Open main menu

User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios


Why this pageEdit

This page supports User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC.

Interesting examples may first be posted on this talk page (please do).

The most relevant and helpful examples will in due course appear on the user page itself. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

See also User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases. Andrewa (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Previous attemptsEdit

Possibly others I've forgotten! Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

General issuesEdit

See User talk:Andrewa/P T issues. Andrewa (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Bottas#Requested move 20 July 2018 It's not clear to me what, if any, reader benefit would be served by the move if performed.

The existing setup is ideal, with articles at Emilia Bottas and Valtteri Bottas and a surname set index article at the base name Botta. Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages has some interesting background to treatment of such articles. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Longer and shorter namesEdit

Talk:Swami Vivekananda#Requested move 18 July 2018 raises some interesting issues... cf Churchill, Ghandi, Buddha, Kennedy... Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I've created a relevant essay at wp:trivially more concise. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We generally only prefer the shorter title if the other WP:CRITERIA does not favor the longer title. This is the point of User:Born2cycle/Concision razor. --В²C 22:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
If the shorter title is ambiguous, of course it's not preferred. But if it's unambiguous...? Surely... Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Some people obsess about the simplest thinnest criteria of concision, and without really understanding what concision means. It does not mean brevity.
Overweighting concision almost always is at the expense of Recognizability. People arguing concision also usually ignore the problem of misrecognition, where an overly brief title is ambiguous with a completely different topic.
People who are Concise often turn to PRIMARYTOPIC arguments, and fail to note that PRIMARYTOPIC implies a failure of Precise.
Arguing Concise on a case-by case basis usually is detrimental to Consistency.
"trivially" in "trivially more concise" implies that the change fails WP:TITLECHANGES. It is needless fiddling, little benefit, and breaks or hurts things like bookmarks, human memory of the title, page logs matching the current title, focus on actual content work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Huh? If one title meets RECOGNIZABLE better than the other, then CONCISION is usually irrelevant. Only if RECOGNIZABLE and the other criteria are a draw do we normally look at concision. It’s the exact opposite of overweighting concision. Primary Topic is explicitly noted at PRECISION as an acceptable exception to choosing unambiguous titles, so it’s not a failure of PRECISION. —В²C 07:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Which is part of the reason that Primary Topic seemed a good idea, but in practice is a dud. Andrewa (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Paris at Paris is a dud??? --В²C 21:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Paris fails PRECISE. There is ambiguity between the unrelated topics of Paris (mythology) and Paris, France
It has been argued that Paris, France is the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Paris". But Paris, France is also the PRIMARYTOPIC for "Paris, France". "Paris, France" is a better title over "Paris" on the criteria, in order, PRECISE, RECOGNIZABILITY. Arguably CONSISTENCY if the argument is for all cities to be at City, region, where for France region = country name. It doesn't fail CONCISE because "Paris, France" --> "Paris" is a large reduction of information, it is shorter by throwing away information, not wordiness or redundancy.
A better product for the readers would have:
* Paris, France, at Paris, France (best title)
* Paris redirects to Paris, France (PRIMARYREDIRECT)
* The DAB page titled Paris (disambiguation). DAB pages should be PRECISEly titled too, readers not wanting DAB pages should not be dumped at them unwarned by the url and hovertext.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if it was intentional, but you completely ignored my point, as if it wasn't made at all. You didn't refute it, you didn't rebut it, you just ignored it. What kind of dialog is that? Anyway, to reiterate with this example in particular (here comes a rebuttal of what you said), Paris does NOT fail WP:PRECISE (that was just an assertion, of course, here comes the refutation reasoning), because PRECISE specifically says Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. Therefore Paris complies with PRECISE quite precisely. You are way way way out of line with the community on this point. Don't believe me? Go ahead and propose a move of Paris to Paris, France, and see how long it lasts. --В²C 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I ignored it because it is stupid. A stupid clause added 2012 after a mess of discussions that serves to nullify the dictionary meaning of "precise". Paris is not a "precise" title. Making change to longstanding mob stupidity is always a difficult thing. In this case, the mob are obsesses with flawed rules because the rules are old, not because the rule make sense. What reader anywhere is benefited by the French capital being titled "Paris" instead of "Paris, France", assuming that Paris will be a PRIMARYREDIRECT to Paris, France. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
So when you disagree with community consensus it becomes "the mob"? Okay. Precision per se, as defined in the dictionary, was never a criteria for titles. For a long time it said, "as precisely as is necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope; avoid over-precision", like it did, for example, in 2009[1]. Note the section heading there: Be precise when necessary, especially the "when necessary" part. It's not necessary for the article about the city in France to have a title more precise than Paris; everyone knows/recognizes the topic from that title. The current wording retains that general gist: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Paris meets that, clearly. --В²C 01:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No, mob mentality is not defined by when I have an idea that others disagree with. The characteristics of a mob mentality is a position founded on a rhetoric, a lack of well-defined principle, and the fact that individuals flee or withdraw when challenged intellectually on a tenet. Consider these questions to you: What is the advantage to a reader of title minimalism? What reader is disadvantaged by that city article being titled "Paris, France"? What principle drives you to support "Paris" as the best title? Why should "unnecessary disambiguation" or "mandatory disambiguation" be considered anything better than rhetoric? "necessary to indicate accurately its topical scope" is the definition of precision. The PRIMARYTOPIC carve-out nullifying the definition of "precise" is stupid. Many good things are unnecessary. Why do you feel "necessary" is a necessary word to use to explain this stuff? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of these qs were addressed and answered years ago on my user page and FAQ linked there. —В²C 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
No. All rambling. Mostly convoluted, and lots of circular reasoning. Your answer is to flee, run away, deny that you need to answer the question. You've done this to this question before on other pages. It's your FAQ, you should be able to link to the relevant line. Other titling minimalists similarly flee, not just you. Why is "Paris" a better title than "Paris, France"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, more definitively, with some characteristic repetitiveness on my part (sorry), I just added:
  • User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Minimalist_titles is just a ramble, no logical structure.
    COMMONNAME support for “Paris” is a valid argument, it calls for looking at quality sources. Do quality sources *introduce* the city, to a wide audience, using “Paris” much more than “Paris, France”? It may be worth looking for that data. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Some very good points here. Probably more relevant to Wikipedia talk:Trivially more concise and User talk:Andrewa/Incoming links. Andrewa (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary and responseEdit

I am really delighted that two of our most productive lateral thinkers are involved above.

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Four casesEdit

I started to consider four possible cases of a potential name for a Wikipedia article (you can think of it as an ordered pair of (topic, name), and please don't ask whether or not such a pair is a number):

  • The name is unambiguous and no suitable shorter name exists for the topic (so I guess we just use it).
  • The name is unambiguous but an unambiguous shorter name exists (so I guess we use the shorter name).
  • The name is ambiguous so we disambiguate it (either by using a longer name from sources or by making one up).
  • The name is ambiguous but we use it anyway (primary topic, presumably).

And I started looking at examples, but I didn't get far. For an unambiguous name with no shorter unambiguous version I tried shoe, Spain, Wikipedia, Madrid, Alaska, United States of America and some others.

So question 1... can anyone think of a article name common in sources that is unambiguous and likely to remain so? Any topic notable enough for a Wikipedia article is a candidate to have a band (or album or tour or lead singer etc), asteroid, or somesuch named after them.

And (shudder) what if someone makes a notable album and calls it Paris, Texas? Oops, been done. And it's not on the Internet that I can see but I think I remember an early Johnny Winter vinyl album with the title Austin, Texas on its front cover (he has long blond hair and plays a Gibson Explorer. Hey, maybe that's an unambiguous article title!)

Curiouser and curiouser... Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I might develop this on its own page at User:Andrewa/Precision and ambiguity. Andrewa (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There is at least a fifth case... that the name is both ambiguous (and so is insufficiently precise) and fails to cover the whole topic (and so is excessively precise)! I have re-analysed this a bit differently and perhaps more helpfully at User talk:Andrewa/Precision and ambiguity#Four cases. Andrewa (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I Could Be the One (Avicii and Nicky Romero song)Edit

Talk:I Could Be the One (Avicii and Nicky Romero song)#Requested move 24 July 2018 seeks to move the DAB from the base name.

This move may be justified under current guidelines. Nor is there any great short term problem. Some readers who want a different song and do not know the name of the artist may suffer one extra mouse click. However it will benefit nobody.

Long term, if the article is ever moved from the base name, incoming links will be broken. Andrewa (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Digitalism (band)#Requested move 28 July 2018

The DAB at Digitalism contains:

and probably the band is P T. But the move is not in any reader's interest. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

See this discussion. Good points made. Watch this space! Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. That's good and bad. No consensus is never a good outcome. But the move was not a good idea. It's just a pity there was no consensus on that! Andrewa (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Kure, Hiroshima#Requested move 28 July 2018 proposes to move Kure, Hiroshima to he base name, over the nine year old redirect 04:28, 30 March 2009‎ B Fizz (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (35 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (moved Kure to Kure (disambiguation) over redirect: Kure will be changed to redirect to Kure, Hirishima, the natural main article.) Why the delay in the move, and what it will achieve (apart from complying with the P T convention of course) are not stated. Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Nagano, Nagano#Requested move 29 July 2018. Certes (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

New YorkEdit

It's just a question of which consideration we judge more important. Does extra work for editors, and/or readers sometimes (how often?) clicking on an incorrect wikilink, outweigh the inconvenience to several hundred readers per day? Opinions differ. diff

It would be very interesting to know exactly which scenarios give this inconvenience (and also which the extra work but that's probably obvious). Pinging Station1 to invite discussion here. Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The city article gets roughly 3 times the views of the state article. So the way I figure it, it's neutral for about 75% of those extra hits (~865) because they can get to the city in one click, same as before when New York was about the state. The other 25% (~275) are worse off because they get to a dab page instead of directly to the state article. The only ones who benefit are the small number looking for something other than the city or state, because they save one click. Of course, the flip side is that if we make New York City the primary topic, ~865 people/day would benefit, neutral for ~275 and worse for a handful. diff

Note that this is the older post. One problem is, it leaves out those who don't go to the DAB... those who, for example, want New York city and see New York City at the top of a Google hit list and go straight there. There are quite a few scenarios to consider. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think New York (disambiguation page) should be moved to New York (disambiguation), leaving New York a redirect.  Then, when editors make links to New York, they'll be bot-fixed as double redirects to link directly to New York (disambiguation), shortly after.  The local article-interested editors will then fix it, and I believe the redirect maker even gets a bot notification on their talk page.  Editors will learn.  Even editors at Albany. diff

As another editor pointed out, this would violate WP:MALPLACED. But how would it work practically? Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A feature of the RM was that there were assertions that both the city and the state were PT; which is evidence against either being so. Narky Blert (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Agree. But not very good evidence according to the Primary Topic policy and guideline as they now stand. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the only real issue here is the destination of New York. A redirect to the DAB has exactly the same effect as having the DAB at that name, so far as finding the afected articles is concerned.

And for the purposes of this RfC, it's not really necessary to show that New York City is the Primary Topic of New York. If it might be but we're not sure, that means it might under the current the Primary Topic policy and guideline validly be at the base name. And if this is a bad thing, then the policy and guideline should be updated to prevent it happening. That point might be worth expanding elsewhere. It is a bit subtle but valid and I think important. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Billy AdamsEdit

Talk:Billy Adams#Requested move 5 August 2018... There are 54 entries at the William Adams disambiguation page which also includes such forms as Will Adams, Bill Adams, Billy Adams and Willie Adams. Such a large number of entries places a greater burden of international renown if one or two of those entries is elevated, without a discussion, to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The two nominated entries do not appear to support that burden, nor are they the dab page's sole "Billy" and "Willie", thus indicating that Billy Adams and Willie Adams should redirect to William Adams. No participation yet. Simpler if there were no P T criteria, perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian WatkinsEdit

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 5 August 2018 Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) → Ian Watkins (singer) – move semi-protected article per Manual of Style

Serious BLP issues. There are two notable singers by this name, one jailed for the attempted rape of a minor and ten other similar convictions, the other taking legal action after they received a public apology in court from E! Entertainment Television for their having used his photo to illustrate a story about the Lostprophets singer and his image appeared next to stories about the other Watkins' crimes through searches on Google News and he receives hat mail as a result. [2] Very nasty! Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Dana MeadowsEdit

Talk:Dana Meadows#Requested move 7 August 2018 Should that ever have had a P T? Two geographic locations and the lead author of Limits to Growth.

