User:Jwy/Primary Topics: Why and Which

Determining if there should be a primary topic for an ambiguous title—and if so, which article is appropriate—can get contentious. Some discussion and conflict can be productive, but I have found these arguments frustrating, because we have not established a shared understanding of the purpose of a primary topic. If we have these issues spelled out, conflict resolution would be easier and less stressful.

What is a primary topic functionally?
When someone searching for a particular topic uses a term (say 'X') that might reasonably apply to more than two articles, a disambiguation page for the term is created to assist the searcher to the appropriate article. In some cases, we choose to have a primary topic, which associates the search term with one of the articles directly so the search result is that article - that is, the page 'X' would be an article. A hatnote is added to the top of the article pointing to the disambiguation page, which (usually) has "(disambiguation)" appended to the term ('X (disambiguation)'). If there is no primary topic for an ambiguous term, the search results in the disambiguation page itself ('X') and the article titles would have to be variants of the term or have a disambiguating parenthetical phrase, like 'X (film rating)'.

Purposes of the primary topic
The following have been suggested as reasons to have a primary topic and how to choose one.

Fast navigation for searchers
Perhaps the most direct purpose for the primary target is to speed people to the article they are looking for when they type a term into the search box. For unambiguous terms, searchers get to the appropriate article immediately - perhaps via a redirect - but there is no disambiguation page involved. For an ambiguous term that has one article that is more often the "right one" for the searcher, a primary topic optimizes clicks for the searchers. Those looking for the one article are immediately "at" the article, while the others have two additional clicks (to the disambiguation page, then to "their" article). IF we had appropriate statistics, we would be able optimize searcher clicks by selecting the topic that is "right" for more than half the searchers using the term (i.e., the article that is "right" more than all the others together).

As time goes on, changes in the world and Wikipedia users themselves may alter what, if any, primary topic optimizes navigation (what was appropriate for the term "George Bush" in 1992 when Sr. was in office would likely have changed when Jr. was in office, for example). Some such changes may be temporary, others permanent. It may be inefficient to follow short-term changes, but changes that are reasonably permanent might prompt a change in primary topic.

"Appropriateness", "Importance" and/or "common usage"
There are cases when a topic selected strictly according to navigational expediency seems "wrong". For example, a reasonable argument based on navigation optimization might be made that the article Madonna (entertainer) be the primary topic for the term Madonna. The general consensus, however, has resulted in no primary topic, in part in deference to the article Mary (mother of Jesus).

In this case, some will interpret the choice of primary topic as an endorsement of that topic's importance or esteem and choosing the pop idol over a very important religious figure would cause controversy and discomfort - and Wikipedia would not be viewed in a good light.

"Vital" articles
Articles deemed "vital" may deserve special treatment as primary topics beyond what otherwise might be navigationally appropriate.

Difficulty identifying bad links
If there is a primary topic, wikilinks to the ambiguous term will point to the primary topic article. "Cleaning up" links to disambiguation pages is relatively easy as MOST links to them are "wrong;" usually there is a specific article the links should be made to. When there is a primary topic, ALL links into it must be reviewed closely to determine whether or not they are pointing there "on purpose," or whether they were simply links of the term without disambiguating.

slow navigation to "secondary" articles"
If there is a primary topic but the reader is not looking for that particular topic, but for something in an article on another of the disambiguated articles, they have loaded the primary topic article uselessly and have to navigate to the dab page and then find the right article.

Click optimization
To be provided: describe how (unavailable) accurate statistics on clicking related to the disambiguation page could characterize navigational efficiency and we could optimize navigation by minimizing the number of clicks for anyone entering the search string. (some have mentioned that loading a large primary topic article should be figured into efficiency).

Usage in reliable sources
To be provided: primary topic should be the term is used most in reliable sources. "George Washington" example

"cultural expectation"
To be provided: An example:  Many might expect Nazarene have Jesus Christ as its primary topic even though other articles might actually get much more traffic through the dab page.

Root of related articles
Some topics are related by an "original" topic. One article (A Journey to the Center of the Earth, for example) might describe an original novel and there are other articles about stage and movie adaptations. If the original describes the basic plot, characters and general themes, it may serve well as a disambiguation page for the adaptations articles. Much of the information in the article would be of interest to those searching for the more specific adaptation articles - and they likely can click through to the adaptations from the text of the article.

Things to remember

 * The choice is not only "which item should be primary," but also SHOULD there be a primary topic!
 * A primary topic might be a redirect of the disambiguation term: the article name can be independent and chosen using other criteria.  For example, the article for the star of It's a Wonderful Life is currently James Stewart (actor), while he is still the primary topic for Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation).  One may argue (and they do) that the article should be Jimmy Stewart, but the fact that it is a redirect does not disqualify it as the primary topic.
 * If there is bona fide long-running contention (with multiple editors on each side) about whether there should be primary topic - or about which article should be primary - then having no primary topic is probably the best solution
 * Comparing the overall popularity of an articles on the disambiguation page does not necessarily provide you with a good guideline for primary topic. There are many ways to get to an article and the dab page is but one.  Take for example, David Jones:  the most popular article listed may well be David Bowie, but he is not likely the best choice for primary topic for the term David Jones.