![]() | While this talk page is still the place to discuss the corresponding user page, the proposal itself has moved on, and should be discussed at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC |
I started something with this edit, so maybe it's not such a silly idea after all!
This and the user page are to develop the idea. It's not really ready for wt:disambiguation, IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 06:16, 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. [1]
Interesting. Andrewa ( talk) 21:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
From wt:Disambiguation:
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]
An excellent question! And Geography and many other articles are similarly affected.
Perhaps we could call the article on the subject The subject of Mathematics. That has an encyclopedic feel to it to me. Interested in other views of course. Andrewa ( talk) 00:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
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? [3]
Very interesting. At the risk of harping on one of my personal failures, NYRM2016 comes to mind again, because in fact Bangkok is already ambiguous, see Bangkok Metropolitan Region. It would seem likely that a Thai who lives in the Metropolitan Region but not the Metropolis would naturally say I live in Bangkok in most contexts worldwide.
So, are we confident that all of those thousands of current incoming links are in fact correct? It seems likely that many of them are not, and currently it's hard to tell, and likely that more incorrect links are being created daily, as was the case with New York. Not likely to be nearly as many certainly. But the current system encourages and hides such incorrect links; The proposal would discourage and identify them. Andrewa ( talk) 16:09, 16 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. [4]
No reply yet from Uanfala and I'm not going to ping them yet (I will in time). But I've had a few hours sleep and then reread the above dialogue and it is most satisfying, in a sad way.
I cannot see how anyone can look at the two examples given and not say what a waste of time. These discussions waste the time of established editors including the small number of tenacious RM regulars who have so offended both Uanfala and I'm sure others who have a similar interpretation of primary topic to theirs. They frustrate newer editors who read the primary topic guidelines and form an opinion which aligns with one camp or the other, and are then dropped in it.
And then the result was just as if primary topic did not exist, as Uanfala so fears. And none of this can possibly be to the readers' benefit.
Am I being unfair?
In the RM which Uanfala proposed and then chose as an example of why Primary Topic should stay, they describe my arguments as a really novel interpretation of the primary topic criteria. [5] Note however that my interpretation did subsequently receive explicit support, and although I didn't at the time raise it at wt:DAB as Uanfala suggested, when they later did they got no joy.
No, it's not novel. But it is controversial. Which is my whole point. It's a bad guideline. Perhaps we can fix it, either as proposed in my less radical proposal or as in an even more modest proposal by Netoholic (whom I'll ping but only when their Wikistress level drops a bit).
Far less trouble in the long run to just abolish it, which remains my preferred option, but in the medium term it's a lot of work. Andrewa ( talk) 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Just in case I'm one of the tenacious RM regulars who apparently pretend that PTOPIC doesn't exist, I must point out that in the NYRM2016 and NYRM2017 discussions I was repeatedly appealing to PTOPIC, as were most if not all of the regulars who more recently opposed the two RMs now given as examples of this supposed behaviour. Andrewa ( talk) 02:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I intend to use wp:P T as a shortcut, as wp:PT to my surprise ( since 2013) leads to a DAB whose top line is picture tutorial.
Interesting... in the project namespace the P T of PT is surely primary topic? More evidence that the concept is ill-defined and iller understood. Andrewa ( talk) 17:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Primary topic rules do not apply to disambiguation. [6]
I don't think there's such thing as primary within a parenthetical disambiguation. That's why the movie everyone knows named Titanic isn't at Titanic (film), even if it would be the obvious primary. [7]
Interesting question. Not sure we're consistent on this, although these two posters (to the same RM) are of the same mind. Andrewa ( talk) 05:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Bad Company#Requested move 7 March 2018 lots of interesting arguments and general consensus finally assessed that the band is P T, or at least that its article shouldn't be moved to disambiguate. Andrewa ( talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Primary redirects are particularly problematic.