Regardless, may be a classic example of ambiguous P T. Those with an interest in the Club of Rome etc. would most likely assume it's the person, and page view stats bear this out. But we seem to have consensus that the geographical locations need to be considered too. Andrewa (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Dana Meadows (California)#Requested move 7 August 2018. Result was to create a DAB at the base name Dana Meadows. Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

With Dana Meadows the page view counts heavily favor the person over the places but how often is she searched as "Dana Meadows" rather than "Donella Meadows". I think that's the main issue there. [3]

Agree, Born2cycle; How should we try to measure that? (Her article is at Donella Meadows but the lead reads Donella H. "Dana" Meadows.) Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Littlethorpe, Leicestershire#Requested move 24 July 2018


The hatnote This article is about the village in Leicestershire. For the village in North Yorkshire, see Littlethorpe, North Yorkshire. For Little Thorpe, see Little Thorpe is particularly unhelpful... where is Little Thorpe? Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert GreenEdit

Talk:Robert Green#Requested move 7 August 2018 As both Robert and Green are quite common names, surely we are making a problem by picking a P T for either Rob Green or Robert Green? Fourteen different people are listed at Robert Green (disambiguation). Andrewa (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Popsicle (brand)#Requested move 10 August 2018 Is the brand or the genericised term the P T? Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Finger of GodEdit

Talk:Finger of God (biblical phrase)#Requested move 10 August 2018 - more complicated than it first seems:

21:09, 2 May 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+61)‎ . . N Finger of God (Christianity) ‎ (Fayenatic london moved page Finger of God (Christianity) to Finger of God (Biblical phrase): this is also in Judaism)
14:29, 23 February 2015‎ Cosby Cosplay (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (58 bytes) (+58)‎ . . (Cosby Cosplay moved page Finger of God (Commandments) to Finger of God (Christianity))

More to follow. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hit and runEdit

Talk:Hit and run#Requested move moved Hit and run (vehicular) to the base name, and the DAB to the disambiguated name.

One oppose only, pointing out that there are 30 other meanings. But some (perhaps all) of the support !votes are discardable for various reasons, eg I don't think any of the other uses of "hit and run" are used anywhere as commonly in reliable sources as is this one which completely ignores the requirement that it be more common than the others taken together.

The DAB makes interesting reading... twelve songs two of them charting at 12 and 16, two novels, six albums all with articles, seven films, a video game, a military tactic, two rock tours. In all we have 26 articles with the title of hit and run, 25 of these with disambiguated titles of course. The other four topics do not have their own articles but link to, for example, a notable artist who has released a non-notable song called hit and run, or something similar... An article to which hit and run would redirect were it not for the other meanings. In Australia the P T would probably be Hit and Run (Jo Jo Zep & The Falcons song) which still gets occasional airplay and has been on playlists ever since its release in 1979. Andrewa (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


At Talk:Fan (machine)#Requested move 3 August 2018 it's proposed to move Fan (machine) → Mechanical fan.

Two of the opposes say the current name shows up in the Wikipedia search box when someone types in "Fan", and makes clear that this isn't a person who likes something [4] and as Rob says, it helps in the search box. [5]

I've asked for clarification there. Andrewa (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Natural disambiguationEdit

I didn't think this could get any bigger but it just did.

As Robkelk rightly points out at Talk:Fan (machine)#Requested move 3 August 2018 which proposes Fan (machine) → Mechanical fan, Casual readers are going to search for "Fan", so this page won't appear in the drop-down list if that isn't the first word of the page name. [6].

This is dynamite. Note that the nomination and the two support !votes made so far all depend on our long-standing policy preferring natural disambiguation. This may blow that policy right out of the water (at the risk of stretching the dynamite metaphor past its SWL). At the very least, it exposes a limitation to it which should be incorporated and/or clarified in the policy.

And it's also relevant to the issue of P T of course. The example RM is directly relevant, and the principle of preferring natural disambiguation may turn out to also rest on false and long-held assumptions about what's best for readers. Andrewa (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Still digesting the comment of Robkelk (Casual readers...) cited above. Worth also considering that of Amakuru It doesn't help readers because "mechanical fan" is not the name of this object, and they are less likely to pick it out of a list of pages, on Google or elsewhere, as a result of that. In short, the WP:RECOGNIZE criterion for choosing article titles. diff Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

European Communities Act 1972Edit

Probably an ideal setup, from the readers' point of view... a 2-way DAB at the base name and two disambiguated articles.

Talk:European Communities Act 1972 (UK)#Requested move 16 August 2018 seeks to change that by making the UK act the P T. I'm almost tempted to hope it succeeds! It would make such a good example of an RM that made all readers worse off. Andrewa (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Andrew YangEdit

Talk:Andrew Yang#Requested move 19 August 2018

Andrew Yang → Andrew Yang (Taiwanese politician) – There is no primary topic; the American entrepreneur/politician leads dramatically in page views but much of that is recentism. [7]

Support but the entrepreneur is the overwhelming WP:primary topic and will continue to be so for the forseeable future. [8]

This RM would be good. But if the weakly foreshadowed move of the entrepreneur to the base name then occurs, that will break incoming external links badly. Andrewa (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Carlisle, CumbriaEdit

and we shall see. Andrewa (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  • That's interesting because it was mentioned here the page was moved to PT in February 2004 and was moved in June 2009 because of the surrounding district that actually holds city status, which was not appropriate as a concept can have multiple pages. The move was quickly challenged and had not been discussed on its talk page, just at here. Unlike Plymouth, Durham and Worcester, apart from a comment here the status for Carlisle has never been questioned. Consider also that Perth and even Cleveland and Boston have been disputed. I doubt this will be controversial in the future unless something changes considerably. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Bathwater#Requested move 22 August 2018 Surely a DAB at the base name would be best? Not even suggested as yet. There are at least three topics that could be linked:

and some support for each of these as P T, either in the RM or previously, note

04:16, 12 October 2015‎ Jenks24 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (43 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (Jenks24 moved page Bathwater (song) to Bathwater: Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial

for example. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Andante (disambiguation)#Requested move 25 August 2018 There's a clear primary topic, but – paradoxically for some – it's better not to keep Andante as a redirect to the article where this topic is treated. Andrewa (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

14:45, 10 September 2018 No such user (talk | contribs | block) moved page Talk:Andante (disambiguation) to Talk:Andante without leaving a redirect (Per the RM at Talk:Andante) 

Lots of problems with this one! Close might even be a supervote. Two very articulate and to-the point oppose !votes against five (six with nom) in support, but no mention of suppressing the redirect, which broke incoming external links and appears to be a round-robin problem

14:45, 10 September 2018‎ No such user (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (58 bytes) 0‎ . . (No such user moved page Draft:Move/Andante (disambiguation) to Andante (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect: Round-robin history swap step 3 using pageswap).

There are also four incoming wikilinks, two to archives and one to this page.

Talk:Tempo ‎ (links | edit)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts/Archive 3 ‎ (links | edit)
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts/Archive 6 ‎ (links | edit)
User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios ‎ (links | edit) 

There seems no good reason to break them. Andrewa (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) .


See Talk:Ford (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 August 2018 and snapshots of some page histories here. Many fascinating comments and several past moves. Andrewa (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

And the long edit history of the redirect Ford. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, Crouch, Swale. Thanks for your interest. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
RM closed as not moved with no comment as to whether this was by consensus [9] so the snapshots were unnecessary, but I'll leave them there for now... they're more easily searchable than the special pages on which they're based. Andrewa (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Windows is currently a primary redirect to Microsoft Windows with a hatnote to window and Windows (disambiguation). There's also a hatnote at window pointing to Window (computing), Window (disambiguation) and Windows (disambiguation).

The page history at Windows is volatile but recently stable. Discussion at Talk:Windows and Talk:Windows/Archive 1 reflects this.

My current proposal would grandfather that redirect, to preserve links. However, it would have been even better to have always had its destination as a DAB. That's not now possible of course. Andrewa (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

FrestonEdit,_Suffolk&oldid=858294513 Requested move 13 August 2018 closed as no consensus, an identical RM in 2010 closed as no move per discussion which may mean by consensus, hard to call.

Some interesting arguments, including an appeal to a previous RM on Ford.

The DAB was created in 2007 and has always been at the base name, while the redirect from Freston (disambiguation) was created by RussBot in 2010. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Nosedive (disambiguation)#Requested move 14 August 2018 Long and involved discussion, with appeals to WP:ASTONISH and pageviews, the lot. Fascinating stuff. Andrewa (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Meon, Hampshire#Requested move 17 August 2018 not moved. There is a consensus that River Meon remains the primary topic for Meon. So a primary redirect remains, rather than moving the DAB to the base name. Talk:Evenlode#Requested move 21 July 2018 was cited as a precedent; There the parish was moved to the base name. Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Moreton HallEdit

See Talk:Moreton Hall, Warwickshire. No P T, so the DAB was moved to the base name. Andrewa (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Robert MercerEdit

Robert Mercer is currently a DAB, proposed to move to make way for a primary topic.

And there's a case for it, perhaps not the strongest one, and no participation to date. It will be interesting to see what happens. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Closed as move, but more interesting the comment we help our readers by bypassing the dab to take them directly to the primary topic... is that true? Under what circumstances?

More likely they will get there via the resulting redirect from the unambiguous name, which does no damage but is no advantage either. The move does make it a little easier to wikilink to the article. But it also makes it much easier for those who want the other Robert Mercer to link to the wrong article. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Wehrmacht is not strictly unambiguous as there is an article on Wehrmacht (band).

But the Nazi armed forces are a clear P T. This is very much what P T tries to achieve... there's no need to disambiguate Wehrmacht when referring to the Nazi armed forces. Can we relax the proposal even further? Or do we even need to? Wehrmacht is already covered by the grandfather clause. Andrewa (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

John TavaresEdit

A two-way DAB between two related athletes in different sports.

The nephew is P T and likely to stay that way, ice hockey having a greater following than Lacrosse. But are there any scenarios in which the move is to the readers' benefit? Not that I can see.

History of the base name (possibly soon to be overwritten)

22:00, 12 September 2018‎ RMCD bot (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (446 bytes) (+155)‎ . . (Notifying of move discussion on Talk:John Tavares (ice hockey)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo)
15:46, 6 July 2018‎ 2600:1003:b85d:7e35:18bc:be76:8a1:bac0 (talk | block)‎ . . (291 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
20:24, 1 July 2018‎ (talk | block)‎ . . (270 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo)
05:27, 5 January 2018‎ Galo de Barcelos (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (269 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (undo | thank)
00:48, 6 May 2014‎ ZappaOMati (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (249 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Tweak) (undo | thank)
15:59, 25 February 2014‎ Rockypedia (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (250 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo | thank)
18:40, 15 February 2014‎ Tassedethe (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (249 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (edit per WP:MOSDAB, 1 blue link per line) (undo | thank)
20:14, 14 January 2014‎ Gloss (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (257 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (+link) (undo | thank)
20:13, 14 January 2014‎ (talk | block)‎ . . (253 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (undo)
08:23, 20 December 2013‎ Schetm (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (249 bytes) (+210)‎ . . (Undid revision 585952976 by Gloss (talk)Redirecting to the hockey player asserts that he is more important than the lacrosse player) (undo | thank)
20:00, 13 December 2013‎ Gloss (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (39 bytes) (-210)‎ . . (redirecting this to JT (ice hockey) - with only two pages on here, a disabig page isn't needed. there is a note at the top of both pages stating where the other's page is.) (undo | thank)
00:47, 20 March 2013‎ Addbot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (249 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Bot: Migrating 1 interwiki links, now provided by Wikidata on d:q634071) (undo)
21:10, 25 August 2012‎ Tassedethe (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (295 bytes) (+24)‎ . . (undo | thank)
18:23, 11 December 2011‎ Schetm (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (271 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (undo | thank)
22:43, 15 July 2009‎ DinoZon (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (238 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved John Tavares (disambiguation) to John Tavares over redirect) (undo | thank)
22:42, 15 July 2009‎ DinoZon (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (238 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved John Tavares to John Tavares (disambiguation)) (undo | thank)
17:03, 13 July 2009‎ RedBot (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (238 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (robot Adding: hu:John Tavares (egyértelműsítő lap)) (undo | thank)
10:09, 27 June 2009‎ Boleyn2 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (192 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (1 blue link per line on dabs, per MOS:D; please help at WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair) (undo | thank)
05:24, 27 June 2009‎ PassionoftheDamon (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (196 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (undo | thank)
22:02, 10 March 2009‎ RandySavageFTW (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (182 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (undo | thank)
20:15, 16 February 2009‎ Whpq (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (181 bytes) (-13)‎ . . (remove excess commentary) (undo | thank)
21:03, 3 February 2009‎ Tassedethe (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (194 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (edit style, see WP:MOSDAB, 1 blue link per line) (undo | thank)
20:49, 3 February 2009‎ PAVA11 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (205 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (ce) (undo | thank)
20:48, 3 February 2009‎ PAVA11 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (212 bytes) (+110)‎ . . (elaborate) (undo | thank)
20:30, 3 February 2009‎ Flibirigit (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (102 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (typo) (undo | thank)
20:30, 3 February 2009‎ Flibirigit (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (101 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (format) (undo | thank)
20:29, 3 February 2009‎ Flibirigit (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (87 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (hndis) (undo | thank)
20:27, 3 February 2009‎ Flibirigit (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (39 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (moved John Tavares to John Tavares (ice hockey) over redirect: This person is no more notable than his uncle, who is a professional.)

