Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics
Here's some more bits of info I've gathered after someone asked at Talk:Tupelo:


 * Talk:Slow
 * hatnote got up to 50% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic barely registers though the common section does consistently get a measurably noticable chunk of traffic
 * Talk:Panis
 * a primary redirect was in place and no hatnote
 * after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~1.2%, ~1.4%, ~2.4%, ~1.9%
 * Talk:Zozo
 * hatnote got a small amount of traffic but almost all identifiable traffic anyway; RM received very little interest
 * after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~2.6%, ~1.9%, ~2.2%
 * Talk:Mar
 * hatnote got ~5.2% compared to incoming traffic
 * after the move, the previous presumed primary topic got ~6.5%, ~4.3%, ~4%, ~2.9% (the latter being a weird month)
 * Talk:Julius
 * a primary redirect was in place before, hatnote got ~3.5% of traffic, we noted the redirect ratio back then as 68/91 = ~75%
 * after the move, the previous redirect destination got ~11%, ~5%, ~3%, ~4%
 * Talk:Sola
 * hatnote got ~10% of traffic
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~7%, ~7%, and then with the fall of overall traffic it was below the anonymization threshold (< 10/273 = < 3.66% with every source-destination combination - which doesn't mean it wasn't actually something different though still a minority).
 * Talk:Tete
 * the hatnote got ~11% before the move
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~6%, ~7.2%, ~8.2%
 * Talk:Uma
 * there was a primary redirect in place and the hatnote got ~25.3% of its traffic before the move and dis. traffic was much larger still
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~8.2%, ~9%, ~11% interest
 * Talk:Ty
 * hatnote got a very small amount of traffic (max 220/13742 = ~1.6%), was only #5 in the top list
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic was sorted down in the list, got ~7% clicks the next month; sorted back up the following month it got ~8%, ~7.5%, ~5% clicks, though ~53% / ~55% / ~60% / ~47% of identifiable outgoing
 * Talk:Hum
 * used to be primary redirected to human humming, went back and forth a bit
 * previous primary redirect destination gets ~10%, ~8%, ~8%
 * Talk:Marr
 * hatnote got ~10% of traffic
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11%, ~10.5%, ~11%, ~7.2%, ~9.6%
 * Talk:Rara
 * hatnote got some traffic before, all small
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11.9%, ~11.3%
 * closely connected topic also shows up in outgoing destinations, but nothing else
 * Talk:Cam
 * hatnote got ~3.3% of traffic
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~11.5%, ~8.6%, ~12.3%
 * Talk:Luz
 * hatnote got ~9.7% of traffic, total disambiguation list traffic at times substantially higher as well
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~12%, ~7%, ~7.7% among several other topics
 * Talk:Top
 * hatnote got ~2%
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~12%, and half of identified outgoing
 * Talk:Kolya
 * hatnote got ~1.4%, total disambiguation list traffic substantially higher than that
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~13%, ~11%, ~8%, ~7.6%, ~7%
 * Talk:Shoot
 * hatnote got ~1% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~11%, ~10%, ~11%, ~12%, ~14.5% interest
 * Talk:Redd
 * hatnote got ~5% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~10.8%, 19.6%
 * Talk:Tupelo
 * hatnote got ~3% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~14%, ~28%
 * Talk:Boyle
 * hatnote got <4% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~15.6%, ~33%, though it's not clear if this is an actual improvement
 * Talk:Vic
 * hatnote got ~2%
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~15.8%, ~15%
 * Talk:Golden shower
 * hatnote was on top of WikiProject Disambiguation/Popular pages
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~0.7%, ~0.75%
 * another popular meaning got ~15%, ~17.3% though >90% identified outgoing
 * Talk:Bold
 * the previous stats indicated up to ~20% interest in the hatnote
 * after the move the interest in the previously presumed primary topic was ~16%, ~14.7%, ~18.4%, ~12.1%, ~14.3%
 * Talk:Julia
 * hatnote got ~20% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~14%, ~16%, ~17%
 * Talk:Slava
 * disambiguated after 18 years of being presumed primary topic, 15 years with a hatnote (March '22 1199/9356 = ~13%)
 * after the move, we continue seeing seasonal spikes for the previously presumed primary topic, and regardless of spikes it gets ~23%, ~15%, ~11% interest
 * Talk:Hamme
 * hatnote got relatively small traffic, was not measurable, most likely <10%
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16% interest
 * reverted, subsequent discussion resulted in no consensus
 * Talk:Baudouin
 * primary redirect, hatnote got < 0.5% interest compared to total incoming traffic at destination, nobody checked a comparison of redirect and disambiguation traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16%, ~23%, ~17% interest
 * Talk:Warren
 * hatnote got ~7% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~18%, ~12%, ~14%, ~15% interest
 * Talk:Hamm
 * hatnote got ~2.5% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~18.4%, ~21%, ~22.9% interest
 * Talk:Mana
 * hatnotes combined got ~8% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~19%, ~17%, ~16% interest
 * Talk:Charlotte
 * the hatnote got ~0.7% before the move, yet there were hints that it could do better if reorganized because of ~20% measurements related to the primary redirect (which we sadly can't have in a lot of cases)
