Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

Brains trust needed on this one please

I have posted this in the Australian Wikipedians project as well, but it has occurred to me that perhaps it should perhaps be a DAB, or there should be a separate DAB, and it would be good to have some input from DAB experts. See Talk:Adelaide University. There are lots of incoming links, plus a host of articles on things (mostly clubs) affiliated with the university beginning with "Adelaide University" rather than "University of Adelaide". I'm not sure which is the best way to go here. If the current one is converted into a DAB, it would still mean changing all the incoming links. And in the transition period, there's bound to be a lot of confusion. I don't know when the actual merger and new name will be finalised - I suspect that it will drag on beyond 2026, as it's already taken so long to get to this point. It will be a new entity, and I have no idea whether the clubs, union, etc. will retain their current names. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the primary topic for "Adelaide University" – the existing University of Adelaide, the proposed combined institution, or none of the above? Certes (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to know what it would be in the future, but at the moment I'd say its the University of Adelaide, as it's used interchangeably. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Then at the moment we should probably restore Adelaide University as a primary redirect to its current primary topic University of Adelaide, after moving the new article to Adelaide University (some qualifier goes here). We should then revisit the titles if and when the existing institution ceases to be a primary topic for "Adelaide University". Certes (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the advice. I may not get to it for a couple of days as I'm going away, but I think that this sounds sensible. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I know the links are wrong but it may be wise to wait a day or two in case someone replies with a better idea. Certes (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be away anyway. 😊 Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done anything about this yet, but thinking about creating the new Adelaide University with a date in parentheses for now, and pushing the decision down the line. The thing is, which date? It was officially created in legislation this year, but won't be operational until at least 2026 (see here), and I suspect that there will be delays. I'd better copy this comment there too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You could raise a RM for the new university and see what new names are suggested. It would need to show clearly that the old university is still the primary topic for "Adelaide University" for now and should revert to being a WP:primary redirect, Certes (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Program

Are you still operating the program, new students 2600:1004:B265:3A2:C015:335A:4A53:9CE (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no specific program for disambiguation, but you may be interested in Wikipedia:Education program. Certes (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a surname a primary topic if it has a qualifier?

?I have been creating some name pages carved out of DAB pages on and off for some time, and it suddenly occurred to me that perhaps the name should be a primary topic in this case Lerner - only I have created it with a disambiguator, as it is primarily a surname from which the other topics arise... Which rule applies here Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What matters is whether there is a primary topic for the string "Lerner", i.e. are people using that string primarily looking for any one thing? My first impression is no - googling for "Lerner" -Wikipedia the first three pages of results are about 50/50 people with the surname (Ben Lerner most commonly, but far from exclusively) and other uses. To me this suggests that the disambiguation being primary is best.

There is no general rule though as what the primary topic is can only be determined based at the level of the individual topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, [1] is a technically correct application of WP:NAMELIST, but the problem is that the said guideline isn't necessarily well thought out. Its application happens to force the concept of strict separation of disambiguation and set indices - which we as a community expressed a lot of ambivalence about in a recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment, as navigation outcomes for readers aren't necessarily improved by doing that.

The practical result of these changes is that we might now have ended up promoting a bunch of topics that happen to be called that way but are less well associated with the term by the average reader - compared to the surname.

One way to try to measure these things is to compare clickstreams from before and after the change. I have the following clickstream archives downloaded so here goes:

clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 14
• total: 14 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2022-05.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 14
• total: 14 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:

• total: to 0 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:

• Lerner Al_Lerner link 13
• total: 13 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:

• Lerner Aaron_B._Lerner link 10
• Lerner Abba_P._Lerner link 12
• total: 22 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:

• Lerner Al_Lerner link 10
• Lerner Alan_Jay_Lerner link 10
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 12
• total: 32 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:

• Lerner Michael_Lerner link 11
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 11
• total: 22 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 11
• total: 11 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

• Lerner Theodor_Lerner link 16
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 16
• total: 32 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

• Lerner Abba_P._Lerner link 10
• Lerner Al_Lerner link 10
• total: 20 to 2 identified destinations

Generally, it's hard to tell much because all of these numbers are close to the anonymization threshold (<10 per source-destination pair).

So the Enterprises are a topic of interest from before which now gets more visibility, which could be good. But the other three companies might be getting promoted, while these people are getting demoted, and this could be bad.

At the same time, we clearly see that alphabetical sorting has had an effect on navigation outcomes. It's not at all clear whether that was good or bad.