So some controversy in the past. Andrewa (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hyde ParkEdit

Talk:Hyde Park, London#Requested move 22 September 2018... it will be interesting to see how this one goes. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

And as Narky Blert has pointed out, there's also Talk:Hyde Park, London#Requested move 21 September 2015 Hyde Park, London → Hyde Park and Hyde Park → Hyde Park (disambiguation) identical to the one ten years later, and Talk:Hyde Park, London#Requested move which is messy but much the same, and both closed as no consensus. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Colin FergusonEdit

Talk:Colin Ferguson (actor)#Requested move 20 September 2018 Colin Ferguson (actor) → Colin Ferguson

It would be interesting to analyse the effect on readers. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Closed as consensus to move and delete two-way DAB. A victory for P T, unfortunately! Andrewa (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Jethro TullEdit

Raised here (thank you).

Jethro Tull is currently a two-way DAB, probably a good solution. The band continues to have a high profile, and the agriculturalist was one of the key players in the Second Agricultural Revolution.

There have been two rejected RMs.

Some interesting arguments both ways at both RMs. Also interesting that two different users proposed two different P Ts, and that consensus rejected both. Andrewa (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


This had been a longstanding redirect (since this 2012 diff, I think) to vinyl group until Talk:Vinyl#Requested move 19 June 2017. The move, undoubtedly correct, broke over 2,000 links. I helped fix some of them. My estimate: 10% intended for vinyl group (I did mainly those; being a chemist, they jumped out of the list at me), 40% for phonograph record, 40% for vinyl composition tile/polyvinyl chloride#Applications, 10% miscellaneous. Narky Blert (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Nosedive#Requested move 14 August 2018 – a hotly-contested RM, which IMO ended in the correct result. Narky Blert (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Go All the WayEdit

Talk:Go All the Way (song)#Requested move 30 September 2018. One editor asserts that 76% of page views meets the "much more likely" test. Not in my book it doesn't. 3:1 is "more likely" not "much more likely". Narky Blert (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Third VoiceEdit

Talk:Third Voice#Requested move 18 September 2018 still open after almost a month, multiple relistings. Essentially a proposal to proactively rename an article from an ambiguous name despite there being as yet no other Wikipedia articles by that name.

The interesting thing is, this wasn't rejected immediately.

I have bought into the discussion but refrained from !voting. Some confusion over the roles of hatnotes and redirects! Andrewa (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Jordan DaviesEdit

Jordan Davies (TV personality)#Requested move 27 September 2018 Jordan Davies (TV personality) → Jordan Davies and Jordan Davies → Jordan Davies (disambiguation).

Four lines in the DAB currently including this one but two are redlinks and the fourth is listed as contestant on [[The Voice UK (series 2)|The Voice UK]] (incidentally violating DAB format guidelines too).

Claims that at least one of the others meets notability (we'd hope it's both, if they're redlinked from the DAB) and should and will have an article were dismissed under wp:ball. This kinda misses the point, and isn't what that policy is about at all. If and when he's moved back and replaced by another of this (not uncommon) name, incoming external links will be broken. The risk of this greatly outweighs any possible advantage of the move. Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

You Know I KnowEdit

Talk:You Know I Know#Requested move 5 October 2018 You Know I Know → You Know I Know (band) and You Know I Know (album) → You Know I Know with rationale The album already has more notability.

One contributor noted The album article was created 2 days ago for an upcoming album.

If it went ahead, this would be a classic case of breaking incoming external links. The band has been playing by that name since 2013. Their article was created (apparently at You Know I Know (Band)) in March 2013, and was moved 08:24, 20 May 2013‎ Steam5 (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (1,388 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Steam5 moved page You Know I Know (Band) to You Know I Know (band)) and then 13:26, 14 September 2014‎ Gorobay (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (1,443 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Gorobay moved page You Know I Know (band) to You Know I Know: unnecessary disambiguation). So their article has been where it is since 2014.

Before this they opened for The Who in 2006, and played during the closing ceremony at the 2010 Winter Olympics. They released an EP in 2009 containing a song You Know I Know, but it is not clear whether this is the same song as the title track on the unreleased album by an otherwise unrelated performer. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Jigarthanda#Requested move 5 October 2018 Jigarthanda → Jigarthanda (2014 film) and Jigarthanda (disambiguation) → Jigarthanda seems agreed no P T, little damage but better to have done it earlier. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

St EdmundsburyEdit

Talk:St Edmundsbury#Requested move 28 September 2018 St Edmundsbury → Borough of St Edmundsbury and St Edmundsbury (disambiguation) → Bury St Edmunds (disambiguation)

Rationale Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME the district is usually called "St Edmundsbury District"[1] or "Borough of St Edmundsbury" in a generic context even though "St Edmundsbury" is the preferred label by the OS, presumably when its clear from the context that you're referring to the district. The district is named after the town and was originally at St Edmundsbury (borough) (when that was the NC) with St Edmundsbury redirecting to the town. St Edmundsbury Cathedral is named a such and thus "St Edmundsbury" would anyway widely be understood to mean the town. St Edmundsbury then should be redirected back to the town similar to how Stratford-on-Avon redirects to Stratford-upon-Avon just as Tunbridge Wells redirects to Royal Tunbridge Wells. The district will be abolished in April so its unlikely it will get many searches or links anyway. As we are using the town as the base term then the DAB should be renamed to reflect that. Some good points there, certainly.

But of more interest, there's perhaps confusion by the one (to date) supporter of what constitutes P T: abolishment of the district taking away the borough's role as primary topic. We can see what they mean, but it's not that simple. Andrewa (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


I have raised Wave as an example at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#What is the purpose of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?, a very interesting section started by another contributor, see this permalink and watch that space. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitol LimitedEdit

Talk:Capitol Limited (Amtrak train)#Requested move 8 October 2018 Capitol Limited (Amtrak train) → Capitol Limited over the two-way DAB.

But see this saved Google search... can we improve on that? Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Now raised at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#A current case in point. Andrewa (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And now compare this saved Google search (yes, it's the same link as above) to this one. But note also that another user commented I just searched Google and got both articles, as the third and fourth items. My understanding is article titles have little to no effect on Google results. [10] (my emphasis)

This needs a more general discussion IMO. Andrewa (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

How relevant is GoogleEdit

It's been questioned here what use can be made of Google. Previously in that string another editor claimed that our choice of article titles has little to no effect on Google searches, and this seems to be a more widely held belief.

My belief is that it does affect Google results, sometimes in important ways, and I think the evidence already proves this (rather modest I think) claim. But agree caution is necessary. Andrewa (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What evidence proves that our choice of titles affects Google results?
Here is evidence that it doesn't. We put the fruit at the Apple basename even though the most commonly sought topic by people searching with "Apple" is the company. How do we know? Google. If you search Google with "apple", restricting results to the English WP, you get Apple Inc. first, proving Google doesn't care what the title is. We could move Apple Inc. to Some random name and within hours if not minutes or even seconds Google will have Some random name at the top of the "apple" search results. Other evidence is that for terms where the dab page is at the base name, Google tends to show the actual articles instead. For example: search for Mercury on Google and you'll see the articles for the planet and element returned before the dab page. Google doesn't care how we title our articles; it will find them and prioritize them based on user preferences without regard to our titles. --В²C 16:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Infromation engineeringEdit

Talk:Information engineering (field)#Requested move 11 October 2018 I have opposed on the grounds that it's a classic TWODABS situation. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving the article to the base name benefits almost everyone doing a WP search with "Information engineering" because they're looking for that article (assuming very few are looking for any other article when they search with "Information engineering"). If we leave the dab page at Information engineering then we're forcing them to peruse the dab page and then click on the article they're seeking. It helps them if we take them directly to the article they seek in the first place rather than first taking them to an annoying dab page stop. --В²C 15:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
A few assumptions here obviously. The most interesting is that DAB pages are annoying. I find them interesting and informative. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Levi#Requested move 11 October 2018

Levi → Levi (son of Jacob)
Levi (disambiguation) → Levi
Levi Strauss & Co. has 4x the page views of this page, and both Levite and Tribe of Levi are similar. This person is not the primary topic; disambiguation is chosen to be similar to pages like Reuben (son of Jacob).

(I'm trying a new format to make the multi-move etc clearer)

RM seems unlikely to succeed, no support so far, the son of Jacob seems to be regarded as P T. (And as a Christian my POV is that this is good!)

But who does it benefit to have the article at the base name? And there are some who will need at least one an extra click to find it, if for example they want this article but assume Levi means jeans. Note that Levi (son of Jacob) is currently a redlink... I will fix that once the RM closes if need be. Maybe raise it at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Unambiguous redirects first. Andrewa (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the article at the Levi base name benefits almost everyone doing a WP search with "Levi" because they're looking for that article (assuming very few are looking for any other article when they search with "Levi"). If we put a dab page at Levi then we're forcing them to peruse the dab page and then click on the article they're seeking. It helps them if we take them directly to the article they seek in the first place rather than first taking them to an annoying dab page stop. --В²C 21:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


I'm not proposing to move that article, but some lively discussion here suggests and debates doing so. Discussion is relevant to what I am proposing. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Similar to #Paris above. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Let's look at Cork which is currently a dab page. We could conceivably move it to Cork (disambiguation) to open up Cork to be the home of, say, Cork (material), Cork (plug), or Cork (city). Even though none of these are the primary topics, what would be so bad with any of these moves besides adding a click for those searching with "cork" and not for whatever cork article is at Cork? Consider moving Cork (material) to Cork, a topic which is listed in five categories, like in Category:Non-timber forest products. So it would be listed as Cork rather than Cork (material). So what? Where's the harm? Categories create a context that implies the information contained in the disambiguation (in this case "Non-timber forest products" implies this is the "material" meaning of cork, not the city, etc.) Same with all the other categories it is listed in. If you see Cork listed in Category:Populated coastal places in the Republic of Ireland, don't you think you could figure out which Cork it is? Does it really need to appear as Cork (city) for you to figure it out? Due to the nature of categories, it's very rare to have two uses of the same name listed in the same category. If not for the unique url restriction, the most common name of a topic would be more than adequate to be that title of that topic's article, even if the name is ambiguous. [11] [12]

Another good example. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This was taken out of context. I'm not suggesting any article should be at Cork; there is no primary topic for "Cork". My point was that there is no benefit to disambiguated titles. We could even put a non primary topic article like Cork (city) at the base name and the article itself would be no worse off for anyone. That was my point. In fact, back when the city was at the basename and people argued over multiple RMs about it, nobody argued in favor of the move based on it improving the title for anyone for any reason. Disambiguation is about disambiguation; it's not about title improvement. --В²C 21:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I would have. PRECISE is about better titles. A PRECICE-failing title is a bad title, for readers mainly due to ASTONISH and misrecognitions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
If, relative to other uses of the same term, one use is predominant in English usage, the name itself, without disambiguation, is "precise enough" for our purposes. That has always been key to the WP concept of primary topic. What is "precise enough"? Look no further than PT: highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Simply being ambiguous is not necessarily a PRECISE-failing title. --В²C 22:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
You're conflating the general meaning of "precise" with the WP meaning of WP:PRECISE, just as you tend to conflate "consensus" and WP:CONSENSUS, "concise" and WP:CONCISE, etc. Just like ordinary words take on special meanings in particular contexts (the law, medicine, engineering), we too have specialized meanings for terms on WP, and you're just playing silly semantic games when you ignore that and insist on using ordinary dictionary definitions for these specialized WP terms. --В²C 15:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not taken out of context. The context is given by the diffs which I provided. Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean that as a criticism. Just pointing out that without seeing what I was responding to it could imply meaning I did not intend. Appreciate the links. Thanks. --В²C 15:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


If I search for "Mercury" I do see the disambiguated titles specifying planet, element etc. in the Google search results. But if I search for "apple" the undisambiguated Apple in the results is immediately followed by the lead: "An apple is a sweet, edible fruit..."; I see no distinction of significance in my ability to be able to choose the hit I want from the Google search results whether the title is disambiguated or not. I disagree it's a lot easier to find the page based on whether it's disambiguated or not. The argument can be made with users who use the WP search box with javascript and get the pop-up box, but as long as the article at the base name is truly the primary topic (by usage) - the topic users are most likely seeking - then it shouldn't be an issue. That's the point of primary topic. In fact, the current "Apple" setup is problematic because the topic of the article at the basename (the fruit) is not the primary topic by usage, so anyone using WP search (with or w/o popup search box) and selecting Apple is most likely seeking the company but getting taken to the fruit. That's the problem introduced by the historical significance criteria. [13]

Another interesting one to investigate. Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Bacolod-Kalawi, Lanao del Sur → Bacolod-KalawiEdit

This is not a primary topic case, but issues and arguments are closely related.

