Talk:Middle Kingdom

Araling panlipunan
Kahulugan ng MIDDLE KINGDOM 2001:4453:633:9200:2400:22ED:E7E7:3C59 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

DAB Reversion
As there was no reversion reason provided, you've been pinged here. A WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, for "Middle Kingdom" in this instance, is valid for a redirect to the topic article and for the creation of a formal DAB page. This is in line with similar moniker pages like "Land of the Rising Sun," which was afforded a formal DAB page. There is not much else to say here as I see it for disputing conforming a page to that standard. 21:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Sleath56


 * You performed a cut and paste moved which is strongly discouraged. Beyond that, I don't see any obvious evidence that the Chinese Middle Kingdom has any greater claim to being primary topic than the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. If you think that there is a primary topic, then please read the instructions at WP:Requested moves and start a move discussion to establish consensus to properly move the disambiguation page and replace it with a redirect. older ≠ wiser 02:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see it through policy, all RM are page moves but not all page moves are RM. BRD precludes the necessity of a RM process insofar as a move is uncontroversial (see WP:NOTRM) and my original edit was entirely in proper line on a procedural basis, which is quite plain to editorial assessment. RM by policy is not meant as a first resort for such BRD moves and I don't see this as a controversial page transfer.
 * Procedurals aside, the measures for ascertaining Primary Topic all stand in the transfer's favour per the accessible statistics:
 * On WikiNav, this is the unambiguous principal outgoing traffic. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Middle_Kingdom. This metric satisfies WP:PT1: "the highly likely to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."
 * On Google, "Middle Kingdom of China" as a search result receives 708M results, while that of "Egypt Middle Kingdom" receives 360M. For this metric, the gap is almost double, a clear indication of its primacy.
 * 1: https://www.google.com/search?q=middle+kingdom+of+china&sca_esv=563475517&ei=wRn6ZPvVH7uC0PEPgOixwAs&ved=0ahUKEwi7uoTck5mBAxU7ATQIHQB0DLgQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=middle+kingdom+of+china&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiF21pZGRsZSBraW5nZG9tIG9mIGNoaW5hMgYQABgHGB4yCBAAGAgYBxgeMggQABgIGAcYHjIIEAAYCBgHGB4yCBAAGAgYBxgeSK8IUIMFWJcHcAF4AZABAJgBaqABzQGqAQMxLjG4AQPIAQD4AQHCAgoQABhHGNYEGLADwgIKEAAYigUYsAMYQ8ICDhAAGOQCGNYEGLAD2AEBwgIQEC4YigUYyAMYsAMYQ9gBAsICBxAAGA0YgATCAgYQABgeGA3iAwQYACBBiAYBkAYTugYGCAEQARgJugYGCAIQARgI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
 * 2: https://www.google.com/search?q=middle+kingdom+of+egypt&sca_esv=563475517&ei=2h_6ZPyrLsCS0PEP8rOQiAo&ved=0ahUKEwj8gL_EmZmBAxVACTQIHfIZBKEQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=middle+kingdom+of+egypt&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiF21pZGRsZSBraW5nZG9tIG9mIGVneXB0MggQABiKBRiRAjIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB5IhQ9Qe1idDnACeAGQAQCYAXOgAdgHqgEDOC4zuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICCBAAGIoFGIYDwgIFEC4YgATiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
 * Given such, the supposition that there is no "obvious evidence" of "greater claim" is inaccurate. Sleath56 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- -- no, you made a cut and paste move which is strongly discouraged as it disrupts edit history and attribution. THAT was the main reason I reverted. The question of whether or not there is a primary topic is something yet to be determined and would typically be established through an RM discussion. |Names_of_China|Middle_Kingdom_of_Egypt|Middle_kingdoms_of_India page views show more ambiguity than wikinav data and WP:PT1 is only one criterion in any case. Consideration of long-term significance typically requires engagement from participants familiar with the areas. I stand by my statement that there isn't  older ≠ wiser 21:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the initial necessity of RM, a point which is important to clarify, as there is no such necessity on an editorial guideline basis. Typically, a move like this is considered a WP:BOLDMOVE. This is a valid procedural action and the vast majority of moves in practice are such non-RM moves.
 * I don't see the distinct relevance of overall page views to the particular discussion of determining a primary topic. That determination isn't decided by which topic is more "popular" in general but rather which topic is more commonly associated with the disambiguation in question. The pageviews UI is unable to provide a contribution to this. What does however, is the Google citation I've listed, which does satisfy the latter context of association popularity, showing a clear primary topic through that metric of, as stated, nearly double the hits. The point of highlighting pageviews in WP:DPT was if two topics with the same name existed such that Wikipedia page traffic could contribute to PT discussions, such as the notable Georgia disambiguation debate.
 * WP:PT1 is not the only criterion but the predominant one in this context. For a case like this, WP:PT2 is a rarely implementable guideline that cannot be deterministic on its own without quantifiable metrics which WP:PT1 provides for. Through this, I have not seen a disambiguation discussion argued on the point of WP:PT2 without the reliance on WP:PT1 when the disambiguation is between topics in the same general category, such as monikers in this instance. Sleath56 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. You made a cut and paste move. That was simply wrong. WP:BOLDMOVE is not even relevant since you did not actually move the page but only cut and pasted the contents. Regardless, your bold error has been reverted. Based on how you've approached this up to this point, I very much doubt you will see any success in convincing me otherwise. And I very much doubt that I will change your mind. If you want to see the page move, I suggest you need to start an WP:RM discussion to establish consensus. older ≠ wiser 01:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to engage in this discussion, though it is at your prerogative to step away if you feel that is indeed necessary. Per your original statement: "If you think that there is a primary topic, then please read the instructions at WP:Requested moves and start a move discussion to establish consensus to properly move the disambiguation page and replace it with a redirect."
