will find the article without regard to what its title is. Therefore, it is pointless to consider search engines when deciding titles. Titles are irrelevant to searches done via search engines. In fact, dab pages are largely irrelevant to such searches. For example, if you Google for "Washington", the search results will show all relevant WP articles, and you can click on which you want. You'd never get to the dab page (which explains why dab page view counts are so law, even when they are at a base name).

However, when searching via the WP Find/GO feature, especially without autosearch enabled for some reason, then titles are critical to helping users find the articles they seek. Those are the users we want to help find the articles they seek in the fewest number of clicks. This is absolutely critical to understanding and appreciating how we choose titles, dab pages and redirects on WP. --B2C 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

B2C, I actually agree with you that it is pointless to consider external search engines when deciding titles, as whatever process they use to produce results are essentially a black box and we are not in the search engine optimization business. However, the internal search is good reason why it is a bad practice for an non-primary topic to sit on an undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 01:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, search engine results can be useful for determining relative likelihood of anyone searching for a given topic with a certain term. It's just that a person using a search engine is not the theoretical user whom we consider when deciding how to title, link, dab, etc.

As to whether it's a "bad" practice for a non-primary topic to sit on an undisambiguated title, let's remember that it's common practice for WP articles to be at ambiguous titles. That is, anyone using internal search to find a non-primary topic, and searches with that topic's ambiguous name, is going to end up at the wrong article. So when this happens, we don't consider it "bad". At worst, it's non-optimal for those users, but for everyone involved, it's the most optimal configuration. We consider it better than sending everyone to the dab page at the ambiguous base name, because if we have the primary topic article at the base name, at least most users will get to their article with one click, while others will be two clicks from the dab page, and three clicks from their desired article. We consider that acceptable, not bad. But a TWODAB situation is different, because there the worst case is everyone being two clicks from their desired article (one click to dab page; second click to their article). So it's already better than the acceptable situation for the non-primary topics where an ambiguous title has more than two uses and a primary topic. What we're talking about is whether this already better-than-acceptable situation can be even better. What if we cause everyone to go to one of the two articles? At worst, that's identical to landing on the wrong article when searching for a non-primary topic. In fact, it's better, because the person landing on the wrong article is one click (on a hatnote link) from being at their desired article; no worse than they would be if they landed on a dab page. How is that "bad"? --B2C 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

anyone using internal search to find a non-primary topic, and searches with that topic's ambiguous name, is going to end up at the wrong article. Well, not necessarily. Unless they have the drop-down listing disabled for some reason, they will see a listing of articles with the title. Now if there is an obvious primary topic, most people will realize this and won't expect some other article at the base name. The parenthetical disambiguating terms will help in selecting the desired article. Also if I understand correctly, these articles are displayed in a ranked order by popularity, not by simple alpha sorting. In most cases, this means the disambiguation page appears lower in the listings, even when it is at the base name. Counting clicks, is in my opinion a completely misleading criteria for titling articles in an encyclopedia. I remain convinced that if there is no basis for choosing a primary topic we are doing readers a disservice by pretending that there is one. older ≠ wiser 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We can ignore the user who sees the drop down too, especially in the context of TWODABS. Either way he'll see two choices, at least one of which is or is not clearly the one being sought.

I just don't see how it's any more of a disservice to take someone to an article with a hat note link to their desired article than it is to take them to a dab page with a link to their desired article. Fundamentally, why is the latter preferred at all, much less enough to warrant taking everyone to the dab page? --B2C 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Because by choosing one as the primary topic we are in effect violating neutrality. older ≠ wiser 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well here's a real example stumbled on by chance two days ago:

• Donald Pippin (Broadway director)
• Donald Pippin (opera director)

There's no way one of these can claim to be primary, primary depends on whether you like Broadway or opera, and I thought (and judging by edits so did other editors) that they were the same person. Why shouldn't this, or something like this, be in the guideline to show that we do use twodabs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a perfect example of an ambiguous name that can not have a primary topic, and should be a two-link disambiguation page. bd2412 T 01:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This was a really good example, until an third entry was found. But it could still illustrate why Donald Pippin (director) is not a good disambiguating term. older ≠ wiser 02:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • We should have a category for base pagename disambiguation pages containing only two links, to indicate which pages this structure is appropriately applied. bd2412 T 14:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Aha! John Quested.

