Talk:Call My Bluff

comments
Removed "based on the US radio game show Says You!" because Call My Bluff is older than Says You. The parlor game of Fictionary inspired both, and has been around for a long time. FreplySpang (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Although both shows started in 1965. The US show started at the beginning of the year whereas the UK show started later in the year. The BBC and ITV bought in many Goodson quiz shows, including Call My Bluff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.140.52 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved as primary topic, dab with hatnote per WP:TWODABS -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Call My Bluff (UK game show) → Call My Bluff – As the US version only lasted a few months, but the UK version became a hardy perennial of British TV, it is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose loss of harmless and useful precision. Consider the needs of worldwide readers. Many do not know that this is even a game show, even before the question of location arises. N oetica Tea? 02:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:PRECISION. Noetica, I have noticed that several of your comments recently have been arguing against this guideline.  Why?  Also, it's not harmless.  If, as seems likely, the large majority of people are looking for the UK game show, the current setup forces them to go through an extra article. PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not argue against the core idea in that provision, Pat. I argue against its detail (incrementally altered by a small minority of ideologues), as many others have done and continue to do. And I argue against what I see as thoughtless application of that provision – indeed, of any titling provision, especially any that is clearly contested and widely misused. I appeal instead immediately to the interests of readers. That is quite in order at RM discussions. Or do you think that the interests of readers are not of primary importance? (Answer at my talkpage if you like; it's not specific to the discussion here.)
 * As for the substance in your comment, you do not demonstrate that most users have to go through an extra page to find what they want, nor even that many have to. The pageview stats contradict you:
 * "Call My Bluff has been viewed 1334 times in the last 90 days."
 * "Call My Bluff (UK game show) has been viewed 7737 times in the last 90 days."
 * So under the present arrangement, the great majority who end up at Call My Bluff (UK game show) get there without going through the DAB page Call My Bluff.
 * Your response to that point, please? And your argument to show how your proposed change (with loss of precision) would direct readers better than the present arrangement?
 * ☺♪♥ N oetica Tea? 00:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may...there's one more relevant page here.
 * "Call My Bluff (US game show) has been viewed 772 times in the last 90 days."
 * If we can safely assume that few people are actively searching for a dab page, that means that under the current setup, somewhere around 1,334 people were initially misdirected before finding the page they wanted. If we change the setup to that requested here (the UK show at the base name, with a hatnote to the US show), then a maximum of 772 people would have been initially misdirected - and probably many fewer, as it is unlikely that every person who found the US show page first went to the dab page. Of course, these numbers are not absolute - but it does tend to show that the requested setup will result in roughly 50% fewer misdirections - or at the minimum, that the requested arrangement is better for the readership as a whole than the current one. Yes? Dohn joe (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The US game show pageview stats are indeed relevant, and I only omitted them to keep the focus sharply on what Pat was claiming. Now let's look at the new points here:
 * "'If we can safely assume that few people are actively searching for a dab page, ...'"
 * That's generally a safe enough assumption, sure. It is in the nature of DAB pages to be found by people who are looking for something more specific, so that they can be helped.
 * "'... that means that under the current setup, somewhere around 1,334 people were initially misdirected before finding the page they wanted.'"
 * No, it means that a small proportion of the total of enquiries many of which were aimed at the two more specific topics (but not all; see below), passed through a DAB page: (1334 + 774) / 7737, or about 27%. (That is quite rough, because of the vagaries of the pageview facility and other reasons for viewing the pages in question: clicking on them from a watchlist, or going there with intent to edit, etc.) So for the 27% who did not find something from a Wikipedia search prompt or a Google result with the precise title they were after, the DAB page performed its function in the normal way.
 * Note that an indeterminate proportion of viewers of the DAB page would not proceed beyond it. Like me, for example, they might have had no idea about the intended meaning nor any idea that there was a game show called "Call My Bluff". They might have seen a bare allusion somewhere using that phrase, and the information at the DAB page would have satisfied them. So the numbers used here are even less reliable than they had seemed.
 * "If we change the setup to that requested here (the UK show at the base name, with a hatnote to the US show), then a maximum of 772 people would have been initially misdirected - and probably many fewer, as it is unlikely that every person who found the US show page first went to the dab page."
 * No. What would people see when they progressively type "Call My Bl..." into the search box on Wikipedia? If they are looking for the UK game show, they will not see a prompt for it. If they are just wondering what the phrase means, they will see a prompt that tells them nothing, and one that gives them the misleading impression that the defunct US game show is prominent – because it is specially named! Only those who are looking for the defunct US game show are well served, since they can confidently accept the prompt for Call My Bluff (US game show). Now note: another prompt appears, for the article Call My Bluff (game). That redirects to Liar's dice. Pageviews for that page:
 * "Liar's dice has been viewed 28675 times in the last 90 days."