 * afterwards the previous presumed primary topic gets ~21%, ~23.5%, ~21.1%, ~22.9% interest
 * Talk:Lili
 * the hatnote got ~2% before the move
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~23.2%, ~15.4%, ~26.4% interest
 * Talk:Gaga
 * the hatnote got ~1.5% before the move
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~24.8%, ~29.9%, ~27.4% interest
 * Talk:Saba
 * hatnote was in the top 5 of identifiable outgoing clickstreams, the ratio wasn't recorded then but was around 635/23806 = ~2.6%
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~28.5%, ~26%, ~24%, ~23.5%, though around half of outgoing
 * Talk:Frida
 * hatnote got ~2% of traffic
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~27%, ~19%, ~27%, ~24.2%
 * Talk:Thomastown
 * hatnote got ~1%
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~25%, ~28%
 * Talk:Forced march
 * was a soft redirect between 2011 and 2015, when it was made a primary redirect, and in 2023 it was disambiguated after a discussion
 * previous primary redirect destination gets ~29%, ~27%, ~44%, ~34.1%, another meaning that wasn't even mentioned in the RFD gets much more
 * Talk:Major
 * the previously discussed primary topic was moved after a lot of discussions, at the time of the RM the hatnote had max 431/17909 (~2.4%) interest
 * afterwards it shows up with ~30.6%, ~30.3%, ~25%, ~28%, ~21.3%, ~26.9%, ~37.1% of reader interest, though three quarters of outgoing
 * Talk:Ultra
 * the hatnote got ~2% before the move
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~29%, ~30.6%, ~26.5%, ~23%, ~26.9%, ~20.6%
 * Talk:Quantum leap
 * the hatnotes got ~21% before the move
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic gets ~32%, ~29.7%, ~32.5%
 * Talk:San Juan
 * before the discussion, the most popular link is alphabetically sorted in the middle of a big list and got ~22% clickstreams
 * after the discussion, it's on top of a MOS:DABCOMMON section, and gets ~29%, ~38%, ~26%
 * Talk:Sokol
 * hatnote got ~3-4%
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~33%, ~21%, ~30%
 * Talk:Rasna
 * hatnote got ~1%
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~20.9%, ~23.2%
 * move got reverted, went through a RM
 * afterwards the previously presumed primary topic got ~37%, ~38%
 * Talk:Severian
 * hatnote got ~1.7%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~37%, ~33%, ~31%
 * Talk:Tiro
 * primary redirect was in place and we could measure ~18% of interest in the hatnote
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~36%, ~28%, ~36%
 * Talk:Lio
 * before the move, hatnote got ~1%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~35.6%, ~37.9%, though >90% outgoing
 * Talk:Mons
 * hatnote got ~2%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~38.5%, ~33.3%, ~32.3%, ~40.9%
 * Talk:Starwood
 * hatnote got ~2%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~38.5%, ~35%, ~36.6%
 * Talk:Dave Hill
 * hatnote got ~0.5%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~39%, ~46.1%, though almost all outgoing
 * Talk:Alnair
 * had a primary redirect
 * after disambiguation, previously presumed primary topic got ~46.5%, ~38%, ~41.5%
 * Talk:Angles
 * with primary topic in place, hatnote got less than 0.5% compared to incoming traffic and wasn't even in top 20 clickstreams
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic gets ~46.5%, ~43.6%, ~43.7%, ~42%
 * Talk:ATB
 * hatnote got ~1%
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~47%, ~45%, though almost all identifiable outgoing
 * Talk:Lord Cameron
 * proposed primary redirect quite recent, no consensus
 * proposed primary topic later got ~47%, ~54.8%, ~36.3%, ~54.2%, ~52.4% of incoming traffic
 * Talk:Give Me Liberty
 * hatnote did not get an observable level of interest
 * after the move, previously presumed primary topic got ~62%, ~39%, ~42.5%
 * Talk:Erasure
 * hatnote got < 0.3% interest, I myself doubted that there's a navigation issue there, but it wasn't completely clear
 * after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~48%, ~47%, ~44%, ~47.9% interest
 * Talk:AEG
 * hatnote got ~1% of traffic, I was skeptical because of that and long-term significance aspects
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~49%, ~47.5%, ~47.3% interest, though ~90% of identifiable outgoing
 * Talk:Motul
 * proposed primary topic gets ~51%, ~49%, ~52%, ~48%, ~51%
 * no consensus to move
 * Talk:Nabis
 * hatnote had ~1% interest
 * after the move the previous presumed primary topic got ~50%, ~58%, ~41.8%
 * Talk:King Charles
 * several RMs, kept disambiguated
 * proposed primary topic gets ~60%, ~55.9%, ~58.4% interest, though ~80% of identifiable outgoing, and hints of more
 * Talk:Sugar Man
 * was a primary redirect, the ratio between redirect views and disambiguation views was between ~23% and ~43% but then mostly going back
 * after the move the previous redirect destination got ~60%, ~61.5%, ~61%, ~68.2%
 * Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 13
 * proposed primary topic got ~60% of traffic, though a fair bit of of it came from there, too
 * the discussion was overwhelmingly against the move regardless
 * Talk:Sean O'Malley (fighter)
 * proposed primary topic got ~71% or ~84% of traffic, one other topic identifiable as well
 * no consensus
 * Talk:Michael Fagan
 * proposed primary topic got between around 70 to around 85 percent of traffic for years and across spikes in usage
 * no other major topics by long-term significance, consensus to move by usage