This edit raises some of the issues. The fact that there are other titles doesn't in any way weaken the claim of the novel to this title, but this is a very subtle point often not grasped. Andrewa ( talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#The bottom line seems a show-stopper to me.
If that argument is valid, then is there really any doubt that primary topic is a bad idea? Andrewa ( talk) 02:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting RM at Talk:Bernardini (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 March 2018.
As it turns out there is a three-way DAB at Bernardini (disambiguation) one of whose legs is Bernardini (surname) which lists nine names all with articles, making only eleven topics in all to disambiguate.
If we wish to reduce mouse clicks, there's an obvious case for merging the two DABs. And I wonder how many similar cases there are? Andrewa ( talk) 00:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Some very interesting comments have been added to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation while I've been busy with other things (and one since). I'm encouraged that the discussion didn't die in my absence. Andrewa ( talk) 07:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Newest first:
Some really good stuff there. Andrewa ( talk) 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
While idly disambiguating today, I came across two links to pop. This is a very well-known DABfixers problem: the answer is almost always pop music, as it was in those two cases.
I made the mistake of noticing that one of those articles also linked to soul, a clear WP:TOPIC. I gritted my teeth, and got to work. There are now just over 3,000 incoming links to that page, including all the Draft/Portal/User stuff which doesn't really count.
In the middle of that exercise, I made a second mistake. I noticed that a music-related article linked both to soul and to gospel, another clear WP:PTOPIC. I ground my teeth, and got onto the problem once I'd finished with soul. That page now has just over 4,900 incoming links.
I fixed more than 350 bad links to those two WP:PTOPICS; i.e. over 4% were bad. All bar one (which was a piece of puffery) should have linked to soul music or to gospel music. It took me about 6 hours, by which time I was braindead. I got the impression that gospel had a higher proportion of bad links than soul, but cannot be arsed to dig out the figures.
I hope that I got at least 99% of the bad links. Of course, there's nothing to stop other editors posting new bad links tomorrow. Narky Blert ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | While this talk page is still the place to discuss the corresponding user page, the proposal itself has moved on, and should be discussed at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC |
I started something with this edit, so maybe it's not such a silly idea after all!
This and the user page are to develop the idea. It's not really ready for wt:disambiguation, IMO. Andrewa ( talk) 06:16, 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. [1]
Interesting. Andrewa ( talk) 21:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
From wt:Disambiguation:
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]
An excellent question! And Geography and many other articles are similarly affected.
Perhaps we could call the article on the subject The subject of Mathematics. That has an encyclopedic feel to it to me. Interested in other views of course. Andrewa ( talk) 00:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
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? [3]
Very interesting. At the risk of harping on one of my personal failures, NYRM2016 comes to mind again, because in fact Bangkok is already ambiguous, see Bangkok Metropolitan Region. It would seem likely that a Thai who lives in the Metropolitan Region but not the Metropolis would naturally say I live in Bangkok in most contexts worldwide.
So, are we confident that all of those thousands of current incoming links are in fact correct? It seems likely that many of them are not, and currently it's hard to tell, and likely that more incorrect links are being created daily, as was the case with New York. Not likely to be nearly as many certainly. But the current system encourages and hides such incorrect links; The proposal would discourage and identify them. Andrewa ( talk) 16:09, 16 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. [4]
No reply yet from Uanfala and I'm not going to ping them yet (I will in time). But I've had a few hours sleep and then reread the above dialogue and it is most satisfying, in a sad way.
I cannot see how anyone can look at the two examples given and not say what a waste of time. These discussions waste the time of established editors including the small number of tenacious RM regulars who have so offended both Uanfala and I'm sure others who have a similar interpretation of primary topic to theirs. They frustrate newer editors who read the primary topic guidelines and form an opinion which aligns with one camp or the other, and are then dropped in it.
And then the result was just as if primary topic did not exist, as Uanfala so fears. And none of this can possibly be to the readers' benefit.
Am I being unfair?