John Quested may refer to:

• John Quested (producer), film producer and owner and chairman of Goldcrest Films
• John Quested (aviator) (1893–1948), English World War I flying ace

Both are moderately substantial articles on people of limited notability confined to a single field. There is no likely primary topic between them. bd2412 T 15:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Good coin toss example. So, currently, anyone searching for "John Quested" will not be taken to the article they seek, but instead to the TWODAB dab page, from where they have to select which one they want, and click on it, before they get to the article they seek. If we move either article to John Quested, then at least the users seeking that John Quested will get there immediately, while the others will still be one hatnote link click away from their article. Seems like an improvement, regardless of which one is moved to the base name, over the current situation.

Bkonrad, I don't understand how putting either at the base name is a violation of neutrality, since putting an article at a base name is not a statement conveying relative importance or anything else we need to be neutral about. Besides, we can do the "coin toss" alphabetically (aviator comes before producer), which of course would be totally neutral. --B2C 21:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What if they were changed to "filmmaker" and "pilot"? I actually think that this is an example of TWODABS situation where the base pagename should indeed be the disambiguation page. However, I think that these are relatively rare. bd2412 T 21:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, going alphabetical is just one suggestion. Chronological is another. Anyway, putting aside how we decide which one is at the base name, isn't it better to have one at the base name, rather than none? --B2C 21:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) Tentatively agree with BD2412 and disagree with B2C. Yes, you can claim that putting an article at a base name is not a statement conveying relative importance or anything else we need to be neutral about but that is not how many people see it. I think it is inappropriate to simply pick one as the primary topic with no basis whatsoever. Persons looking for this name with the internal search will see the entries for the disambiguated names listed before the disambiguation page. Most external searches will display a snippet of the article to provide context as to what the article contains. I see no reason not to leave the disambiguation page where it is. It may be that better disambiguating terms could be chosen, but that is a different matter. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We agree some people (not sure about "many") see "putting an article at a base name as a statement conveying relative importance". What I'm not clear about is whether you, Bkonrad, are one of those people. Assuming you're not, you're essentially advocating capitulation to a view based on a misunderstanding. Isn't capitulating to, and choosing titles based on, that misunderstanding perpetuate that misunderstanding? --B2C 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them. older ≠ wiser 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I would also say that if there is even a discernible 55/45 split favoring the importance of one subject over another, that subject should be the primary topic of the title. bd2412 T 23:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Your precision of measurement is only as precise as the markings on your stick. In this case,, we don't have such precision available to us, by any means. I think you can only determine a "primary" topic when one is overwhelmingly more likely to be #1. Eking it out shouldn't count.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is kind of why I way that page hit/counts should be used to show why something should not be the primary topic rather then the other way around. Using raw numbers to show that they are is simply full of problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bkonrad, oh! No wonder you hold the view that you do. Okay, let me ask you this...

Since you think placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them...

• ...do you think we very strongly suggest that Welland, Ontario is more important than Harley, Ontario?
• That Nicholas Campbell (Canadian actor) is more important than Douglas Campbell (actor), also a Canadian?
• That Happy Sad is a more important album by Tim Buckley than is Lorca (album)?
• That Lorca, Murcia is more important than Cieza, Murcia?
• That Limerick is more important than Cork (city)?
• That New Providence High School is more important than Union High School (New Jersey), both in Union County, New Jersey?
• That the rural locality of Tatarstan named Koshlauch is more important than these other Tatarstan rural localities: Alat, Russia, Shali, Republic of Tatarstan, Gruzinsky (settlement), and Murali, Arsky District, Republic of Tatarstan?
• That the Saône-et-Loire commune of Saint-Edmond is more important than the Saône-et-Loire commune of Sainte-Foy, Saône-et-Loire?
• That the youth magazine Putsj is more important than the youth magazine Bravo (magazine)?
• That the Ebro river of Spain is more important than other rivers of Spain that start with E, like Ega (river) and Esla (river)?
• That the Britz locality of Berlin is more important than Spandau (locality) and Mitte (locality)?