RM was here: Talk:Bacolod-Kalawi#Requested move 2 October 2018

Main argument in nom:

  • the proposed title is more concise yet still precise and is the common name of the municipality that is the subject of the article.

Outcome was moved.

Supporting arguments:

  • redundant disambiguation.
  • unnecessary disambiguation, over-PRECISION, etc
  • this one doesn't require disambiguation

Opposing arguments (all from one user, SmokeyJoe):

  • per the consistency at Category:Municipalities of Lanao del Sur (NOTE: the majority in that category are not disambiguated, so the consistency claim is odd)
  • the move "hurts RECOGNIZABILITY."
  • per COMMONNAME because "All the sources (terrible sources as they are) introduce 'Bacolod-Kalawi' with or under 'Lanao del Sur'."
  • Countering the unnecessary disambiguation argument: "Many good things are 'unnecessary'. Consider recognisability. Consider how sources introduce the topic. "
  • Countering the PRECISE quote ("titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."): "the language of PRECISE is pretty poorly composed. It should say 'Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article.'. It needs fixing. It should not be for PRECISE to argue ANTIPRECISE."

I, for one, strongly disagree with SmokeyJoe's suggested rewording of PRECISE. Some tweaks may be in order, but not do change the intended meaning. Having titles "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" is far too broad. Even "Paris" does not meet that criterion. Very few titles do. Even if a topic has a unique name not shared with any other use, the name alone, though unambiguous, arguably does not define the topical scope of the article. More importantly, having titles that are informative in and of themselves is of dubious value to users. Many editors have pointed out that our titles could be randomly generated strings and other than making linking for editors a pain, for the user WP would be largely functionally the same. The user benefit of longer more descriptive titles is marginal at best. And at what cost? A key point made in my User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation essay is that allowing for more descriptive titles opens up debate about titles far more than we already have. What the heck is Bacolod-Kalawi, Lanao del Sur anyway? Does that title "define the topical scope of the article"? Maybe to someone who knows what Lanao del Sur is, but most probably don't. Shouldn't the title be Bacolod-Kalawi, a municipality in the province of Lanao del Sur, Philippines? Why not? Oh, because Bacolod-Kalawi, a third class municipality in the province of Lanao del Sur, Philippines would be even better? Where does it end? Do we really want to open up title debate like this for every article on WP? Isn't it bad enough already? It's just not worth it - the benefits to anyone would be minimal at best, and the costs would be enormous. --В²C 17:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed for Polstead for example it could be Polstead, Suffolk, Polstead, England, Polstead, Babergh, Polstead, United Kingdom, Polstead, South Suffolk, Polstead, Samford, Polstead, World, Polstead, Universe, Polstead (village), Polstead (English village), Polstead (civil parish), Polstead (village and civil parish), Polstead is a village and civil parish in the Babergh district of Suffolk, England etc. But as noted there is no obvious limit to this, the thing we know is that it is called just Polstead and nothing else, we should generally not add qualifiers unless needed, although cases like Munich knife attack v 2016 Munich knife attack where we're using alternative terms rather than qualifiers are more difficult. But with not adding brackets or commas it should generally be easy and there is no was of telling who the topic needs to be recognizable to. In other words for Polstead, just leaving it without disambiguation is likely to remain stable as there is then no argument about how much description is needed, which is where its been since its creation in 2007. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • PRECISE was written without any intellectual rigour. Self-referential, strays into repeating CONCISE. It’s already difficult to square with Paris.
  • B2C reverting to his old chestnut “randomly generated strings”. Many? No, just him.
  • Polstead? Note that these are outland skirmishes for USPLACE. The USPLACE rationale applies much more widely, but for places like Australia and Philippines, a few have been doing sneaky page moves for years undermining past CONSISTENCY, arguing “CONCISE” ignoring RECOGNISABILITY & COMMONNAME and never arguing improved reader service. It’s underhand and objectionable. Old English towns are not good examples of this, probably because these towns are older than the language itself and it is not old English style to name things from an international perspective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    An interesting point made in 2014 by В²C about also using the country, thus if we wanted to make things clear to readers with the places, I would include, 1-what, 2-state (if its common to state that)-3-country. So you would end up with Bacolod-Kalawi (municipality in Lanao del Sur, Philippines, Bothell (town in Washington, United States) (oh do we need to include state here to aviod confusion with DC) and Polstead (village in Suffolk, England) (oh does it also need the post town/postcode area etc). But for PT its just usually necessary that its is precise enough that most readers wouldn't confuse it with a different topic Paris and Burgate do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Reading (process)#Requested move 17 October 2018

Reading (process) → Reading
Reading → Reading (disambiguation)

Seen also previous RM. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Great example of why we should rename PRIMARYTOPIC to something like MOSTLY_LIKELY_TO_BE_SOUGHT_TOPIC, so it's less likely to be misunderstood. --В²C 16:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That would considerably lower the bar for Primary Topic, would it not? Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Puma#Requested move 23 October 2018 may be a very interesting one to analyse both in terms of the arguments presented so far, and the likely effect on readers. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


Not a P T discussion but on the more general question of article names... just so long as the redirects are created, does Talk:History of Swaziland#Requested move 23 October 2018 actually change anything significant? Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Toyonaka → Toyonaka, OsakaEdit


Good example of editors using PRECISE to argue against overly precise title. --В²C 17:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Pike Street (Seattle) → Pike StreetEdit

Two dab case where one case is clearly notable while the other is a redirect to an article because it's related to the notable topic of said article, but is not notable in and of itself.


If we did away with primary topic, would we require a dab page in such a case? --В²C 18:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


"The idea of PTOPIC is to help readers get where they want to be as quickly as possible." If 40% of readers land on the wrong page, they are likely to be some combination of confused, misled, and annoyed. It is also guaranteed that a good proportion of new links to the PTOPIC will be plain wrong, and will be unlikely ever to get spotted and corrected. That is bad for the encyclopaedia.

The example I always trot out is Tetrahedron, where the Platonic solid is overwhelmingly PTOPIC. I look at the links in to that page from time to time, because it collects some links intended for Tetrahedron (journal). The bad links can be difficult to spot, even for an organic chemist – and every organic chemist is guaranteed to know both meanings, because tetrahedral structure is a fundamental idea, if not the fundamental idea, in carbon chemistry. [14]

Part of a fascinating and continuing discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Billboard and knotEdit

Yes, some primary topics can be a nuisance for readers and editors alike. For example, Billboard (magazine) has six times more views and 100 times more incoming links than Billboard (big ad), Knot (unit) three times more views and 25 times more incoming links than Knot (bent rope), etc. Such titles attract plenty of misdirected links. [15]

A case well made, Andrewa (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Diving#Requested move 25 October 2018 Diving → Diving (sport) – This is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "diving". It gets only a fraction of the article traffic.[2] Underwater diving - better known as just "diving" - is a similarly important use, and Freediving, a subset of underwater diving, receives more page views than the sport. That suggests that substantial numbers of readers looking for underwater diving are coming here by mistake. Diving should redirect to the dab page, or become its own dab page.

A classic case of an article that should never have been at the base name. Andrewa (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Private ScreeningsEdit

Private Screenings → Private Screenings (TV series) – I was expecting to see an article that talks about the concept of private screenings of TV series/films and not an article about a specific TV series. Private Screenings should redirect to Public and private screening (as does Private screening, which edit history shows was the original article until 2014 when moved to its current title). [16]

This and subsequent discussion raises some new issues. Andrewa (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Think TwiceEdit

See Talk:Think Twice (Celine Dion song)#Requested move 22 November 2018

Think Twice (Celine Dion song) → Think Twice
Think Twice → Think Twice (disambiguation)

and previous RM

Think Twice (song) → Think Twice
Think Twice → Think Twice (disambiguation)

which moved instead moved

Think Twice (song) → Think Twice (Celine Dion song)

with closing comment The song is clearly not the primary topic of 'Think Twice' as judged from Google Books. So long-term significance works against a move to unqualified 'Think Twice'. Keeping this page at Think Twice (song) was reasonable so long as it was the only song of that name for which we have an article, but now there are two. A variety of opinions were expressed in the discussion.

Interesting points made in the latest RM concerning the practicalities of moving the article to the ambiguous name... as I have of course been saying all along. Andrewa (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Demanufacture (album)#Requested move 29 November 2018

Demanufacture (album) → Demanufacture
Demanufacture → Demanufacture (process)

I believe the album is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over a two-line dictionary definition.

Support – page views agree – the Fear Factory album is primary by a factor of about 10-to-1.

And yet if the move were to go ahead, incoming links... both internal Wikilinks and incoming external links... will start to be created. And if (when?) the article is moved back... it's likely that in the fullness of time we'll get other things by this name... these will all be broken. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


Talk:IDGAF (Dua Lipa song)#Requested move 1 December 2018

IDGAF (Dua Lipa song) → IDGAF (song) 2Pac's song is not called "IDGAF" - it's spelt out in full

I am involved in this, could not resist !voting as the reader benefit is clear and there was no other discussion. IMO it improved Wikipedia if we dropped this proposal and moved on.

But IDGAF (Dua Lipa song) might well be the P T of IDGAF (song). Lots of issues... do we even use the term primary topic for a disambiguated name like this? Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Silent ScopeEdit

Talk:Silent Scope (series)#Requested move 24 November 2018

Silent Scope (series) → Silent Scope
Silent Scope → Silent Scope (video game)

The second merely reverses a previous move discussed but not formally proposed. Raises some issues... principally, moving it back breaks incoming external links created in the meantime, Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Gannett Company#Requested move 5 December 2018 second similar RM within a few months. See also Gannett (disambiguation) and Gannet (disambiguation). Andrewa (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Garshu Gerasa Jarash JerashEdit

Four different English spellings of the same name. See Talk:Gerasa (Judaea)#Requested move 28 November 2018 for some discussion.

and possibly others. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Spiral ScratchEdit

Talk:Spiral Scratch (EP)#Requested move 7 December 2018 Spiral Scratch (EP) → Spiral Scratch – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Only other candidate is a Doctor Who novel. RM elapsed with two !votes so far, both Support but with no real evidence. Andrewa (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And it was moved with redirect suppressed. The main page redirect was subsequently recreated, and then templated by myself. But meantime the talk page had been deleted! I have recreated it too. Andrewa (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Talk:Château de Mauriac (Douzillac) Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Primary topic swapsEdit

There have been lately situations where a PT swap has been proposed or suggested. Its interesting to point out Nilfanion's points about external links:

  • Talk:Bryher#Requested move 15 August 2018, originally proposed as swap. There are only 2 topics, and the island is the original meaning and likely has a stronger claim by both criteria. Everyone favoured the move as proposed which was preformed.
  • Talk:Riseholme (disambiguation)#Requested move 18 July 2018, originally proposed as DAB at base name. 1st editor supported (presumably as proposed, but I suspect would support the swap), however the 2nd editor strongly opposed putting the DAB at the base name and instead suggested putting the real village there, of which I agreed. The 3rd editor supported but didn't comment on the PT swap. The 4th editor agreed with the PT swap based on my additional comments.
  • Talk:Yelling (disambiguation)#Requested move 9 August 2018, originally proposed as DAB at base name. There was a move in 2009 which presumably resulted in "Yelling" redirecting to the DAB. That move was reverted shortly later by an admin with the reason that the incoming links indicated a primary topic. 1 editor opposed, due to the fact that the redirect Yelling (vocalization) had been bypassed on the DAB page, thus didn't get many views, the replies addressed this. Everyone else (including me) agreed that "Yelling" should be a primary redirect to Screaming. I didn't originally propose making a primary redirect due to the reverted move. I think that "Yelling" is an unlikely search term but it would probably usually be understood to mean screaming even in Cambridgeshire. The move was closed as redirect to Screaming by the admin who reverted the 2009 move.
  • Talk:Barking#Requested move 18 July 2018, originally proposed to put the DAB at the base name. Everyone supported moving the town to Barking, London however 1 editor suggested that "Barking" should redirect to Bark (sound) instead. I didn't think that that was a good idea considering that there were a large number of links for the place in London. This is a good example like this argument. I'd say that if "Barking" had been a DAB page for years then we could make the sound primary but because of the importance of the topic, a PT swap would result in a lot of incorrect external links.
  • Talk:Brownies (Scouting)#Requested move 29 October 2018, originally proposed as no PT but some editors suggested making Chocolate brownie primary, I pointed out the incoming links point there and at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 6#Brownies. IMO Chocolate brownie has a better claim but because the scouting article was there and is a full match its probably better to DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    And another at Talk:Seaman (rank)#Requested move 13 January 2019 some of the participants thought Sailor should be primary but I pointed to the points about incoming links. Notice that the 1st !vote opposed but changed to neutral base on the views of the video game and others. IMO the outcome of that RM was the best outcome, yes sailor might be more common in everyday speech but there will be links outside pointing to the rank and adding in the views from the others it seems like the DAB at the base name serves us best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)



Talk:Unfulfilled#Requested move 11 December 2018. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

There was also the same thing at Talk:Unfulfillment#Requested move 11 December 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an interesting example with the unnessesarry disambiguation argument, indeed they could be qualified pre-emptively to avoid breaking incoming links but similar to Luton, Devon (there being multiple in Devon) its possible that there may be another South Park episode and thus need disambiguation. Indeed like some of the others here it doesn't identify that its a South Park episode and there are bound to be other popular culture topics with those names in the future. While with English villages such as Rendham, although it doesn't identify what it is, there doesn't seem to be anything else it could be while Not Funny could easily be something to do with something not being funny for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good FormEdit

Talk:Good Form (Once Upon a Time)#Requested move 21 December 2018 move by strong consensus resulted in a 2-way DAB at the wp:base name. A good result and its effects deserve analysis. Andrewa (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Andrew RobertsonEdit

See Talk:Andrew Robertson (footballer)#Requested move 28 December 2018.