I think I'll have to keep updating this summary here to build up a knowledge base. --Joy (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * --Joy (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * --Joy (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * --Joy (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * --Joy (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't to say that all of these moves were truly warranted or that there aren't a plethora of individual factors at play. But even with this spread of outcomes, there's something distinctly off with our current near-consensus interpretation of how stats should look like for primary topics by usage. This also means little for considerations of long-term significance. --Joy (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Your numbers for % of "interest" are rather misleading, as they don't mention that in many cases, the largest percentage by far was "no traffic at all", i.e. no clickthrough, for whatever reason (visits not by humans? wanted target not available? info on disambig page sufficient?). E.g. for Hamme, you note "after the move, the previously presumed primary topic got ~16% interest", which was more than 4 times as much as the other topics "combined". Fram (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've mentioned this several times. I agree it is misleading to simply assume that every incoming view counts for something meaningful. Truth is that there is no way for us to know what if anything those 'dead-end' incoming page views signify. older ≠ wiser 15:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bkonrad exactly, but it's not exactly that we don't know that they don't signify anything. There's multiple hints that they do:
 * First of all, there is a spread of cases here, ranging from where we see a lot of the incoming views translate into clicks, to where we see few of the incoming views translate into clicks. I didn't summarize all of that information on this talk page, you have to go click through the links to examine that. (I may find some time later to extract that dimension of data and extend the list above.)
 * That means that we're not just consistently seeing some ghost traffic always, rather, we've got to be observing actual reader behavior at least to an extent. So we can't just see e.g. 60% of traffic translate into clicks in a fresh case and then jump to the conclusion that most of the remaining 40% is ignorable.
 * Secondly, there are cases where we see almost all of the incoming views translate into clicks. The most recent such example I found is described at Talk:Forced march, where our identification rate went from 34/55 (~62%) in the first month observed, to 96/96, to 95/95, to 135/135 in the last three months, amazingly enough, even at such a small amount of traffic.
 * This negates even the idea that there's always got to be at least some of this ghost traffic, because apparently we have a falsifying scenario that seems quite consistent. So we can't just see e.g. 75% of traffic translate into clicks and then jump to the conclusion that any part of the remaining 25% is ignorable.
 * --Joy (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that we since observed forced march getting more outgoing clicks than incoming ones. That's another scenario we can't account for - the same readers clicking multiple items in a list. --Joy (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On the individual points raised by @Fram earlier:
 * meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream says it tries to exclude visits not by humans: We attempt to exclude spider traffic by classifying user agents with the ua-parser library and a few additional Wikipedia specific filters. It's certainly possible that it misses, but then the page views "User" category is likely missing, too, so I don't know that we should rely on that being a major effect.
 * Wanted target not available - how would this improve the odds for the claim that there would have to be a primary topic, when there'd be topics that detract from there being a primary topic yet they're not even available? That would seem to just raise the risk of astonishing more contingents of readers. "These people don't even know about meaning X, and they proclaimed meaning Y as the main one - pfft!"
 * Info on disambig page sufficient - this use case is indeed not studied at all, and I agree that it seems possible for at least some cases. Ultimately, why would we consider all navigations that do not result in another click bad? IOW surely this also detracts from the idea of there being a primary topic, if there is also the contingent of readers who we cannot convince to click on the link to read about the proposed primary topic (which is also usually the very first link in the list).
 * More than 4 times as the other topics combined - I've explained already at Talk:Hamme (disambiguation) how you are making weirdly incorrect statements. Even if we compare 28 identified clickstreams and the 10 identified clickstreams, the ratio between those two numbers is 2.8, it is simply not 4. Likewise, both 28 and 10 are so close to the anonymization threshold that it's not at all clear that this ratio has to be precise. In other words, this could have been 4 or it could have been 2 with just a few more src-dest pairs of views identified as opposed to anonymized out. And none of these ratios are impressive when we also see a lot more traffic interested in neither of these.
