Talk:50%

Redirect, or disambiguation?
The album is not a hugely well known one, nor the song, so I propose that it is simply a redirect to One-Half. Maybe there could be an "Other Uses" template on the One Half page instead? --66.80.12.66 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that no articles link to this page, that it was originally created as a redirect to the album article, and that there is a sustained campaign of apparent vandalism against this page, I see no benefit to changing this to a redirect except as a validation of the efforts of the serial vandals. - Dravecky (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I have created a priority then so that One Half and this album are not suggested as similar. Also adding a Notice to the album article.--66.80.12.66 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please leave this formatted per the Manual of Style. I'm assuming good faith here but this humble little article has come under repeated attack from anonymous and single-purpose accounts so I'm understandably leery when a brand new IP user shows up to edit who matches the editing pattern of all the vandals of the past few weeks. - Dravecky (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that leaving it as a disambiguation page is the best solution (using WP:MOSDAB). Given the anon and new user account edit warring, there's certainly disagreement on the primary meaning, so neither should be set as the "primary".  And given that there are only two links, there's no value in cluttering the screen with extra sub-headers around each single link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change
I think part of the dispute may be caused by the second entry not making it immediately clear that that entry is a musical track. What about changing it to:

That still fits within WP guidelines; would that wording be more acceptable to everyone? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say "a musical track" rather than "musical track" but it's certainly acceptable wording. - Dravecky (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect to One half based on evidence and guidelines
I've looked back over the recent edit history. It's pretty clear some kind of disambiguation is desired by those editing the article. I've seen several formats offered, from a simple 2-bullet-point list to a more broken-down list. Any of them look fine to me. If there is a style guide for disambig pages where there are only two completely unrelated meanings of approximately equal weight, they should be followed. However, it looks like the weight is not equal - it leans more favorably to One half. This would argue for a redirect and a hat-note at the top of One half linking to the album. See Hatnotes, Disambiguation, and Redirect for guidelines on when to use a disambiguation page and when one is not necessary.

Article statistics:
 * One half: here - several dozen a day in June, for a total of 1646. June is the last month with complete statistics.
 * Just Like the Fambly Cat here - a few dozen a day in June, 947 for the month.
 * 50%: here - a few a day in June, 53 for month.

Since most views of the album are probably not people looking for that track, it's very likely that One half is the dominant article of the two. With this in mind I recommend a redirect to One half and appropriate hat-notes. Since this is contentious, there should be discussion before anyone makes this change. Now is not the time to be bold. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - if you tally total page views of the two targets (1279 + 1083 = 2362), then the One half article is receiving 54% of the traffic, while the musical album is receiving 46% of the traffic. Close enough to even that I think a disambig page is justified here - and close enough that I don't believe that either should be listed as a "primary" topic. .  I do agree that the original form of this page (it was a redirect to the album for nearly two years) was incorrect - but I think making it a redirect to One half is taking the fix too far in the other direction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (note: partial comment stricken by author because numbers used in reply do not match stats - an edit had been made to update the stats just prior to this reply being posted) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Complete data is hard to gather. It's impossible to know with certainty how many people are going to the album because they are looking for information on that track, how many people are going to the album because they are looking for information on one of the 14 other tracks, or how many people are going to the album because they are looking for information on the album.  The only real way to know for sure would be to do live experiments, which would be disruptive.  Bear in mind, the data period of June 2008 includes the time when 50% linked to the album as a redirect.  This means that 53 of the album's 947 views were for people who typed in 50% and got redirected.  This is such a small fraction of either 947 or 1646 that this discussion may be a tempest in a teapot.  This small fraction supports the argument that only a small portion of those 947 are looking specifically for this album.  Unfortunately for me, supporting an argument is not the same as proving it. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article lived quietly as a redirect to the album from creation on October 3, 2006 until the recent July 31, 2008 spate of vandalism. Perhaps I was too clever in creating this disambiguation page as a response to the edit war and I'd hate to see what would amount to a victory of sorts for the vandals if this were to no longer point to the album article. Further, it would make for an awkward hat note on the one half article and some enterprising editor is likely to "clean it up" by removing it in the future.  Given that precisely no mainspace articles point to 50% at present and traffic to the two pages is roughly equivalent, I see no direct benefit in removing the disambiguation page while I do see several problems, both immediate and potential, and therefore would oppose this alteration. - Dravecky (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By "vandals" I assume you refer to me, I do not consider myself a vandal I strongly believe that One Half is a more likely result for 50% than an obscure album track, in fact I was looking for one half when searching for 50%. At the time that was a plain redirect to this album which was plainly wrong, so on that level I am very pleased we have a disambiguation page that at least acknowledges the 50% option, but I can't think of anyone who would search for 50% and expect this album; most people searching for song tracks would search the album unless the song was highly well known. Furthermore, One Half is an encyclopaedic article, part of fractions which is staple to any encyclopedia, by contrast albums are more exclusive to Wikipedia which is good but I think traditionally encyclopedic content should always take priority. Finally, I would highlight the hundreds of other articles that redirect to actual items rather than albums. There are song titles based on almost every word now - but even the most well known songs only get a "X could also refer to..." on the target, not a disambiguation page. I seriously question the notability of the song "50%", and I feel that album only just scrapes under the wire. Thanks... --71.92.174.206 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, by "vandals" I mean 83.67.56.138, 82.5.173.251, Fj2fn29fk29k9, 19838j819j91, CJF2F2NF29J, and 66.80.12.66 who have all targeted this tiny peaceful little article, seemingly out of nowhere, as a subject of their mischief in the last two weeks after a total of zero edits to it in the preceding 22 months. Two are IP addresses in the UK, three are essentially single purpose accounts created for vandalism purposes, and one is the IP of a hotel in California.  If you wish to assert that you are any of these editors, I will take that into consideration when formulating an apology. - Dravecky (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add my 2c about the "X could also refer to..." which I believe is officially known as a "hatenote", a hatnote to a song called 50% for users to navigated to the One Half article without going through 50% would be out of place (seems kinda abstract to jump from "One Half" to a song named 50% as an in-page disambiguation. So I guess I feel it's either a disambiguation page or a redirect. Except I think a disambiguation page with only two items is out of place. I guess "Davidwr" put it into perspective when he mentioned just how few hits this article gets, so maybe it's a fuss about nothing. But a decision still has to be made, so... (steps back!) By the way I would like to reiterate that I am not a vandal, I am clearly not very used to the editing rules/styles... but I do feel strongly about this one thing, I've always used Wikipedia to browse, I searched for 50% in the hope of an article on 1/2, got this weird album, and hey presto, this whole business started as I thought I would try my hand at editing, if I went about it the wrong way then I'm sorry.--71.92.174.206 (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've touched on my primary objection to converting this to a redirect: it would result in a hat note on One half that is in relation to the redirect (that would by all indications be rarely used) rather than being related to the title of the actual article. If you assume for the sake of argument that all 53 hits to this page were actually looking for the One half article, that's still only 3% of the volume of the One half article - the vast majority who go to the One half article would have gone directly to it rather than ever touching on this page. Why give reference via a hat note to the music track that is irrelevant to 97% of that article's traffic?  By keeping this a disambig page, that result can be avoided. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Odd correlation
I've noticed an odd correlation between users that try against consensus to turn this into a redirect and those that vandalize the Sandpit article. Why this should be so, I cannot say. - Dravecky (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But I agree it should direct to 50%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.129.4 (talk • contribs) 04:52, January 5, 2009
 * Note: The above anon originally posted above claiming to be Jimbo Wales here; I converted it to the unsigned template. Incidentally, the anon proceeded to vandalize the Sandpit article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit immature, even for you. Do you not concede?189.148.129.4 (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean bloody hell, are you watching the 50% page then???--189.148.129.4 (talk) 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barek is just one of many defending the encyclopedia from anonymous vandals. - Dravecky (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...and the latest spurt of vandalism to this page also saw the IP vandal take a few swipes at Sandpit. I mean, seriously, what the heck? Maybe it's time to permanently semi-protect this page just to make it less tempting for IP vandals. - Dravecky (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Forcing view of page
Don't bother Barek. Remmeber also I work for a gateway. I have thousands of IPs at my disposal. You won't win this. --86.135.121.102 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous, this page ought to be protected in my opinion. It isn't an important page so the chances of bothering serious anonymous users are zero. Pietrow (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, I can create accounts too moron. I have access to literally thousands of IPs belonging to others around this contrary because of where I work. Ban me, IP ban me, Mass ban me, I'll just be back. The only way to stop this is to LET ME EDIT THIS PAGE HOW I WANT. morons.86.135.121.102 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The page can be semi-protected; and in the face of persistent vandalism, fully protected. It has been done with other pages in the past.  Forcing one's own view over community consensus is not the way to make a change, and just draws more attention from others to help protect the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)