In the RM which Uanfala proposed and then chose as an example of why Primary Topic should stay, they describe my arguments as a really novel interpretation of the primary topic criteria. [5] Note however that my interpretation did subsequently receive explicit support, and although I didn't at the time raise it at wt:DAB as Uanfala suggested, when they later did they got no joy.
No, it's not novel. But it is controversial. Which is my whole point. It's a bad guideline. Perhaps we can fix it, either as proposed in my less radical proposal or as in an even more modest proposal by Netoholic (whom I'll ping but only when their Wikistress level drops a bit).
Far less trouble in the long run to just abolish it, which remains my preferred option, but in the medium term it's a lot of work. Andrewa ( talk) 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Just in case I'm one of the tenacious RM regulars who apparently pretend that PTOPIC doesn't exist, I must point out that in the NYRM2016 and NYRM2017 discussions I was repeatedly appealing to PTOPIC, as were most if not all of the regulars who more recently opposed the two RMs now given as examples of this supposed behaviour. Andrewa ( talk) 02:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I intend to use wp:P T as a shortcut, as wp:PT to my surprise ( since 2013) leads to a DAB whose top line is picture tutorial.
Interesting... in the project namespace the P T of PT is surely primary topic? More evidence that the concept is ill-defined and iller understood. Andrewa ( talk) 17:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Primary topic rules do not apply to disambiguation. [6]
I don't think there's such thing as primary within a parenthetical disambiguation. That's why the movie everyone knows named Titanic isn't at Titanic (film), even if it would be the obvious primary. [7]
Interesting question. Not sure we're consistent on this, although these two posters (to the same RM) are of the same mind. Andrewa ( talk) 05:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Bad Company#Requested move 7 March 2018 lots of interesting arguments and general consensus finally assessed that the band is P T, or at least that its article shouldn't be moved to disambiguate. Andrewa ( talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Primary redirects are particularly problematic.
This edit raises some of the issues. The fact that there are other titles doesn't in any way weaken the claim of the novel to this title, but this is a very subtle point often not grasped. Andrewa ( talk) 22:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Andrewa/Let us abolish the whole concept of primary topic#The bottom line seems a show-stopper to me.
If that argument is valid, then is there really any doubt that primary topic is a bad idea? Andrewa ( talk) 02:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Interesting RM at Talk:Bernardini (disambiguation)#Requested move 22 March 2018.
As it turns out there is a three-way DAB at Bernardini (disambiguation) one of whose legs is Bernardini (surname) which lists nine names all with articles, making only eleven topics in all to disambiguate.
If we wish to reduce mouse clicks, there's an obvious case for merging the two DABs. And I wonder how many similar cases there are? Andrewa ( talk) 00:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Some very interesting comments have been added to Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation while I've been busy with other things (and one since). I'm encouraged that the discussion didn't die in my absence. Andrewa ( talk) 07:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Newest first:
Some really good stuff there. Andrewa ( talk) 23:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
While idly disambiguating today, I came across two links to pop. This is a very well-known DABfixers problem: the answer is almost always pop music, as it was in those two cases.
I made the mistake of noticing that one of those articles also linked to soul, a clear WP:TOPIC. I gritted my teeth, and got to work. There are now just over 3,000 incoming links to that page, including all the Draft/Portal/User stuff which doesn't really count.
In the middle of that exercise, I made a second mistake. I noticed that a music-related article linked both to soul and to gospel, another clear WP:PTOPIC. I ground my teeth, and got onto the problem once I'd finished with soul. That page now has just over 4,900 incoming links.
I fixed more than 350 bad links to those two WP:PTOPICS; i.e. over 4% were bad. All bar one (which was a piece of puffery) should have linked to soul music or to gospel music. It took me about 6 hours, by which time I was braindead. I got the impression that gospel had a higher proportion of bad links than soul, but cannot be arsed to dig out the figures.
I hope that I got at least 99% of the bad links. Of course, there's nothing to stop other editors posting new bad links tomorrow. Narky Blert ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)