Very interesting. There is a case for P T currently, but it's unlikely to last. And if it's moved as proposed, and then moved back, incoming external links will be broken.

Ten entries on the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:Marne#Requested move 28 December 2018, it should probably never have been at base name, and will now break incoming external links assuming the move goes ahead. Andrewa (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Brat PackEdit

Talk:Brat Pack (actors)#Requested move 28 December 2018 strong consensus

Brat Pack (actors) → Brat Pack
Brat Pack → Brat Pack (disambiguation)
Bratpack (comics) → Brat Pack (comics)

but DAB does contain five entries. Andrewa (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


Talk:GTA#Requested move 28 December 2018

GTA → GTA (disambiguation) – GTA should redirect to Grand Theft Auto

Closed as no consensus. DAB has 30 entries, five of them about this franchise. Andrewa (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:Water well#Requested move 11 January 2019. Lots of opinions. Arguably, the primary topic, but reader benefit from the move is probably negative.

Closed as consensus to move, making water well the primary topic of well. Andrewa (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds of SilenceEdit

Talk:Sounds of Silence (documentary)#Requested move 22 January 2019 just tidying up really. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Now here is a real stinker! See Chimpanzee (disambiguation) and Talk:Chimpanzee. Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hatting and LaggEdit

Hatting (RM) is a village and municipality of 1,395, there is also a village in Denmark (1,588), a place in Upper Austria (that I have added using hidden text on the DAB since it fails DABENTRY), a few PTMs and Hatmaking, while hatmaking is probably an unlikely search term for "Hatting" an English speaker is surely not much more likely to be looking for the Tyrol Hatting than the others. Only oppose was that out of the Tyrol and Denmark the Tyrol got more views and that there was no evidence that Hatmaking was a likely search term for this term and that WP:2DABPRIMARY works here. In reply I argued that Hatmaking was likely enough per Google and at least WP:ASTONISH. And the PTMs were added removing 2DABPRIMARY being viable.

Lagg (RM) It was argued that the hamlet (pop probably around 50) was primary over Lagg (landform), another hamlet in Scotland and a few other PTMs. Surely readers are better off with the DAB at the base name and there was no case to treat the Arran hamlet as primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yupik and maybe similarEdit

Talk:Yup'ik#Requested move 24 January 2019 No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, consensus appears to lean towards the determination that the people are the primary topic of a WP:TWODABSsituation, and therefore that the article should not be moved as proposed.

But various appeals to more general cases of people vs language.

Barring exceptional circumstances, there are no fundamental reasons to see an ethnic group as being the primary topic over the language, and defending a primary topic becomes especially difficult here in light of the pageviews: the daily average over last year was 89 for the people [3] vs. 66 for the language [4].

The fundamental ground is that there wouldn’t be a language without the people. The people would also be there even if the language was dead, which is unfortunately the fate of many American languages.

So I guess by the last argument above, the primary topic of English would be English people? Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

One of the most unfortunate aspects of “primary topic” is the word “primary”. To many it apparently means, “most important“. But that’s not it at all. It doesn’t even mean “most notable“. It simply means, “topic most likely to be sought” (relative to other topics likely to be sought with the term in question). Most of the trouble with primary topic stems from the misinterpreted “primary” in this context. That’s why you get absurd arguments like that people/language one. Maybe it should be renamed “dominant topic”. —В²C 06:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Born2cycle. Appreciated.
Maybe the name is part of the problem, agree... but can you really make a case for any such concept, by whatever name? Very interested to see it. What does it gain us, or any reader? Is it really a significant benefit? It seemed like a good idea, and in the early days it was, because for some obvious articles like mathematics it works well. But we've now created almost all of those, and we can and should grandfather these. The vast majority of articles (and nearly all of those still to be created) are on relatively obscure topics. And for these, the concept is both unnecessary and counterproductive. Andrewa (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


Now here's a good one! Talk:Yesterday (time)#Requested move 10 March 2019.

Just what does primary topic mean? Different things to different people...! (;->

And similarly with any ambiguous article title. Andrewa (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Hearts (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 March 2019 Probably a good idea, unlikely to succeed. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Now the DAB has been moved to the base name but there's now a new proposal to see if the organ should be primary or if the DABs should be merged. I also pointed out you're essay of User:Andrewa/Incoming links in response to making a different topic primary. As noted surely the fact there there was no consensus if the trick, card game or organ was primary is a good sign that neither is primary per Narky Blert's point at #New York. I also mirror you're point at #Bathwater of "Surely a DAB at the base name would be best? Not even suggested as yet". Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
And similar (currently open) discussions at Talk:Spades#Requested move 28 April 2019 and Talk:Spoons (disambiguation)#Requested move 2 May 2019, the latter appears to have suggestions to make "Spoons" a redirect to the utensil, surely per the incoming links point and that all 3 examples have well-known things in the plural form, no PT is best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
And the Spades discussion has now been closed as move and Spades now redirects to Spade (disambiguation), on another note there should probably be a separate DAB at the plural due to the fact that only utensil is referred to in both the plural and singular (see WP:DABCOMBINE) but given the fact that there aren't many items a combined DAB seems OK, maybe in future a RFD could be used to see if a separate DAB is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Cigarette girlEdit

Cigarette girl (person) → Cigarette girl – Unnecessary disambiguation. Primary redirect has pointed here since 2013. Talk:Cigarette girl (person)#Requested move 28 March 2019

Cigarette girl (disambiguation) lists four films, a manga and a record album (a partial match but likely search term). Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Tiger by the TailEdit

Talk:Tiger by the Tail#Requested move 30 March 2019 seems to be an excellent example of a DAB that would have been better at the base name from day one. Andrewa (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Let It BeEdit

Talk:Let It Be (song)#Requested move 16 March 2019 Let It Be (song) → Let It Be (Beatles song)


Is there a primary topic for a disambiguator?

If there is a primary topic, is it really the Beatles album rather than their song? I've just done a quick check of some friends. All of them could sing the first verse and chorus of the song. Most of them did not know that the album exists.

The album article was created in 2002 and has been at the base name Let It Be ever since. The song article was created in 2004. Wikipedia was launched in 2001, so the album article was one of our earlier ones.

The album was released May 1970, the last Beatles album to be released, just after their official breakup in April 1970, but had been largely recorded before Abbey Road, released 1969. The song had been released in March 1970. Andrewa (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Peter ParkerEdit

Charles BabcockEdit

Talk:Charles Babcock#Requested move 23 April 2019

No indication that the nine-sentence entry for the architect, who died 106 years ago and has only one brief interwiki (in Farsi Wikipedia), portrays a historical personage so renowned that his biography would take precedence as the natural WP:PRIMARYTOPIC above all others bearing this name or a variation upon it.

Charles Babcock (disambiguation) has seven entries, but only two (including the architect) are exact matches, and one of the others doesn't have an article.

Interesting dialogue over what primary topic means. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Charles Babcock (architect) following the move. And the above talk page link now loops! See here. But that's another topic. Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

John CadeEdit

Talk:John Cade#Requested move 29 April 2019

John Cade → John Cade (psychiatrist)
John Cade (disambiguation) → John Cade
There are ten names listed at the John Cade (disambiguation) page with no substantiation of the psychiatrist holding such an exalted place in history that his name should top that of the other nine.

Strong opposition, and even suggestions that the RM is disruptive. I'm inclined to agree that the psychiatrist is P T, but the only evidence presented so far is on page views. This brings back memories of NYRM... part of the problem with page views is that having this article at the base name inflates its pageview count.

Shouldn't the onus of proof be on those who want to establish a P T? (Or better still, just deprecate the concept, and we don't even need to decide.) Andrewa (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)



Talk:Overwatch (video game)#Requested move 21 March 2019 probably a good close, no consensus so the DAB remains at the base name.

Arguments for P T are based on page views. Perhaps another example for User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. Andrewa (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Andrew BowieEdit

Talk:Andrew Bowie (politician)#Requested move 24 May 2019

From the point of view both of wikilinks and incoming external links this is exactly the sort of move proposal, changing the P T from one topic to another, that is most undesirable. Fortunately this particular one looks likely to go in the right direction for now, with the DAB ending up at the base name. But it may be only temporary, and even this does some (survivable) damage.

It will still break existing Wikilinks. It will be interesting to see whether the closer fixes these... there is no current procedure that requires them to. And also incoming external ones. But it will at least discourage creation of further links to the base name for now!

And if the proposal is completed in the fullness of time, as foreshadowed as a possibility by some !voters, these existing links will be even more broken. Andrewa (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)