 * In any event, thanks for the interest. --Joy (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not saying the count of incoming views should be completely ignored, only that trying to read into what it signifies is highly speculative and we should be very cautious about what significance we attribute to such dead-end views. If there is a sudden change in the number of such incoming views, that likely merits some further consideration. Similarly, if there is a consistent, very large gap between incoming and outgoing views, that also may merit some consideration. But even in such cases, deciding what readers reaching such dead-end views were looking for when arriving at a particular disambiguation page is still highly speculative. It could play a factor in arguing that there is no primary topic where there is none at present (i.e., where there is a request to replace a disambiguation page with a primary topic). I'm not sure what significance we could read into such dead-end views of a disambiguation page where there is an existing primary topic. It could be readers are just curious about what else might have the same name, without intending to look at any of them in more detail. We just don't know why such readers behave that way. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the change in pattern would be a significant indicator. But on that front, I point again to evidence above - we often observe a clearly consistent pattern, and then we do a switch for whatever reason, and then we the data switches to observing a clearly different consistent pattern. Well, it often takes a few months for things to settle, and in the interim period there's a swing or two, but still.
 * In cases where there is already a primary topic selected, it's very hard to read into the no-clickthrough traffic. Because the content is larger and varied, it could be any number of possibilities. Just like it could be readers who are navigated wrongly and just immediately click away, it could also be misnavigated readers who stayed and learned something and then clicked away, or it could be a bunch of completely content readers who were absolutely happy to read what was in front of them and had no need to immediately learn more about another related topic. We don't have the tools to discern these.
 * With simpler pages like the disambiguation lists, however, it's less hard to understand the general reader behavior because we don't present people with huge amounts of possibilities, we reduce that number and streamline their options, and make it more likely we can understand the measurements of our existing tools.
 * What I think we should learn from all this is that we should not be too cautious and instead we should not be afraid to experiment as much as we have been so far.
 * In all this data I've tracked, we've yet to observe a case where there was a fresh reader complaining about disambiguation lists being the wrong choice. As long as we apply MOS:DABCOMMON, and we do, we have no indication that we're confusing or troubling any appreciable amounts of readers even in contentious cases. --Joy (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems a peculiar criterion. Quite aside from reactions to the lists you have been compiling, I can't recall the last time I came across a "fresh" reader ever complaining about an incorrectly placed disambiguation page where the complainant was not a myopic partisan seeking to promote their preferred topic.
 * Regarding I'm glad you are taking a deeper dive into the data, but I hope no one is being misled that the reems of data of uncertain quality based on poorly documented functions represents an agreed upon approach to making decisions. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We actually have some interesting data points about that, too, cf. Talk:Tito (disambiguation), where nobody really paid attention for over a decade as disambiguation was in place, and then a consensus of editors practically instantly chose to apply a primary topic redirect mainly for long-term significance. (On the plus side, that flip allowed us to measure something else afterwards, Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56 explains more.)
 * I'm pretty sure if we go through other cases we can also find similar timeframes, where some arbitrary navigation choice has been in place for years and decades, and then we arbitrarily decide to congregate, make fun new decisions and pat ourselves on our collective backs :)
 * IOW our decision-making process seems perfectly sound (mostly to me too, I'm not excluding myself here), but so much goes through the cracks that it's doubtful that much of it really matters as much as we think it does. --Joy (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Content assessment
In the discussion linked above, we have something of a weak consensus to stop strictly sequestering disambiguation from set indices in all cases. Does anyone see any reason not to draft changes to this guideline to incorporate some of these possibilities? --Joy (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * In the meantime the RFC thread was archived at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9.
 * As there's no objection, I think we need these kinds of changes:
 * Make it clear in the text of WP:PTM that the exception applied to toponymy can apply to anthroponymy as well, and we shouldn't shy away from listing some of the latter on disambiguation pages
 * Make it clear in the text of WP:NAMELIST that the strict separation of disambiguation and set index content should be weighed against the possibility that we introduce extra hurdles to readers just because some ambiguous topics also qualify for a set index
 * Possibly a section here about the practical interaction of disambiguation and set index articles, as opposed to just a See also link
 * --Joy (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've split out item #1 above into . --Joy (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