Because if you do really think that placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them, these examples are just the tip of the ice berg of countless instances in our titling that, according to your belief, suggest "some relative difference in importance between [two topics]" when, actually, there is none. How shall we address this? --B2C 23:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. You're comparing apples to oranges. If you need the obvious to be stated, then to be precise, I'll amend my comment that placing one article at a name without disambiguation and another with the same base name at a title with a parenthetical term very strongly suggests there is some relative difference in importance between them. older ≠ wiser 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought you might limit your general statement to this special case. But that begs the question: why does this strong suggestion about importance apply only to topics that share the same base name?

I mean, if the lack of parenthetic disambiguation in John Quested would strongly suggest that that John Quested is more important than John Quested (aviator), why doesn't the lack of parenthetic disambigution in Nicholas Campbell strongly suggest that that Canadian actor with surname Campbell is more important than Douglas Campbell (actor)? Why doesn't the lack of parenthetic disambiguation in Britz strongly suggest that that Berlin locality is more important than Spandau (locality)? --B2C 00:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems pretty self-evident, IMO. The lack of parenthetical disambguation Nicholas Campbell has no relevance whatsoever in comparison to a person with a different name, such as Douglas Campbell (actor). That Douglas Campbell (actor) has a parenthetical disambiguation only implies that there is at least one other person with that name of equal or greater relative importance. The same applies for localities and most any other case. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a concrete example. How would you resolve Talk:Jerome Frank (lawyer)‎#Requested move? bd2412 T 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(after ec) That is a pretty good case for consideration. I had been watching the discussion but hadn't !voted yet. From what I've seen so far, the balance is tipped in favor of the lawyer being the primary topic, but it is not a slam-dunk. That is a case where personally I would be fine with the either the lawyer or the disambiguation page being at the base name. While the lawyer is marginally more notable than the psychiatrist, it is not so overwhelming that the lawyer can be presumed to be THE Jerome Frank. Leaving the "(lawyer)" appended to the name would help searchers to distinguish between the two. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I don't understand about your reasoning. The argument - Leaving the "(lawyer)" appended to the name would help searchers to distinguish between the two - (i.e., making the topic more recognizable from the title alone) - applies just the same whether the lawyer is actually the primary topic or not. In fact, it applies, and is relevant, to titles of the vast majority of our articles - articles about topics that are not widely known - whether the titles are ambiguous or not. Why do you feel it's somehow relevant and important in the TWODABS case, but not, apparently, in other cases? --B2C 04:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

When there is an actual primary topic, we can expect that most readers are not unduly surprised to see that particular topic is located at the base name. Same applies in distinguishing between a primary and non-primary topic. Where there are ONLY non-primary topics, the parentheticals help readers to distinguish the topics. older ≠ wiser 11:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

When there is an actual primary topic, we can expect that most readers are not unduly surprised to see that particular topic is located at the base name. That is true in cases where the primary topic is broadly known. But there are countless relatively obscure "primary topics" like Lorca, a Spanish town with fewer than 100,000 people. So people searching for Lorca (album) will not be "unduly surprised" to find the town at Lorca (the album is named after Federico Garcia Lorca, not the town), but they will be "unduly surprised" to find one of the two Jerome Frank's at Jerome Frank? I don't get it. --B2C 23:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There are undoubtedly many such marginal primary topics. Whether they are truly a primary topic or simply an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might need some community discussion to determine. That there may be some inappropriately placed marginal primary topics does not mean we shouldn't care in other marginal cases if a non-primary topic is posing as a primary topic. Lorca is a moderately sized municipality with a long history in a western European country. Hard to say whether readers would be unduly surprised that it is the primary topic rather than the poet. That would be a matter for discussion. How commonly is the poet referred to as simply "Lorca"? How commonly does the municipality turn up in a variety of reliable sources? older ≠ wiser 00:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Bkonrad, that distinction is indeed self-evident to us WP title wonks. But not to anyone else. To others, the distinction is artificial. Either parenthetical dismabiguation diminishes importance, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. --B2C 00:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you're making unreasonable artificial assumptions. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Required link to the other non-primary article in TWODABS