The NY borough retained primary topic status mainly per WP:PLURALPT. Support argued ASTONISH and because there is no PT for singular "queen" . Good decision, IMHO (involved). --В²C 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Good decision? There is no PT for "queen" probably because of the band unlike King. It would surely be better to have "Queens" as a DAB and put the NY borough and the singular DAB at the top. You're comment isn't even clear, if someone was searching for one of the topics (like the royal one) then yes they would be surprised and how would landing on the NY borough be appropriate? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
What are the odds that someone "searching for one of the topics [other than the borough] (like the royal one)" would use the plural form? 0.1% or 0.15%? --В²C 20:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd expect at least 30% (especially for someone not familiar with our NC) and when I search for Queens I get Queen (band), followed by Queen (the singular DAB page) followed by Queens (the current title of the NY borough). Even if only a few search for articles Wikipedia NC makes in the plural form those who did would be surprised, a DAB would be far easier overall, wouldn't that serve readers and editors better? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
When I search with queens I get the borough: [17]. --В²C 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
When I search for duck, I use duck, not "ducks". When I search for King, I use "king", not "kings". Why would anyone searching for anything named "queen" use "queens"??? You think 30% would??? Based on what? --В²C 20:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
When I click on you're link I still get the band followed by the DAB but the 3rd result is Queen discography then Queens' College, Cambridge.
That's just a guess (I'd actually think less looking for 1 specific noun, more like 10-20%) but there are many other topics on both DAB pages that readers could be looking for. Yes readers and editors may be used to seeing articles at the plural form but its still surprising for those who don't know this. Take a look where Bones, Cars and Cats go. WP could just as easily have a rule that nouns use plural [18][19][20]. If that was the case you could say "when I search for Apples or Queens I use "Apples" or "Queens" and if I search for just "Apple" or "Queen" I want the company or band. On the other hand the article Tom Freston could not reasonably be titled Freston. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I was not clear with my question. Why would anyone searching for any topic named Queen (singular) use the plural search term "queens"? --В²C 21:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Because queens sometimes come in plural (yes the band probably wouldn't be searched for) but the regnant, consort and chess piece are referred to in the plural form even if WP convention makes the actual title singular, again take a look at what's primary for Category:Queens (in which WP convention makes nouns in the plural form). If you say "Queen" you could be looking for the band or the noble title etc, if you say "Queens" you could be looking for the NY borough or noble title. The is somewhat similar to the US city NC in which we can take it into account but if there is a pop 5000 town in England and a pop 100000 city in the US, the one in the US would still probably be primary even if WP convention specifies that settlements in the US (but not England) should include the state. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Because queens sometimes come in plural" is your answer to why people would use the plural form to search from something named "queen"? I am truly bewildered by this answer. I simply don't believe people use plural forms when searching with any kind of significant regularity. We all know to look up the singular form in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Why anyone would tack on a trailing s before hitting Search on WP, unless the name of their sought topic actually had an s (like the borough does), is beyond me. --В²C 21:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:PLURALPT addresses this: Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form.. So, we can expect users to search using the singular form. Therefore, if they are intentionally using a plural form to search, they are most likely looking for something else, like Queens rather than some "queen" when searching with "queens". --В²C 21:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You could still easily make the same argument the other way round, that is to say "why would someone searching for something that comes in the plural use the singular". Category:Windows, Crickets as pets, Lists of books and {{Closed stations Norfolk}} all come in the plural form.
We can expect many but not all, its not clear judging by the Google searches that the NY borough is even the leading "Queens" topic. A DAB page is still the best compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Crouch, Swale, I agree; the argument works the other way too. So what? Queens is the singular form for the borough. That's the only term anyone searching for that topic is likely to use. What other topic is anywhere near as likely to be sought with "queens" as is the borough? What are its page views compared to the borough? --В²C 17:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
[[21]] to name a few (although the university and football club are PTMs). 37,649 views for the NY borough and 97,755 for just those, loose the university and FC and you still have 75,177 views for those but only 37,649 for the NY borough. That means the borough is unlikely (especially if you take into account many of the other uses on both DABs) to be "highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" even if the majority of users don't use "Queens" to get to those articles, its reasonable to say that some of those topics have at least greater "enduring notability and educational value" than the NY borough (the regnant in particular).
And yes a reader looking for the NY borough is unlikely to enter anything other than "Queens" to get there while many of those could be searched for by different terms, this is similar to the arguments made that Plymouth Colony is a contender for "Plymouth" while anyone looking for the Devonian city is unlikely to enter anything other than "Plymouth" but the various other topics (like the regnant) would be valid competitors under WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I asked for topics LIKELY to be sought with "queens". Everything on your list except maybe Queen's University, a PTM, and of course Queens itself is UNlikely to be sought with "queens" (plural), per PLURALPT: Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, [they] can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form. The historical significance consideration is about "Queens", not "Queen" — you're not even acknowledging a distinction in your analysis, much less accounting for it. --В²C 17:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
They may be less likely to be searched for with "Queens" but they are probably still likely enough to prevent the NY borough from being primary, primary is not a question of which is most likely or most important, even with the current lax PT criteria there must still be a more than minimal difference between the topics. I acknowledged that many of those were less likely to be searched for with just "Queens" but all the topics put together are likely to mean that the NY borough is unlikely to be more searched than every other use that readers who search for the plural could be looking for. While the PLURALPT quote is likely to mean that the NY borough is the most likely candidate for "Queens" that doesn't necessarily make it primary. I'd again point to List of queens regnant (not at List of queen regnant). In the article titled Queen bee the word "queens" appears a total of 33 times to describe the topic that WP NC makes in the singular form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"they are probably still likely enough to prevent the NY borough from being primary" - strongly disagree. Thankfully no consensus for that. I think you're grossly exaggerating how likely anyone is to search for any topic using the plural form. It's unnecessary typing, unnatural, and the last thing we should be doing is expecting the unexpected, and penalizing those who are using the "plural form" to search for a use that is natural to search with the trailing s. All to accommodate those few who are doing the unnecessary, unnatural and unexpected? How does this improve the encyclopedia? The fact that the plural form is used, naturally, within an article, or how often it's used, has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. --В²C 18:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

History LessonEdit

A hypothetical concerning History Lesson by Arthur C. Clarke. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Bruce SmithEdit

Talk:Bruce Smith#Requested move 14 May 2019

Closed as Move. !Votes were close, but I strength of argument I find a rough consensus that this subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Currently there are 14 Bruce Smith articles listed at the DAB. If any one of these becomes Primary Topic one day, we'll have produced the most destructive scenario of a change of Primary Topic.

And considering how close the decision was, that's quite likely. And unnecessary. Andrewa (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Okay, I acknowledge there is a cost to moving articles that change which is the primary topic. But I think you overstate the magnitude of this cost with language like "most destructive scenario". The bottom line is that the page views are convincing. There is also a cost to sending everyone searching for the NFL player with "bruce smith" to the dab page. And given how obscure all the other uses are, that cost would be considerable. Primary topic is about accommodating users- making WP search work as efficiently as reasonable for them. --В²C 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. That is IMO exactly the logic that has been applied in setting up the current policy. But page views are unconvincing at best... they show what people are finding, but not necessarily what they are looking for.
    • Disagree that the cost would be considerable in any case. One mouse click, on a clearly displayed link on the first (probably only) screen of a short, fast-loading page? That doesn't inconvenience me significantly. It does you?
    • And that's the worst possible consequence of having a DAB at a base name. Now compare that to having links, both wikilinks and external, pointing to the wrong article, which is the inevitable consequence of a move (or sequence of moves) that changes the article at the base name. Which is worse?
    • And disagree that having any article at an ambiguous name is a way of accommodating users- making WP search work as efficiently as reasonable for them. That again is a common assumption, but in fact the very opposite is the case.
      • If the article they want is at an ambiguous base name, they need to guess that it's the one they want... which many but not all will do. That's what ambiguous means! So some will get it wrong, and will see no link on the search results that seems to them to be what they want. Disaster!
      • If the article they want is at an unambiguous name, WP search takes them all straight to it with no problems at all.
    • Thanks again for joining the discussion. It helps me to refine the proposal and its rationale. Andrewa (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • And just to stress that last point, such discussions have over the past year caused me to modify my original proposal beyond recognition! And they continue to be a valued source of input to the current draft. Andrewa (talk) 06:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • There is a very high correlation between what people are looking for and what they are finding because most users get directly to the articles they seek via Google. We know this for a variety of reasons not the least of which is how relatively few page views dab pages at base names often get. That’s why page view counts are a reliable indicator of how much a given page is being sought. —В²C 06:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
        • See #Page views below for discussion of that point.
        • I assume you still think that one mouse click is a considerable cost? And that sending a reader to the wrong article is less serious? And that for WP search to provide no recognisable link, so they don't find the wanted article at all, is not disaster? We may need to agree to disagree on those three points.
        • But it's the claims about page views that most interest me. Andrewa (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Page viewsEdit

There is a very high correlation between what people are looking for and what they are finding because most users get directly to the articles they seek via Google. We know this for a variety of reasons not the least of which is how relatively few page views dab pages at base names often get. That’s why page view counts are a reliable indicator of how much a given page is being sought. [22]

That's a very interesting claim. Several related claims actually.

There is a very high correlation between what people are looking for and what they are finding... If true, very significant. But is it?

...because most users get directly to the articles they seek via Google. Again, interesting if true. But that would support having all articles at unambiguous names. If an article is at an ambiguous name, then Google search will suffer exactly the same problem as WP search. If on the other hand all articles are at unambiguous names, there is no problem.

We know this for a variety of reasons... One of which is given, see below. It would be interesting to know the others.

...not the least of which is how relatively few page views dab pages at base names often get. Again, we can cut to the chase here. If that is true (and I believe it is, and a very good thing) then that is an excellent reason for having a DAB as the target of every ambiguous base name. It means that users are getting directly to the article they want, as would be expected. They will not follow a link to an ambiguous name if, on the same results list (whether Wikipedia or Google or DuckDuckGo or whatever), there is a name that unambiguously describes the topic they want, as there always will be if the base name is given to a DAB. This is always a win. If on the other hand there is no such result, this may be a loss.

That’s why page view counts are a reliable indicator of how much a given page is being sought. The argument above depends on a variety of reasons only one of which is given, so it currently depends on that one reason. That one reason is itself a very good reason to deprecate P T as proposed.

But to return to Page Views, against this argument is the substantial history of specific cases in which consensus has been that, despite an overwhelming majority of page views for a particular topic, it's still not the Primary Topic. Some of these are given at User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views#Examples, which hasn't been updated for over a year as I write here, not because there has been any shortage of further examples in that time but because I haven't had time to do the updates. The case is unanswered, so more examples aren't really needed. Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, the reason people are getting to the pages they seek despite the cumbersome disambiguations in their titles is, again, because most are getting there via Google. So for them, the vast majority, the title doesn't matter. Whether one is at the base name or not matters none, because Google search results give you "sneak peak" of the article and you can see from the snippet of the article's intro which is the article you seek, independent of the title. I've often pointed out that we could use randomly generated strings for our titles and WP would still work fine for most. So primary topic and other title considerations, much of WP:CRITERIA in fact, has nothing to do with improving WP for this vast majority that essentially bypasses the functionality provided by good titles on WP (because they use Google to get there). So, the "customers" (if you will) of good titles are mostly the minority that search using the WP search box. But here's the thing; it's reasonable to assume that the distribution of page popularity is similar for both groups: the ones who use Google and the ones who use WP search. So we rely on page view counts caused mostly by the majority using Google to approximate relative likelihood of being sought by the minority using WP search - and that's for whom we need primary topic treatment: like the minority that uses WP search to search for "Bruce Smith". The vast majority of the minority of all "Bruce Smith" seekers that uses WP search is assumed to be looking for the defensive end based on the page view count stats generated by the majority of "Bruce Smith" seekers who use Google. That's why we put the defensive end at the basename, Bruce Smith. --В²C 17:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of interesting claims and observations here. Agree with some but certainly not all. But see little logic or evidence in the above, just opinion based on many assumptions which need closer examination IMO.
And you don't seem to have addressed the issues I raised. Andrewa (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you don't think I addressed. That some primary topics are not recognized as such? I agree that's an issue. I think partially that's because "primary topic" is a misleading misnomer that causes people to think the topic treated as the primary topic should be the "most important" one for the term in question. It's often not appreciated to be the navigation aid it's intended to be. --В²C 18:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, my first point was to query your claim that There is a very high correlation between what people are looking for and what they are finding... Evidence? Or is it pure speculation?
And probably the most important point is the last one... there has been consensus on a large number of cases that, despite the high page view count, primary topic was not demonstrated.
Agree that primary topic is a misnomer. AFAIK it's a Wikipedia invention with no basis in linguistics. Agree that it would be better in some ways to just base the use of the base name on page views, but this has been proposed (by yourself I think) and rejected, and introduces other problems such as unnecessary page moves from one topic to another when the page traffic changes. (It's even theoretically possible that we could get resonant situations in which we regularly swapped the base name between two articles! Possibly not a practical problem, but an unnecessary one IMO.) Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The main evidence for the high correlation is the capitalization of GOOGL. If Google did not take users to the pages they were seeking it wouldn't be worth what it is. The other evidence is the low page views of dab pages; including dab pages at base names. That demonstrates the vast majority are using external search engines to get to their pages. So the the page view counts must reflect the relative popularity of the pages. Regarding lack of consensus for "primary topic" despite high page view counts... that's just evidence of errors made by the community, by definition. --В²C 17:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't just talking about lack of consensus for "primary topic" despite high page view counts (my emphasis). Many of these decisions are consensus decisions that page counts even if overwhelming are not the full story. And those are the most interesting ones of course.
But even the no-consensus decisions should give us pause. That's never a good result.
If Google did not take users to the pages they were seeking it wouldn't be worth what it is. Agree but that completely misses the point. Google most often does just that, but it also sometimes fails miserably, predictably, and avoidably. Those failures are due to ambiguous article names, and they are avoidable at very little cost. Google's success in most cases (most articles are at unambiguous names, and so the problem of ambiguous names simply doesn't affect people searching for these) is not evidence for this (claimed) correlation at all.
Similarly, the low page views of dab pages doesn't address the issue. Most people do find the article they want, but they would find it equally or more easily if all article names were unambiguous... with the proviso that very occasionally, this would require one more mouse click. Andrewa (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I did not mean to exclude consensus decisions that got it wrong - they are wrong too. Shit happens. We used to have much less conflict over primary topic decisions before the historical significance criteria was added to the mix. That really messed it up. I'd like to see where Google fails "due to ambiguous names". I don't recall ever seeing that. What I've noticed is that Google doesn't even seem to pay attention to the name very much at all. We could move Paris to XTA4@39T and within hours, if not minutes or seconds, Google searches for "Paris" would be taking you that article. That's because Google keys off web page content much more than url. --В²C 20:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree that Google avoids at least some of the shortcomings of our search box, exactly as you describe. Good point and maybe Google even avoids them completely. I'll see whether I can come up with an example where it doesn't... I think some have been raised in the past.
And agree that shit happens. But it would be so easy to avoid the shit that our users experience when a mislinking or broken external link takes them to the wrong article owing to a mistaken or changed or even just contentious Primary Topic. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Mouse click costsEdit