how many months it takes for disambiguation usage statistics to change
I'd like to point out an aspect of that is becoming increasingly clear - we don't need a lot of time to detect changes in readership navigation patterns. Usually whatever happened with one month after a change was quite indicative of the pattern of traffic going forward, there's never a serious fluctuation.

We should use this to our advantage - to be more willing to experiment for e.g. two months, because that will usually suffice to get measurements and decide if the change was good or not. --Joy (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:DABCOMBINE not actually with organic consensus in the acronym space
I noticed this a month ago in Talk:PAG, last comment. Would be nice if someone could analyze the data more thoroughly. --Joy (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

including the most notable set index topics on human name disambiguation pages
This is effectively a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55 which went stale and got archived out, but still applies.

More examples have since cropped up where we see from the available data that readers would benefit from us including the most popular given name and surname entries on the base disambiguation pages whenever a separate name list (set index) exists:


 * Talk:Boyle
 * Talk:Luka

I wanted to title this section "WP:NAMELIST considered harmful", but it's not really, just the overly strict implementation we employ right now. :)

If there are no objections, I would go ahead with making this change:


 * Lists of names
 * To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long, long lists of given name or surname holders can be moved out of disambiguation pages into separate set indices. In cases where there are distinctly popular entries in such lists, such as those with substantially large usage or long-term significance compared to the rest of the list, links to such articles should be retained on the base disambiguation page. This kind of extra listing should in turn still be constrained by the base list size, so it should not typically exceed five to ten entries.
 * We reasonably expect to see Abraham Lincoln at Lincoln (disambiguation), but very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", nor is he a topic of outsized reader interest, so he is listed only at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. Conversely, it's reasonable to expect that a lot of readers might want to navigate to Andrew Lincoln because of consistently measurable outsized usage, so he should be listed at both.
 * footnote here: All-time page views for all entries listed at Lincoln (name) |Abraham_Lincoln|Andrew_Lincoln|Harry_J._Lincoln All time monthly page views comparing the aforementioned 'Lincoln' topics
 * This does not necessarily prejudice primary topic considerations. For example, many highly notable people are called Herb, but typing in Herb gets you an article on plants. However, as the usage statistics show the interest in Herb Alpert to be typically exceeding the reader interest in the plant topic, the hatnote at Herb or the list at Herb (disambiguation) may include a link to that biography, next to the links to Herb (surname) and Herb (given name), where articles on people named "Herb" are listed. Consensus among editors determines if an article should be listed on the disambiguation page.
 * footnote here: All-time page views for all entries listed at Herb (given name) |Herb_(given_name)|Herb_(disambiguation)|Herb_(surname)|Herb_Alpert All time monthly page views comparing the aforementioned 'Herb' topics