As someone who was around when TWODABS was drafted, I know that the intention to write the guideline was to avoid removing the link to the non-primary article from the primary one. Thus inserting in the text that the DAB page can exist "instead of a link directly to the other article" would reverse the very reason why the guideline exist. The link to the other article should not be removed. Diego (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, the text you're writing would have the effect of allowing the link to the other article to be removed even when there are only two articles. This was not the intention of the guideline. In the case of Sexual harassment, the link to Sexual Harassment (The Office) could be removed precisely because Sexual harassment (disambiguation) is not a TWODAB anymore. The text should be rewritten to clarify that removing the link to the other page can be done only after expanding the DAB. Diego (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who was also around and actively participated in discussions that led to TWODABS, I respectfully disagree with your recollection of the intention. One of the initial impetus for TWODABS arose out of discusion of the santorum rule and Trivial hatnote links where a number of editors wanted to avoid linking directly to what they considered a "trivial" topic in the hatnote of a primary topic and instead link to a disambiguation page. Prior to this, I think the guidance was much clearer that such disambiguation pages could be speedily deleted on sight. The {{Only-two-dabs}} template and a since deleted {{Consider disambiguation}} were intended to allow some flexibility in the delete on sight rule. And current practice shows considerable variation. On the one hand, if there is no link to a twodab disambiguation page from the primary topic hatnote, the disambiguation page is effectively useless and should be speedily deleted (IMO). Yes, the Sexual Harassment disambiguation has since been updated, but it was recently given as an example by another editor, which is why I mentioned it. There are variations in current practice.

• Technology contains links to both Technology (band) and the TWODAB Technology (disambiguation).
• Poet, which is the target of redirect at Poetess, contains a link the American rapper The Poetess as well as to the TWODAB Poetess (disambiguation).
• Aphrodisias contains only a link to Aphrodisias of Cilicia and Aphrodisias (disambiguation) is not linked in the hatnote and is not linked from any other article.
• Celsius, which is target of redirect at Celcius, contains only a link to Celcius (album) and not to Celcius (disambiguation). The disambiguation page is only linked from the album article.
• Retrograde and prograde motion, which is target of redirect at Retrograde motion only contains link to Apparent retrograde motion and not to the Retrograde motion (disambiguation), which is only linked from a redirect at Retrograde motion (astronomy), which is flagged as an incomplete disambiguation.
• Jalt is a redirect to Japan Association for Language Teaching, which doesn't have any hatnote. Jalt (disambiguation) is not linked from any other article.
• Chorwon County, which is target of redirect at Chorwon, only has direct link to Cheorwon County. Chorwon (disambiguation) is not linked from any article.
• Hwadae County, which is target of redirect at Hwadae, does not have any hatnote. Hwadae (disambiguation) is not linked from any article.

Now granted, some of these obviously need to be fixed and are not necessarily illustrations of best practices, but in looking over the archived discussions, it seems pretty clear that a significant number of editors wanted the option to in effect obfuscate what they considered as trivial hatnote links behind a disambiguation page, even if the page contained only two links. I didn't agree with the reasoning, and it was pretty well shouted down at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote/Archive 3#Trivial hatnote links, but the notion appears to have some residual viability such as in discussions about hatnotes for Santorum, or Sexual Harassment, or Johnny Cash -- all of which ultimately resulted in expanding the disambiguation page beyond the TWODAB threshold (although TBH, Santorum (disambiguation) is pretty marginal as Santorum Amendment is really an unambiguous partial title match that is already addressed in the main article. Johnny Cash (disambiguation) is also pretty marginal.

Now, if I'm wrong and there is consensus that a hatnote at the primary topic for a TWODAB does not need to link to the disambiguation page, then I'm confused as to why these TWODABS should not simply be speedily deleted as completely useless.

As a side note, there is at least one pretty remarkable SINGLE TOPIC disambiguation page at Season 4 which has been kept by consensus a couple of times now. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts. First, for pages with a next-most-likely topic, I like the presentation of Apple and Mouse, each of which has a link to the number two topic, and then a link to the disambiguation page. Obviously these don't apply to a TWODABS situation, but they might were a third link is added to the disambig page. Second, Apparent retrograde motion is not ambiguous to Retrograde motion, at least no more than Penrose stairs is to Stairs. Celcius (disambiguation) should be deleted or redirected to Celsius (disambiguation). We have no indication that the redlink is notable. bd2412 T 18:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bkonrad, please read what I'm actually saying because we're not in disagreement, and you're misunderstanding my position. Of course you should always have a direct link to the "trivial" non-primary article when the DAB has only two links. And I'm also one of the guys to defended keeping a link to the DAB instead of deleting it, allowing it to grow instead of just deleting it in place. My reverting of your edit is because I agree with everything you've said in the talk page and the edit summary, but you're actually writing the opposite in policy of what you defend here.

Your sentence "an about hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article)" means that it's OK to have the link to the two-dab page ONLY, and remove the direct link to the other article. If you mean that both the direct link and the link to the DAB need to exist, you should write just that. Instead what you've written allows for all the following, elevating them to common possibilities:

• Technology can use a link to the TWODAB Technology (disambiguation) [only], instead of the link to Technology (band) [which could be removed].
• Poet, can contain a link to the TWODAB Poetess (disambiguation) [only], instead of the link to The Poetess [which could be removed].
• Retrograde and prograde motion could contain a link to Retrograde motion (disambiguation) instead of the current link to Apparent retrograde motion.

See the pattern? This is what you say is allowed; none of those possibilities are current community practices.

(Jalt is a weird case, as the DAB contains only one "ambiguous" article - the other link is to a section; I've added a "redirects here" note, although it could be the rare exception to the "include a direct link" rule).

If you really want to say that the above changes should be commonly allowed, then say so, and present arguments to defend that; but I still think it's a change of the previous policy, and certainly is not what you're defending in the talk page and summary edits (heck, with this edit you say that readers should not be forced to the DAB page to reach the other article, but that's just what the text you included allows). Diego (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This language an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page, in addition to a link directly to the other article. suggests that is is OK if the hatnote does not link to the disambiguation page. It seems completely pointless to me to have a disambiguation page that is not linked from the primary topic. We'd be better off suggesting that these be speedily deleted. While my preference would be to only have a direct link to the alternate topic in the hatnote, if there is a disambiguation page and there is consensus (for whatever reasons), I don't think it is so terrible to have the hatnote link only to the disambiguation page. Of course, if after some time the dab page is still only two dabs, it should IMO be deleted and a direct link to the alternate article placed in the hatnote. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's contextual. In some cases a link to topic #2 + the dab should be in hatnote; in others just the dab suffices - indeed it was the hiding of 'trivial' links that inspired the compromise of two dabs template. If the dab can't be expanded after a certain time, then it can be deleted. We should however always have at least a link to the dab page from the primary topic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is another case: Nagina Masjid (disambiguation). Nagina Masjid only links the disambiguation page in the hatnote, which seems pointless to me. bd2412 T 13:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup; that would be a case where you could just remove the dab page entirely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, examining the history, I saw there was another entry that had been deleted, although there it is mentioned in another article, so TWODABS might not apply in this case either. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)