 * This was an inaccurate initial citation of WP:RM, which allows for WP:BOLDMOVE, presented I believe on a reflexive ground. Finding fault with the aforementioned move on technical grounds of not using the move tool is valid. Claiming that WP:RM is a measure of first resort, the gist of your response as I have interpreted, an interpretation which you have not denied, is not based on editorial policy guidelines.
 * I don't see any reason why the prior discussion up to this point renders any further discussion on-topic regarding the primary topic character of the page to be "unconvincing" as you surmise. You've expressed a position beyond just technical grounds of page moving on this nature, and I've responded to your utility of pageviews in kind with a, as I see it, reasonable rebuttal. If there's a fault in the manner of argumentation that makes the arguments presented unconvincing, I'd be interested in having that spelled out. Otherwise, I don't think merely being presented with a response to be an indication that "minds cannot be changed." Sleath56 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are entirely missing the point. WP:BOLDMOVE is not applicable because you DID NOT MOVE the page -- you performed a cut and paste of the page contents. Perhaps if you had actually moved the pages properly we might not even be having this discussion. As it is, you did not, I reverted you, and on further examination I am not convinced there is a strong case for a primary topic. For you at this point, if you still want to move this page, I suggest you need to start an RM discussion to establish consensus. older ≠ wiser 17:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure the counterfactuals of "what would happen if X didn't" are relevant, nor what the point of vocalising such a tangent is. If the move is genuinely disputable on Primary Topic grounds, regardless of the technical validity of the move itself, it should be reverted nonetheless. The assumption that a move improper to editorial standards should remain if it "escapes" secondary review is flawed and inappropriate. However, it's good to see a retraction of the assertion that RM is a measure of first resort, which your initial reflexive response presented.
 * My principal interest is pedagogical in a clarification of what would signify for you in your view as an indication of primary topic status if two major metrics such as WikiNav and Google, although not singularly authoritative nonetheless two significant sources that have widely been utilised in PT discussions, present such a clear result. (The vast majority for WikiNav traffic and almost double for Google Search, as a reminder). By your own words, you maintain that you oppose a move based on PT grounds and as such I'd invite for you to provide an elaboration of your perspective, as you have not yet done so. Sleath56 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You continue to misunderstand. I think you would have been better off going to RM as a first recourse as this is not uncontroversial. In general, I prefer to see a fairly high standard for primary topic. First off, I do not accept that the Chinese Middle Kingdom unequivocally wins on PT1 criteria (for example I get completely different numbers from the google search links you provided: 978,000,000 for China and 891,000,000 which suggests perhaps you overlooked the instruction in WP:DPT: ). And |Names_of_China|Middle_Kingdom_of_Egypt|Middle_kingdoms_of_India page views show no significant difference. Then there is PT2 which you seem to be somewhat dismissive of, but which is very important for many editors, and which is why an RM discussion is nearly always the best course whenever there is even the tiniest bit of conflicting evidence. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although it's a positive that the invitation for elaboration has been acknowledged, it doesn't seem like you've really read my previous responses and as such, I'd reciprocate the concern of misunderstanding on your part. Pageviews is not a reliable metric in this case, as this is not a Georgia (state) v. Georgia (country) style DAB where, as already addressed above, "two topics with the same name existed such that Wikipedia page traffic could contribute to PT discussions" through their titles. I've objected to the assumption of PT2 as principal or overriding in this particular case - and still do - for, as I've said above, "I have not seen a disambiguation discussion argued on the point of WP:PT2 without the reliance on WP:PT1 when the disambiguation is between topics in the same general category, such as monikers in this instance."
 * Once again, returning to procedurals, the suggestion and assumption that RM is a measure of first resort policy-wise is simply inaccurate. I can only say that your perspective on the matter fails to line with editorial guideline, which provisions for WP:BOLDMOVE. You have seen evidence provided for the move which indicate the lack of necessity for an initial assumption of conflict. The dismissal of valid metrics such as WikiNav in favour, twice, of citing Pageviews, whose output is insufficient for this particular case, makes dubious conduct on the force of your argumentation.
 * However, your reasoning on the margin of error in the Google Search metric is the one that makes a fair point. Subsequent inquiry on my end with a VPN shows the numbers diverge with fuzzing based on a location basis from 1,650,000:726,000 (London) to 837,000:573,000 (Manchester), which is rather curious and eye-opening given the often decisive role afforded to Search and Search Scholar by most editors in DAB RM arguments. As such, I would agree that investigation is required on the applicability of Google Search as a valid metric on a PT1 argument basis in a move such as this, and so, I'm willing to withdraw the case for a move at this time. Sleath56 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You've said nothing new and continue to misunderstand policies and practices and misrepresent what I've said. I've nothing further to say. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)