--Joy (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joy, Here and elsewhere you present copious amounts of data, but to be honest, it is presented in a way that is completely opaque to me as to what it signifies. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bkonrad apologies, I often forget to link the introductory materials and explain well.

The description of this data format would be at meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream. Long story short, the system to analyze the records where the readers visited allows us to see how many visits happened between two pairs of pages; we can use that system to figure out patterns of reader navigation.

The system is organized in monthly batches, so we see the sum of what happened each month. The visualization of the most recent month is at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Lerner but for older months, there's no visualization at this point. So we have to reach for the raw data, by downloading the files and finding what we want inside them. That's what I do - I do a search of the monthly data files that I downloaded for all instances of "Lerner", for example.

About the individual line format - if e.g. we have one that says:

Lerner Theodor_Lerner link 16

that means there were 16 observed cases where a reader was at Lerner, and afterwards they navigated to Theodor Lerner.

We also see the keyword "link", which indicates there was a link being followed - otherwise it could say "other", which would mean the reader e.g. reached for the search box or something.

Now, the significant limitations to these statistics in this case exist because if there had been 9 observed cases where a reader was at Lerner, and afterwards they navigated to e.g. Main Page, this wouldn't show up - to protect reader privacy, all such cases where there were <10 cases the analysis are omitted.

Please let me know if this suffices to explain, or should I clarify further. --Joy (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Model hatnote

A third opinion would be appreciated at Talk:Model#Hatnote. Certes (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A fourth opinion would be useful too! A tenacious editor has a firm opinion on why our normal hatnote practices should not apply to that article. If they're right then I'd appreciate someone explaining the reasons more clearly. Certes (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert Carroll / Bob Carroll

Would it be appropriate to merge the Robert Carroll and Bob Carroll disambiguation pages?

There is at least one entry (Bobby Carroll) perhaps legitimately on both; and a couple others (Robert L. Carroll, Robert Todd Carroll) on both that perhaps should be only on one.

By way of comparison, James Lovell (disambiguation) includes both Jims and Jameses; Michael Collins includes Michaels, Mikes, and Micks. Sticking within the Robert/Bob world, Robert Blake and Robert Green (disambiguation) lump Roberts, Bobs, Robbies and Robs together; but on the other hand, Robert Hill and Bobby Hill are distinct DAB pages. TJRC (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would leave them as they are. Although all the Bobs are named Robert (possibly excepting the actor/singer), it seems more likely they would be sought by readers under Bob and would therefore be easier to find on a dab page devoted to Bobs. Robert L. Carroll and Robert Todd Carroll were both sometimes also known as Bob, so should be on both pages. Bobby Carroll is an unambiguous title with no evidence he was called Bob, so should probably just be a See Also on each page. I don't think there's any strong consensus about one way or the other, though. Station1 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the "sought by readers under Bob" bit, but the merged-from page would be a redirect to the merged-to page, so those doing the seeking would land on the appropriate page in any event. Not arguing for the merge, just giving my line of thinking. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

True, they would land on the appropriate page, but my thinking is that it's slightly easier to peruse the four Bobs in a row on the Bob Carroll page than 11 mixed Bobs, Roberts and Bobby on a merged page. The difference is very minor in cases with a moderate number of names, like this, so I don't think it makes a great deal of difference, but it might in longer lists. Station1 (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it be, then. Thanks for the discussion. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "Blagger" currently redirects to a page with no mention of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blagger&redirect=no seems weird that it doesn't link or disambig to Blagger (video game). Not sure how to mark a page for "Disambig page needed". Oathed (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Blagging" refers to a social engineering technique ([2]), and at the time the redirect was placed, that was reflected in the Social engineering (security) article.

My own view is that Blagger (video game) should be moved to Blagger (there appears to be no other article called "Blagger", so the disambiguation parenthetical is not needed), optionally with a {{about}} hatnote along the lines of {{about||the social engineering technique|Social engineering (security)}} (assuming the "blagging" information is added to that article, which seems appropriate). TJRC (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@TJRC while you were writing that comment, I've nominated the redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 18#Blagger. I agree the video game seems the primary topic.

@Oathed in general if you think a redirect should be replaced by a disambiguation page, you can just overwrite the redirect with the disambiguation page. If you aren't sure or aren't able to do that yourself for some reason then the best thing to do is to nominate the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If no page exists and you don't want to/aren't able to create one yourself you can request a disambig at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)