Recently I binged a show called “The Americans” (which might be the best TV series ever, but I digress) over a number of weeks. Over the course of those weeks I sought the WP article on the show many times, and every time I searched for it with “the americans” I was driven nuts because it would take me to the godforsaken dab page. It was so aggravating I nearly flung my $600 iPad across the room, every time. So, yeah, the cost is considerable. —В²C 06:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you ever find the article you wanted?
The DAB at The Americans currently lists The Americans (1961 TV series) and The Americans (2013 TV series) as its first two hits. May we assume that one of these is the article you wanted? If so, which one?
Similarly, when I type The Americans into WP search I get ten hits, including those two. Another six hits are detailed articles on the 2013 series. The remaining two are The Americans (photography) and The Americans (band). The DAB does not appear on the list at all. Not you?
I don't use Bing myself, or an iPad. But I just tried Bing from my subnotebook, and searching for The Americans Wikipedia my very first hit was and the first paragraph of our article was displayed to the right of the hit list.
We should try to address the needs of every reader including iPad users such as yourself. So this is very interesting. Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The 2013 series. You really should watch it. Fascinating. Anyway, it's expected that entering "the americans wikipedia" into Google/Bing search produces the 2013 series article first, as it should. That shows Google/Bing have their databases tuned correctly. But I was relying on WP search. So what I did was enter "the americans" into the WP search box and hit "Go". That unfortunately takes me to the dab page, from which I have to select the 2013 series. Since it's by far the most likely to be sought topic named "The Americans", I think when you hit "Go" it should take you straight to the article about the 2013 series. But that's not my point. My point is because the Go click takes me the dab page instead of to the article almost everyone is seeking who searches for "the americans" these days, we have to go through not just an extra mouse click, but a pain-in-the-ass scan of the dab page to find the right link to click on. That's annoying, to say the least.
In general, doing a Google search with " search-term" on Google/Bing is a good test. Whatever is on the top of the list is a likely primary topic candidate. If I was dictator the way primary topic would be determined is like that, plus verification of relative high likelihood by comparing the page view counts of the top 3 such results.
For example, a Google search for " Paris" returns: Paris, History of Paris and Paris, Ontario.
Similarly, a Google search for " Bruce Smith" returns: Bruce Smith, Bruce Smith (musician) and Bruce D. Smith.
In both cases the first result clearly dominates in page view counts so should be, and thankfully is, at the base name.
For " the americans" I get: The Americans (2013 TV series), List of The Americans episodes, and The Americans (season 6). To me, that's a deafening signal of a primary topic as well, but for now the dab page sits at The Americans. --В²C 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
You're quite right... the result if I hit the search icon (a magnifying glass for me) is to go to the DAB.
So I would need to go to that once if, for some reason, I couldn't use the dropdown list. Doesn't your iPad give you that option?
If I knew I wanted to return to that page, I'd bookmark it rather than going to the DAB every time. Maybe you don't have that option either?
Actually, I would probably not even bookmark it... I have an extensive personal wiki, these days we'd call it a personal cloud I guess but many of us were doing it long before the current term cloud was invented, just as we were using structured programming long before that term was invented... in both cases, it's just commonsense usage of what was available. So I'd just add it to my personal "transients" page which I have on my bookmarks bar, on all my devices, and it would then be easily available to me on any device I used.
There are many ways of using the WWW and Wikipedia, and I'm very interested in your ways of working as they are so different to mine. And I want us to cater to all.
But I'm beginning to think you're not a typical user. Actually we both knew that (and neither am I). So again I wonder, how many other users are going to find what you find so very annoying any problem at all? Andrewa (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The dropdown option is there but the choices are all crammed closely together and small - easy to select the wrong one with your finger on a mobile device. It's even worse on a phone. So I prefer to just enter the search term and click GO. We should not assume all users have and use the drop down list. I'm sure that's not unusual. Also, what would happen to be is I'd be watching an episode and choose to hit pause to look something up. Each time I did it I didn't think I'd be doing it again. So I didn't know I would want to return to that page. Again, I don't think that's unusual. We shouldn't make articles hard to find and just assume people who need to get them repeatedly will create a bookmark or whatever - that's no excuse to not put the primary topic at the base name. --В²C 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with much of this. But I'm afraid I think you're doing exactly what you're (rightly) saying we should not... assuming that others think and act as you do. And they don't. When you say Recently I binged a show called “The Americans” ... many people would assume you meant you used bing, as I did. But it seems that is slang in your circles for searched (as many also use Googled when they might mean they used DuckDuckGo for example) and what you meant was, you used Wikipedia search.
Very interesting. So far it just confirms my current thinking. Primary Topic is relative in all cases, seriously POV in some, badly skewed by the demography of Wikipedians in many, helpful in some but these can all be grandfathered, and overall now a liability. And a liability which can very easily be avoided completely and at minimal cost. Andrewa (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
LOL!!! No! Binging as in Binge-watching!!! You are unfamiliar with this term? Where do you live? Anyway, when a topic is clearly the most likely to be sought for a given term, there is no excuse to not put the article for that topic at the basename of that term. --В²C 19:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. But in the context of searching, using bing (search engine) is a likely reading of binging, don't you think?
And this gets us back to the fundamental problem of Primary Topic. If everyone agreed on a default meaning of every ambiguous term, P T would be the way to go. But we don't, and it isn't.
Under current policy, there is indeed an excuse... that of significance. There have been proposals to change this, I think they're probably at perennial proposals. Probably NYRM belonged there too... once upon a time.
But in readers' interests, there is no excuse for putting an article at an ambiguous name. It's the way we've always done it, but that's not a good reason in this changing world. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The reason to put the most likely to be sought article for an ambiguous term at that term is not because "it's the way we've always done it". It's to make the encyclopedia easier and more efficient to use for our readers. --В²C 17:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
But our policy doesn't currently put the most likely to be sought article for an ambiguous term at that term. It's far more complicated than that, and attempts by yourself and others to simplify it have failed.
And while it certainly should make the encyclopedia easier and more efficient to use, how does it achieve this? On the plus side, it sometimes avoids one mouse click, on a clearly relevant and prominently displayed link. On the downside, it makes the article at the ambiguous term harder to find, to the point that there's an (avoidable) risk that it will not be found at all. Is the occasional avoidance of that one mouse click really worth that price? Andrewa (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
How does putting an article at its name makes it harder to find? (runs to get popcorn) --В²C 20:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good, good question! One that I've answered several times and will need to answer many more times because the opposite is so often assumed.
See below. But note the section heading and conclusion... you've got me thinking. What I should have said is, an unambiguous name makes an article easier to find.
(Walks over to help friend back to their feet and sweep up the spilled popcorn.) Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

How an unambiguous name makes an article easier to findEdit

How does putting an article at its name makes it harder to find? [23]

A person searches for an article and gets a results list. The article they want is there but by an ambiguous name (presumably because we think it's the primary topic... for example wave). They don't agree that it's the primary topic, they think that something else is (for example, they're a surfer and a wave is what they catch when surfing). So they have to guess that the ambiguous name is the article they want, despite that ambiguous name meaning something else to them. Some will do this. Some will not. If on the other hand the article they want is at an unambiguous name, everyone gets there.

But you're right in one sense... I should put it more positively. An unambiguous name makes an article easier to find. Always. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You lost me at "and gets a results list". When you type in the name (rather than a search term) of what you're searching you hit GO which takes you straight to the article. But if you do hit Search for, say, an ambiguous name like "Paris", you do get search results, and they're all augmented with descriptions from their respective intros... Here are the beginning of the results for "Paris" search, for example:

Paris (French pronunciation: ​[paʁi] (listen)) is the capital and most populous city of France, with an area of 105 square kilometres (41 square miles) 227 KB (24,005 words) - 10:04, June 17, 2019

Paris (disambiguation)
Paris is the largest city and capital of France. Paris may also refer to: Paris (surname), a list of people and fictional characters Paris (given name) 7 KB (824 words) - 22:09, June 15, 2019

Paris Commune
Paris is the largest city and capital of France. Paris may also refer to: Paris (surname), a list of people and fictional characters Paris (given name) The Paris Commune (French: La Commune de Paris, IPA: [la kɔmyn də paʁi]) was a radical socialist and revolutionary government that ruled Paris from 18 134 KB (19,025 words) - 22:08, June 16, 2019

Paris (mythology)
Paris is the largest city and capital of France. Paris may also refer to: Paris (surname), a list of people and fictional characters Paris (given name) Paris (Ancient Greek: Πάρις), also known as Alexander (Ἀλέξανδρος, Aléxandros), the son of King Priam and Queen Hecuba of Troy, appears in a number of 14 KB (1,886 words) - 02:56, May 18, 2019

In other words, at least in the context of search results, the disambiguation information is redundant. Maybe it still helps, a little, but it's hardly enough to make it harder to find for those who type in the name and hit GO expecting to be taken to the most likely use to be sought, and find themselves at a noisy dab page instead. --В²C 16:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I think you're still talking Google web search. And as I said above, [24] you may have a point. Or not, see below.
But we want to make our search box work too. I just typed Mobile into our search box (platform: Windows 10, Google Chrome) and got a series of drop-down lists as I typed. Works well unless the article is at an ambiguous name.
Yes, if a user does what you suggest, agreeing with us as to what the term means, they'll be taken to a DAB, which you find annoying and noisy but which loads quickly and takes you to the right page with one click. Acceptable IMO.
On the other hand, if they do what you suggest and they don't agree with us on what the term means, they'll be taken to the wrong article, which may be a lot slower, and which they may may even take to mean that there is no article covering their topic... After all, they were expecting to get to it if there were, because that's what they think is the Primary Topic. Unacceptable IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Or to put this another way... while it is a very slight delay to those who type in the name and hit GO expecting to be taken to the most likely use to be sought, and find themselves at a noisy dab page instead, it's a great advantage to others, who type in the name and hit GO expecting to be taken to a different article than the one that we have (somehow, and perhaps wrongly) decided is the most likely use to be sought, and find themselves at a good DAB page rather than at the wrong article. Andrewa (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll grant you have a point with the drop-down list, but that's a relatively new feature, and not always available. I was not talking about Google search. I was talking about entering "Paris" in the WP search box and clicking on the button below it that is labeled "Search". Try it. Then you see results including the leads of the articles. I wouldn't say landing on a DAB page is unacceptable - so I agree it's acceptable - but it's less preferable than landing on the sought article. Ultimately it comes down to a very subjective assessment of the cost of landing on a dab page vs the sought article vs another article. To me it's almost binary: either you land on your sought article, or not, so optimizing to make as many users as reasonably possible land on their sought article is the priority. I don't see much cost difference between landing on a dab page or another article. But you do; from your perspective landing on a dab page is significantly preferable to landing on another article. You seem to think landing on a dab page is not much worse, if any, than landing on the sought article. So for you the priority is getting as many as reasonably possible to land on a dab page rather than on another article. Because of the differences in priorities, we favor different treatment of ambiguous names as titles accordingly. --В²C 19:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much cost difference between landing on a dab page or another article. Exactly. A DAB is short and leads with one simple mouse click to the right article. The wrong article may be long (New York State being a case in point) and may not lead to the right article. But you see this as unimportant. I am struggling to understand why. Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The AmericansEdit

General discussion of The AmericansEdit

See #Mouse click costs above and this post and subsequent discussion at wt:DAB. Andrewa (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think my latest comment at wt:DAB is worth cross-posting here in its entirety. So...

The Arericans has now been moved with the closing summary The result of the move request was: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't work per WP:PRECISION. If the article enters into the predicted slow decline and later is no longer the primary topic, the articles can be rearranged then. [25]

It will be interesting to see whether the predicted slow decline actually takes place, and what happens if it does. It's possible this will become a classic case of a move that is supported by the current policy despite not being in the best interests of readers. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And there has now been a reply at wt:DAB, by the RM closer, apparently supporting the current policy (but read it, and note that word possible which we have both used quite intentionally IMO).