--Joy (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This covers the most pressing topic of . The other issue, whether to encourage keeping anthroponymy lists merged, needs more discussion because it may detract from the goals of this - e.g. if we squash a short list like Herb (surname) back into Herb (disambiguation), and don't squash the given name list, that may give undue prominence to people with the surname. We already have a problem with the long tail of ambiguity cluttering disambiguation pages. I'd prefer to deal with the complexities of that separately. --Joy (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've applied this change, but something confused me with note formatting in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Disambiguation&oldid=1227556919#Lists_of_names - if someone could render assistance, I'd appreciate it.
 * I also swapped out Andrew Lincoln for Jon Hamm, because the difference in reader traffic is even more stark there. --Joy (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted these changes. So much detail is couterproductive per WP:CREEP. It also changes the default to having WP:PTM names on dab pages from current general consensus that they are exceptions. Most PTM name lists belong in anthroponymy articles. Station1 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Station1 you might have missed the reams of data I provided in discussions above and linked in the archive, explaining how readers looking for biographies are being so badly served by our navigation. I'd appreciate it if you could review it.
 * I think this idea of a general consensus that people's names are just partial title matches, as opposed to instances of actual ambiguity, are not based on an accurate observation of reader behavior, rather it appears more based on an opinion of a relatively small group of us editors. By moving links to biographies behind another click, and by not helping readers to the most common navigation choices, we've been artificially modifying reader navigation as opposed to enabling it.
 * In a few recently documented examples such as Tito, Charlotte and Luka, hints of their actual behavior still came through. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The trouble with Tito (disambiguation), for example, is that the 3 or 4 things actually called Tito are buried at the bottom of a huge list of people who aren't named solely Tito. Station1 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly this. That one or a very few might be looked as a mononym is not a good reason to abandon the current guidance. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean, because the proposed wording doesn't talk of mononyms, rather it encourages thinking about outsized usage and long-term significance. A mononymous usage of a name by a relatively minor person should not be prioritized over a normal usage of a name by a relatively major person. (Or in turn by relatively minor toponyms, fictional characters and other items that habitually clutter our disambiguation lists.) IOW we should start thinking about ambiguity in navigation not just through what is technically ambiguous, but what is practically ambiguous for the average English reader, and how the compendium of knowledge about an ambiguous term is most effectively presented to them. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is just continuing on the same "mononymity rules!" party line without evidence... I had a look in the clickstreams, and found in November '20 that the link to the acronym, "TITO", was clicked at least 20 times, in the same month when the 2019 film was clicked 10 times. The link to TITO has always been in the last section, See also, which is below the film section. No other entry from the film section crossed the anonymization threshold that month, but Jackson (15), Ortiz (11) and two of the footballers +did (11 and 12 resp.). The footballers are in the top mononymous section, while the other two are in the general sections. Maybe it's more likely that we forced the readers looking for the Jacksons and the Ortizes to have to comb through the general lists to find them, and the number of them who gave up and went back to Google might be higher than the number looking for the films? --Joy (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dab pages are not search engines, and were never meant to be search engines. They are necessary navigation aids where there are two or more topics that would or could have identical or nearly identical titles. That's because of the technical impossibility of two articles having the same title. They were always intended to be as short as possible, in order to be as easy to use as possible. WP has a search engine for people who can't remember or spell someone's last name, which is far superior to anything human editors could put on a page. We also have "intitle" and similar templates to stick on the bottom of dab pages when useful. An occasional IAR exception for a very popular easily misspelled topic is fine, but we shouldn't turn dab pages into inferior search engines. Station1 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there are readers who think a person with the name Foo Bar has an identical name to a person with the name Foo Baz or Foo Quux, because that's how human names work.
 * But even so, regardless of this generic argument, I still don't see how the proposed wording doesn't match with what you described in your last sentence. Even if you think Abraham Lincoln isn't an identical enough match for Lincoln, you allow it to be listed already, because whatever, people use that like that. It turns the dab page into an inferior search engine, but you see the usefulness. Likewise, allowing Jon Hamm to be listed at Hamm would be useful, as the same thing happens. The Lincoln biography is read by 400 thousand people a month, while the comparable city articles are read by 20 and 15 thousand, respectively. The Hamm biography is read by 200 thousand people a month, while the comparable city article is read by 2 thousand. In the latter case it's a difference of 100 : 1, we're not talking subtle nuance here, and it's significantly larger than the 10 : 1 difference in the former.
 * Fundamentally, the encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. Making huge contingents of readers jump through hoops because we don't feel like they're using these words the right way - is the latter. --Joy (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lincoln is often referred to as Lincoln, and could conceivably be a PRIMARYREDIRECT like Einstein or Churchill, so belongs on the Lincoln dab page. To my knowledge Jon Hamm is not referred to as just Hamm. Even so, I wouldn't object to adding him to the dab page per WP:IAR, but it would be a bad idea to add the 18 other people at Hamm (surname). - Station1 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With these kinds of numbers, it seems probable that even the amount of accidental or cursory references to him as just Hamm are statistically relevant.
 * No argument about not listing the other 18 people there, absolutely, that's why the phrasing was very careful to weed that out. Did you notice the part that said In cases where there are distinctly popular entries in such lists, such as those with substantially large usage or long-term significance compared to the rest of the list. Is that not strict enough? --Joy (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this discussion died down, the same kind of problems have cropped up in a few more places, for example at "Dina", described at Talk:Dina (disambiguation), and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy. --Joy (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW Talk:Julius is another such case. We have it on the record that nobody calls him just Julius, yet when we started presenting readers with the choice to click him or to click mononymously named people, the readers consistently choose him. :) --Joy (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DABNOENTRY is contradicted by WP:PTM
MOS:DABNOENTRY states: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name ... This does not apply if the subject is commonly referred to simply by Title." On the other hand WP:PTM says: "Placenames are often divided between a specific and generic part, for example North Carolina (where "Carolina" is the specific, and "North" the generic part). Common generics are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to include such placenames in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation))". DABNOENTRY would exclude North Carolina from Carolina (disambiguation) because the state is never called simply Carolina, just as New York is never referred to as York (York Yankees?). In my opinion, DABNOENTRY takes precedence (and makes the most sense), and the wording in PTM should be removed. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina in the morning ..." Carolina in the Morning, Gus Kahn and Walter Donaldson.
 * References to "the Carolinas" or "the Dakotas" aren't unusual. Largoplazo (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the Carolinas. As for the song, I venture to guess it's talking about the Carolinas, but it wouldn't scan properly as "be in the Carolinas". Also, DABNOENTRY states "commonly referred to". One song isn't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about 2? "Carolina in My Mind". The songwriter was specifically referring to his home in North Carolina.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Or three? "Carolina". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The key words in DABNOENTRY are "merely because". It's saying PTMs are not generally helpful to include. WP:PTM is pointing out a subclass of PTMs that often are helpful. There's no direct contradiction, but there could be better alignment – I'd say changing WP:PTM from "entirely proper" to "often proper" would bring it more in line with both DABNOENTRY and best practice, and that the two sections should link to each other with hatnotes. — swpb T&#8201;•&#8201;beyond&#8201;•&#8201;mutual 15:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This started with Talk:Vic. I think the main criterion is pretty clear - if the average English reader is going to encounter ambiguous references to a topic in practice, they should be listed. --Joy (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I often put partial matches like that in See also; I must have been in a particularly deletionist mood that day. That's the sort of thing I would do with the bizarre New York (disambiguation) entry in York (disambiguation). Who would look for the Big Apple under York? In fact:
 * Proposal: Reword what PTM currently says to "It is entirely often proper to include such placenames in the See also section of disambiguation pages with the specific title". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is just for see also, because I have encountered numerous examples of toponyms where this would not match real-world circumstances, and this sort of a thing could well be controversial. --Joy (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think in the case of "Vic", for most places like "Vic-sur-Aisne" it is common to use plain "Vic" when there is no ambiguity. For instance in the neighbouring town Cœuvres-et-Valsery the road leading to Vic-sur-Aisne is called "Route de Vic", Similarly, the "Route de Rabastens" leads to Rabastens-en-Bigorre. So yes, I think places like Vic-sur-Aisne should be listed on the disambiguation page "Vic". The "-sur-Aisne" is not really generic, more a specifier or disambiguator (because there are several places named "Vic"). Markussep Talk 08:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

traffic pattern changes between redirects, broad-concept articles and disambiguation pages
Here's a bit of a continuation of Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56:

The term national bank was recently replaced by disambiguation through a WP:MALPLACED redirect, but it used to be read by ~4k readers a month. Likewise happened for state bank, which used to be read by ~1k people a month.

|State_bank|National_bank_(disambiguation)|State_bank_(disambiguation) All-time page view statistics for these topics and the disambiguation pages

The change seems to have caused the reader traffic to practically instantly drop to 0.4k and 0.2k a month, respectively.

So it looks like the change caused us to effectively relinquish 80-90% of readers looking up a term like that, as their search engine stopped sending them our way (or at least I can't think of another scenario why this pattern change would happen). --Joy (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's another one: Talk:Ottoman - once we squashed plural and singular, 80% of incoming traffic magically disappeared. --Joy (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I happened to notice Talk:Pharos (disambiguation) today - a change from disambiguation page to primary redirect in 2016 also caused ~80% of previously recorded incoming traffic to disappear. --Joy (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2024
Edit purpose: The page section in the example no longer exists. The section and the redirect now use "American Football" instead of "Football".

Current text: In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page. For example, Cleveland (NFL) should not be a disambiguation page, but should instead redirect to List of Cleveland sports teams.

Replacement text: In some cases, it may be more appropriate to redirect readers to a list rather than a disambiguation page. For example, Cleveland (NFL) should not be a disambiguation page, but should instead redirect to List of Cleveland sports teams. Solid kalium (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted "American" on a U.S. topic page, so it works again. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Shield and sword
– a neo-Nazi music festival – red link – a disambig page

Can someone help me unscramble all this? Starting with the easy stuff: it seems pretty clear that D-page Sword and shield should contain an entry that links the festival article, right? Do we need to move the festival to Shield and Sword (festival) so we can create "Shield and sword" anew as a disambig page, so it can point to the festival, and also to Grand jury page, and maybe also the theory about Marshal Pètain? Thanks for any advice. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "shield and sword" is a metaphor for the function of grand juries; see Grand jury for usage (no redirect there by that name)
 * A search-bar query for "shield and sword" (lowercased, without quotes) takes you to Shield and Sword, a neo-Nazi music festival, via the redirect Shield And Sword
 * "sword and shield theory" is an analysis of Marshal Pètain's leadership of Vichy France in WW2, and redirects to Vichy syndrome
 * A query for "sword and shield" (lowercased, without quotes) goes to disambig page Sword and shield (which doesn't link the festival, which has Shield first)
 * There is no disambig page Shield and sword (that slot is already taken by the festival article).
 * I would move the festival and redirect Shield and Sword (and Shield and sword) to Sword and shield as an alternative form. BD2412  T 21:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes good sense to me. I'll wait some days to see if there are more thoughts about this before acting. Oh, and what would you do about the Grand jury sense of "shield and sword"; add it to the D-page? Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Primary Topic
There is a move proposal at Talk:Rallying suggesting the article should be disambiguated. Another user has supported, mentioning the policy of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However, no other Rallying topic articles can be found - making the move unnecessary under that very policy. Is that correct, does primary topic only mean a primary Wikipedia article and not common usage of a word within multiple contexts? I'd be grateful if anybody could clarify that within the discussion, or here for me. Thanks. Rally Wonk (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

What does "under certain circumstances" mean in WP:DABSISTER
Wouldn't it be useful to either define what the words "under cetain circumstances" at WP:DABSISTER mean? or (even better) provide examples when a link to a foreign language Wikipedia would be useful and when it wouldn't be useful? I would give it a stab, but I have no idea what those words mean. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)