 * I have added that page to this DAB page now. It appears that the situation is far more complex than we had thought, and the figures we worked with are even more seriously compromised than it had seemed. The best prospect for clarity and for serving the needs of all enquirers still seems to be the present arrangement, since it yields informative prompts for everyone. What would happen to people enquiring after "Liar's dice", but who searched for it under "Call my Bluff"? Many of them would be seriously misdirected under the proposed dispensation. Many would select the bare uninformative prompt "Call my Bluff", which would take them to an article about a UK game show! As things stand, they would not end up at that unwanted page. They can very reasonably select "Call My Bluff (game)", which is distinguished in the prompts from the unwanted alternatives.
 * "'... / Yes?'"
 * No.
 * N oetica Tea? 03:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC) ☺
 * Another layer of the onion is peeled back - but there's more! Did you know that you can see stats for redirect pages? To wit:
 * "Call My Bluff (game) has been viewed 293 times in the last 90 days."
 * Which means we can throw the Liar's dice stats to the side and take a look at the (now hopefully complete) "Call My Bluff" article universe. Which looks like this:
 * "Call My Bluff (UK game show) has been viewed 7737 times in the last 90 days."
 * "Call My Bluff - the current dab page - has been viewed 1334 times in the last 90 days."
 * "Call My Bluff (US game show) has been viewed 772 times in the last 90 days."
 * "Call My Bluff (game) has been viewed 293 times in the last 90 days."
 * Which alters the underlying numbers, but not the result of my first analysis. What we find is that approximately (772+293)=1,065 people went to the US game show or the dice game pages. 7,737 people went to the UK game show page. (Which by itself more than satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but we're looking for even further confirmation here.) We also have 1,334 people who went to the dab page.
 * Even in the most extreme case - where everyone who ever went to one of the minor pages went through the dab page - that leaves some number of people (even allowing for editing visits and other vagaries) who went to the dab page who otherwise would have gone directly to the UK game show page. Letting the requested move proceed can only reduce that number, while presumably not affecting the minor-page searchers (the same people in that group who went to "Call My Bluff" as a dab page would presumably go to "Call My Bluff" as an article page - and be redirected correctly in both cases, whether via dab page or hatnote). That's an overall benefit to the reading experience.
 * Also, I have to disagree that a parenthetical indicates prominence - surely it's the reverse? If you type "Winston Churchill" into the search box, you get one bare entry and several entries with extra info - "(grandson)"; "(novelist)"; and "(1620-1688)", among others. Wouldn't you assume from that list that the plain "Winston Churchill" is the Winston Churchill? Dohn joe (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I have to disagree that a parenthetical indicates prominence - surely it's the reverse? If you type "Winston Churchill" into the search box, you get one bare entry and several entries with extra info - "(grandson)"; "(novelist)"; and "(1620-1688)", among others. Wouldn't you assume from that list that the plain "Winston Churchill" is the Winston Churchill? Dohn joe (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The UK show is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Call My Bluff". And no disambiguation page is needed where there are just two entries, per WP:TWODABS; all we need is a hatnote about the US show in the UK article. Dohn joe (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per Dohn joe. Clear primary topic and the dab page is rather unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Agree with Pat, Dohn and PC78. Once again, Noetica seems to be arguing for adding parenthetical descriptors to any article that is not universally known – in clear contradiction of the relevant policy and guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have answered that once: see above. You too can take such a general point to my talkpage, if you want to follow it up. ☺ N oetica Tea? 00:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Noetica, as there are three entries on the dab page, I don't see why you're trying to delete it. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The third entry, Liar dice, has only been added a short time ago. However, reading this article, I see no mention that this game is known as "Call my bluff" to any extent, the nearest mention is that the German version is known as "Bluff".  It does not alter the judgement that the UK game show is the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is nothing like an adequate response to the detailed analysis I provide above. Please may we have that? (I had already asked for a response earlier, note.) And then, so what if I just now added the third entry? Clearly it ought to be there, in a DAB page. The redirect Call My Bluff (game) (to Liar's dice) has existed since 2005! It should have been searched for and considered at the very start of this RM discussion. If that has not happened, it is wise – and a good look! – to respond graciously and flexibly to new evidence, yes? ☺ N oetica Tea? 10:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly adequate response. The addition of "Liar's Dice" at best only legitimises the dab page, it doesn't affect the main argument of primary usage. PC78 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.