My main point here is, if as predicted by opposers and acknowledged by proponents, the P T changes in the medium term, we will then have an excellent example of an actual link-breaking scenario that was predictable and easily avoided. That example might even be enough to finally initiate an RfC. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s assuming some other use of “The Americans” arises in the mid term. Very unlikely. In the mean time the award winning series will remain, by far, the most-sought topic by people searching with “the americans”. —В²C 06:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
No. It's just assuming that the current pattern of page views may change as others have predicted. We will see. Andrewa (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the 1961 TV series will probably surge in popularity on it's 75th anniversary in 2036. Of course, there is always the chance that some new use of the term will arise and will be come dominant, but that's a possibility with any term. --В²C 21:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
So, how is that assuming some other use of “The Americans” arises in the mid term? That's one possibility, but there are others. I am making no such assumption. Admit it. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
If no other use of "The Americans" arises in the mid term, then why would there be a change in the pattern of page views leading to a change in P T? Which existing use is likely to significantly rise in page views relative to the TV series? --В²C 20:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't my prediction, but it was predicted at the RM. You disagree? Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Here, by the way, are the relevant page view counts, updated to reflect the recent title change. --В²C 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
And what, in your opinion, do these show? Andrewa (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll non resultEdit

My request for a straw poll [26] drew only two respondents, one who seemed to support my opinion that the DAB wasn't nearly as bad as B2C claimed, [27] and B2C themselves. I could of course argue that this is 100% support for me, but it's too small a sample space to be significant IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

In the case of "The Americans", a dab would indeed seem best. But that doesn't mean primary topics are wrong in a more general sense. It's an unfair poster boy for the point, because it's genuinely ambiguous. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2019
Thanks, that is also relevant to User:Andrewa/P T test cases#The Americans.
Agree that it doesn't mean primary topics are wrong in a more general sense. It's just evidence of something wrong. Evidence not proof; Our rules are not perfect and that's not the goal. Perhaps this is the occasional exception. Perhaps. I need a variety of examples, not just the one.
But I'm most interested in the comment it's genuinely ambiguous. Can you give me an example of an ambiguous article name that isn't genuinely ambiguous?
I think that what you may mean is simply, there's no Primary Topic. It's another attempt to describe this concept. But interested in exploring this with you. Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
(And would also be interested in your response to the straw poll itself of course... the section has not yet been archived [28] and there are still only the two responses, so new !votes would still be welcome.) Andrewa (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Amakuru, I too am curious about what you meant by "genuinely ambiguous". If it wasn't genuinely ambiguous, then there would be no point in determining whether there is a primary topic. Right? I mean, Paris is genuinely ambiguous too, right? By the way, here are the latest page view counts for the genuinely ambiguous "The Americans". HOw is that not a primary topic? --В²C 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I think (as I said above) that genuinely ambiguous here means that there is no Primary Topic (which is of course my view and seems to be theirs too, but is not what the RM found). But any ambiguous term is genuinely ambiguous. So I would conclude, it doesn't really matter whether a Primary Topic exists, the important issues are much the same.
WP:AT reads in part The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages... (discussing small differences but I think it's a good general principle). That's the goal. And loading the wrong article is the worst possible outcome.
And following the move of the article on your much-loved TV series to the base name, that is exactly what is going to happen. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Tablet (computing)Edit

Tablet (computing) is a primary redirect to tablet computer, but is ambiguous in that it once meant graphics tablet. Better not to fix it now, but it would have been better to redirect to a DAB (such as tablet#Computing) when the term tablet (computing) became ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Cameron SmithEdit

Talk:Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983)#Requested move 30 May 2019

Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983) → Cameron Smith – Since this was moved without broad discussion, i thought i would start it. This Cameron Smith is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by guideline 1 - pageviews higher in every way except for previous one off tournament wins for the golfer which is in part due to golf receiving a wider coverage base then rugby league (i can't get the pageviews link to work in this discussion, so i've linked it in the above unofficial move discussion. Guideline 2 - "long term significance" is demonstrated by him having a longer, more highly regarded career then any of the other athletes or people named "Cameron Smith"....

Cameron Smith (disambiguation) lists nine (bluelinked) articles, five exact matches and one each of Cam, Cammy, Cammie and Smyth. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Square LegEdit

Square Leg is an article on the British civil defence post, while square leg redirects to the article on fielding in cricket. Is the civil defence post really the more likely search term, even capitalised?

WP:SMALLDIFFS (part of the article title policy) reads in part The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are usually sufficient to distinguish topics.

As swiftly as possible would seem to me to mean straight to the fielding article, with a hatnote there to catch those looking for the fielding position. But the policy is a bit vague and open to many interpretations. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is exactly right. What other interpretations is it open to? --В²C 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bazooka bikini etcEdit

It's sometimes argued that if all meanings stem from one original meaning, the original meaning is or should be primary just because of this. That clearly doesn't work for bazooka where the original is bazooka (instrument) and all other meanings stem either directly or (mostly) indirectly from this one. There are many similar examples, bikini might be another good one. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. This is another good reason to shitcan the long-term significance criteria. --В²C 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a different issue. But yes, both of these examples give the same result for popularity as for significance, so the significance criterion has no effect in those cases. Why that would be evidence that the significance criterion should be abandoned escapes me.
It would be good to have some specific examples where this origin criterion was put forward, as they'd presumably be cases where at least some people saw both the popularity and significance criteria as inadequate. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Dude, you’re uncharacteristically obtuse today. I’ll spell it out.
It's sometimes argued that if all meanings stem from one original meaning, the original meaning is or should be primary just because of this.
THAT ^^^ is the reason the historical significance criterion needs to be shitcanned. That lame argument is almost always predicated on the historical significance criterion. That it happens to not apply in the bazooka/bikini particular cases is besides the point. —В²C 07:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. And it's not even a historical significance criterion.
But the idea of replacing the current (inadequate I agree of course) P T criteria with the almost as problematic objective criteria you have repeatedly suggested is currently dead in the water, and rightly so IMO, see User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic, statistics and reasonableness. But it might even have a chance under my proposal! See User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases#What P T means. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


Oui, c'est vraiment ridicule. I love the jeu de mots in the title.

But see Talk:Ridicule#Requested move 14 August 2019 for some more serious discussion, which raises some serious issues. Again, what do we really mean by P T? No, I don't know either. Andrewa (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez and Jon SnowEdit

See Talk:Rick Sanchez#Requested move 13 August 2019.

Proposed to move DAB to base name. Jon Snow cited as precedent. Andrewa (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Docker (disambiguation) → DockerEdit

See: Talk:Docker_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_August_2019_(outcome:_no_move)

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus was to retain Docker as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Stevedore. User Colin explained one reason why: "That way 99.9% of readers will get to their target with no more than 1 extra click, and some will be taken straight to their intended destination”.

In other words, the classic PT argument. (Closed by yours truly). —В²C 05:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That is IMO an example of a requested move that would also be rejected under my proposal, just more easily and quickly. Andrewa (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Parliamentary Press GalleryEdit

See Talk:Parliamentary Press Gallery (Canada)#Requested move 21 August 2019.

There are no other articles competing for the name, and yet the base name Parliamentary Press Gallery is not a comfortable title for many it seems. Andrewa (talk)

Closed as move back to Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery. Interesting. Precision wins even though there are no other articles on Parliamentary Press Gallery, but there are other Parliamentary Press Galleries. Andrewa (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:CBD#Requested move 25 August 2019. Interesting comment re not liking P T. Andrewa (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:1000 (disambiguation)#Requested move 30 August 2019 1000 (disambiguation) → 1000

Main interest is the comments, many of prime interest to the question of whether getting to a DAB is a win or a lose. Andrewa (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


Another one for your Chamber of Horrors: Word. I've just been through the 1500-odd links-in; removed only the most egregious overlinks (e.g. English word); fixed links intended for Microsoft Word (several), Word (computer architecture) (several), Lyrics, Logos (Christianity), three songs, a publisher and a record label; and {{dn}} tagged a couple I hadn't a clue about. Sigh. [29]

Yes, another good example. Tempted to raise it as an RM... probably no P T in this case, even by our current standards. But I did say probably, as we don't have any clear definition of P T and are not likely to get one anytime soon. Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


See Talk:Aurangabad, Maharashtra#Requested move 2 September 2019. Seems likely to be accepted, as Aurangabad, Maharashtra seems to be the clear Primary Topic. But there is no benefit to the move, and it makes our article titling a little less logical, so it may lead to trouble. Andrewa (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ]

Nord PoolEdit

See Talk:Nord Pool AS#Requested move 2 September 2019 Nord Pool ASNord Pool

NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe was formerly at the base name, so wp:incoming external links will be broken. But presumably the hatnote will stay, so only one mouse click involved. Andrewa (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Off-label useEdit

Article currently starts off Off-label use is the use of pharmaceutical drugs for an unapproved indication or in an unapproved age group, dosage, or route of administration... No mention of the US. But the sidebar is Template:Regulation of therapeutic goods in the United States, and there's a template:Globalize pointing out the discrepancy.

The point here is, if the scope of this article is the US, then the name is ambiguous. But should it be disambiguated? Would moving it to Off-label use (United States) be acceptable (ignoring for the moment what to do with the section on the UK)?

I would have said no, even if the article is US-specific that's unnecessary disambiguation. But after recent discussion at wt:DAB, now I'm not so sure. Andrewa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Dinosaur RidgeEdit

Talk:Dinosaur Ridge#Requested move 15 September 2019 Dinosaur Ridge → Dinosaur Ridge (Colorado)

This is a reverted BOLD move with edit summary: "There are three articles with the name dinosaur ridge, so I plan to create a disambiguation."

Contested technical request following the reverted bold move. Of the three articles, the one at the base name is a clear P T by pageviews and probably by significance as well, and the other two are stubs with references and possibilities. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Rangpur, Bangladesh#Requested move 1 October 2019

Rangpur, Bangladesh → Rangpur
Rangpur → Rangpur (disambiguation)

Rangpur, Bangladesh does appear to be P T, but is it really helpful to have it at an ambiguous name? Andrewa (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Invasion of the Body SnatchersEdit

Talk:Invasion of the Body Snatchers#Requested move 13 October 2019
Invasion of the Body SnatchersInvasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 film)

I'm involved, could not resist. Again, how is the ambiguous title of any benefit? Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Accius#Requested move 9 October 2019

Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Ass#Requested move 24 October 2019

Ass → ASS (disambiguation) – so that ass be redirected to buttocks.

No support, but it's the reasons that are interesting... the consensus seems to be if in doubt, put the DAB at the base name. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Karen LeeEdit

Talk:Karen Lee (politician)#Requested move 28 October 2019

Karen Lee (politician) → Karen Lee
Karen Lee → Karen Lee (disambiguation)
More views than all the others combined

If we did move it to the base name (which seems unlikely at this stage), there's a risk of later moving another article to the base name, creating mislinkings. I'm a bit surprised that Karen Lee isn't a more common name, only three entries at the DAB so far. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Die YoungEdit

Talk:Die Young (Kesha song)#Requested move 29 October 2019

Die Young (Kesha song) → Die Young
Die Young → Die Young (disambiguation)
– Kesha's song takes priority over all the other topics combined. [30]

Fascinating comment by In ictu oculi: Will removing the artist name help Kesha fans find it? [31] I of course believe that it will hinder them if anything, see User:Andrewa/advantages and disadvantages of ambiguous article titles.

While I've chosen not to get involved in this RM, it's interesting to note that while the DAB currently lists two other songs, it doesn't even mention the Billy Joel song Only the Good Die Young which is possibly a more likely title to be sought as Die Young than any of the three listed, or the Queen song No-One but You (Only the Good Die Young) which would also attract some traffic. Andrewa (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Melanie MartinezEdit

Talk:Melanie Martinez (singer)#Requested move 29 October 2019

Melanie Martinez (singer)Melanie MartinezWP:TWODABS. Actress pales in notability.[32]

But note the previous move

12:47, 27 September 2015‎ talk contribs block‎ m  6,058 bytes 0‎ moved page Melanie Martinez to Melanie Martinez (actress): dab 

so assuming this goes ahead as seems likely we'll have swapped one article for another at the base name, breaking incoming external links. Andrewa (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Now this is a fascinating one. Talk:Amil (rapper)#Requested move 21 October 2019

Amil (rapper) → Amil – Primary topic She is also the only mononymous Amil.

It's worth noting two previous moves:

00:15, 23 September 2010‎ JohnCengiz77 talk contribs block‎  28 bytes +28‎  moved Amil to Amil Whitehead: To make way for dab page. 
05:48, 17 January 2011‎ Live and Die 4 Hip Hop talk contribs block‎  27 bytes +27‎  moved Amil Whitehead to Amil (rapper)

So, she's just going home to the original name. No great damage done, but what was the point?

She had one hit, twenty years ago, Can I Get A... which seems mainly notable for the censoring of the F word, and in which she didn't even get top billing, that understandably went to Jay-Z. She doesn't seem to have appeared on any of his other hits. Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jean KellyEdit

Talk:Jean Kelly (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 October 2019

Jean Kelly (disambiguation) → Jean Kelly – The actress' stage name is not "Jean Kelly", but Jean Louisa Kelly per her website, IMDb, Facebook, Instagram, Spotify, Twitter, etc. No need for redirecting Jean Kelly to Jean Louisa Kelly when it can serve as the dab page base name.

Three supports and three opposes so far, all from old hands. But interestingly, the nom and support !votes seem pragmatic rather than policy-based. It may be worth pinging these after the RM closes. Andrewa (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


Talk:Gutenberg#Requested move 30 October 2019

Gutenberg → Gutenberg (disambiguation) – Johannes Gutenberg is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Gutenberg

Mixed support but seems correct... if we just say Gutenberg we mean Johannes in nearly all contexts. However the DAB has fifteen entries, two of them formal disambiuations, so it's not P T in all contexts.

The question then is the pragmatic one. Does this RM help anyone? Does it hinder anyone? My answers are Yes, a little and Yes, a lot, respectively. Andrewa (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


More to this one than you might think. See Talk:Alp (folklore)#Requested move 22 October 2019. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios".