Talk:Second Avenue

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

2nd Avenue (disambiguation) → 2nd Avenue – Proposed title is currently a redirect to 2nd Avenue (television channel). I contend that there is no obvious primary topic (as indicated by the fact that Second Avenue already redirects here), and so this disambiguation page should be at the base name. Powers T 15:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The televison network or channel has been at 2nd Avenue since April 2007 with no problem until an undiscussed move on 31 Dec 2011. The only other use of "2nd Avenue" as an article title is for 2nd Avenue (album), which gets a small fraction of the pageviews of the TV station/network. Second Avenue is not identical as an article title, and already redirects to the dab page, so is not in conflict as a title, and needs to be disambiguated from 2nd Avenue only through use of a hatnote to avoid confusion, same as if there were a difference in capitalization or punctuation. The TV channel/network is apparently written using the numeral while Manhattan avenues are almost always written out in words in reliable sources, so chances are only a minority searching for one topic are likely to search for the other title. In any case, the TV channel gets more views than the Manhattan street, even after subtracting people who click on the dab page. In short, the TV network or channel is primary use for "2nd Avenue" although not for "Second Avenue", so converting 2nd Avenue to a dab page will likely inconvenience more people than it will help. Station1 (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really think the average user is aware that "2nd Avenue" is the TV station while "Second Avenue" is a street name? Powers T 19:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think users landing on 2nd Avenue are more likely expecting the TV channel/network than the street, which is supported by pageview statistics, but that's not the main point. The point is that "2nd Avenue" is the best name for the channel/network and "Second Avenue" is the best name for the street, and because they're not identical, both can exist simultaneously as titles. Whoever lands on "2nd Avenue" looking for the street could click on a hatnote link as easily as they could click on a dab page link, but without inconveniencing the majority. Last month, they amounted to no more than about 15% of readers and likely many fewer. Station1 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because they can exist simultaneously as titles doesn't mean they should. And users landing on the article now will be even more likely than before to be expecting it; it's likely a small effect, since most visitors were likely coming via the many incoming links from TV shows, and there will be no change there.  I'd bet that people who actually type "2nd Avenue" are mostly not looking for the TV channel, but I don't know any way to get stats on that.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that "just because" something can be, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. But in this particular case, I've pointed out the benefit to most readers of 2nd Avenue and Second Avenue both existing, and see no compelling argument why they shouldn't. It's not as if they were randomly interchangeable forms; the TV article would not be at Second Avenue and the street would not be at 2nd Avenue even if the other article didn't exist. I do agree that the effect will be relatively small (I think that's due more to readers coming in via google than incoming links, but that's beside the point). Station1 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that a majority of readers of the English Wikipedia are familiar with Philippine TV networks. Powers T 13:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly agree, but that's in no way relevant. The question is what the majority of readers landing on the title "2nd Avenue" are familiar with. Station1 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even among that subset, I find it hard to believe, and Dicklyon has pointed out the problem with the data you've presented as evidence. Powers T 22:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But why do you find it hard to believe? I've explained why I believe it to be true, even if it may be counterintuitive to someone unfamiliar with the topics, but I don't think you've explained why it isn't true. Also, to what problem with the data are you referring? Station1 (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Philippine television is not a topic that comes up for discussion in most English-speaking societies. It's just not on the radar.  You can't go by page hits and suggest that most people expect "2nd Avenue" to mean the TV station because page hits are influenced by incoming links.  The question is what someone searching for "2nd Avenue" expects to find.  The idea that the average person searching for that phrase is likely to be expecting a page on something that isn't a street just makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Powers T 15:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * English is spoken in the Philippines, so I suspect many views come from there. We should avoid geographic bias and consider expectations on a worldwide basis. Station1 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. On a worldwide basis, the term is ambiguous. It is only within the context of the Philippines that it is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If 1200 readers are not astonished that 2nd Avenue is about TV while 100 readers are astonished, it shouldn't matter whether all 1200 live on the same block in Manila or are scattered on every continent. That's what I meant by geographic bias. I could have said global, whole-world, or borderless instead of worldwide to perhaps be clearer. Station1 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And these numbers are being pulled out of which orifice? Granted, you've made clear your assumptions regarding the distinction between "2nd" and "Second", which others, including myself dispute, but there are other ways to speculate about what the traffic statistics mean. For instance, since the TV channel page was moved, its page view statistics have dropped by roughly 10 to 20 percent (although it may be too soon to draw conclusions). older ≠ wiser 13:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The numbers are rough estimates just meant to illustrate my explanation of geographic bias. But since you ask, they are based on December pageviews: 2nd Avenue had 1270 views (below its average, btw). 2nd Avenue (disambiguation) had 166 views, but since Second Avenue redirected there and had 105 views, I discounted the 166 somewhat. As a check, I saw that 1st Avenue had 118 views and 3rd Avenue had 51 (both are redirects but only 1st Avenue has incoming mainspace links), so I think assuming roughly 100 readers were astonished by the TV article is not unreasonable. The 1000+ viewers above the average of 1st and 3rd avenues, who also did not click on the hatnote, probably were not astonished. January statistics are very difficult to analyze because the article has been moved and the redirect changed more than once, but your estimate of a drop of 10-20% would be in line with my estimate of up to 15% near the beginning of this discussion. However you look at it, at least 4 out of 5 readers globally are not astonished by the TV article. Station1 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Likely because they're linking directly there from a different article. The question (again) is what do people searching for "2nd Avenue" expect to find?  Powers T 02:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, most users get to most articles on WP from internal or external links. A minority use internal searches. Therefore the impact on searchers will be small. We agree on that I think. Leaving aside the question of whether article titles are for the benefit of searchers or all users, you suggest most searchers do not expect the TV article, but, like Dicklyon above, I'm unaware of any statistics able to prove that proposition. I think the universe of searchers is, more likely than not, roughly proportional to the universe of users, but you don't, so we disagree. But the main point, again, is that even if you're right, no searcher will benefit more from a dab page than a hatnote, while some searchers will be inconvenienced. Station1 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support – there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 2nd Avenue or Second Avenue; or if there is, it's 2nd Avenue (Manhattan). It needs to link to a disambig page.   Alternatively, move the disambig page to Second Avenue, and keep 2nd Avenue as a redirect to the disambig.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. The distinction between "2nd" and "Second" is rather flimsy and unintuitive for readers. older ≠ wiser 19:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Agree with Powers, Dick and Bkonrad. There's no way the TV station is the primary topic – a good argument could probably be made for Second Avenue (Manhattan), but I agree that a dab page would be best at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 06:22, 21 January 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.

"Second Avenue (Disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Second Avenue (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)