Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

WT:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 53#Lists of Indian films - a heads-up (contd.)

JBW has kindly given 2A00:23C8:9FB7:5C00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) a 3-month holiday; see diff. If you come across new instances of this nuisance, feel free to post on my TP; and if there's enough of a pattern I'll assemble another depthcharge. Narky Blert (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's welcome news. If they return, one option is to request an edit filter to prevent unconfirmed editors from replacing "Foo (qualifier)|Foo" by "Foo" in links from "List of Hindi films of yyyy", or perhaps with slightly broader scope. Most of their contributions include differences following that pattern, their final effort including several changes such as replacing Footpath (1953 film)|Footpath by the less relevant Footpath. Certes (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I can envisage a filter which could be precise and straightforward. If I collect a couple of new throwaway IPs, I'll file a request. Narky Blert (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This page shows IP edits to Indian films by year within the last 30 days. Most are good-faith improvements, but most edits with significant negative size changes e.g. (–123) are likely to be of interest. The damage was extensive, but everything seems to have been reverted. I suspect that an enthusiastic editor has their own "master copy" of each page offline. From time to time they make a minor improvement to one and upload it to Wikipedia, overwriting everyone else's edits since their last upload. Certes (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

My test would be for Hindi films of xxxx/IP/negative size/links to DAB and/or name pages. A Mk 1 eyeball scan of your list suggests that would catch everything with no false positives (and everything like that had already been reverted). I'm not so sure about working off-wiki; I've earlier seen a couple of instances where they returned immediately after a big edit to introduce an error they'd overlooked. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple of edits today fit the pattern but appear to be good-faith and plausibly correct: [1], [2] Certes (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look like them. This IP edits elsewhere too, and note the ES in your first diff. Narky Blert (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a different person, a constructive editor, but might trigger a hypothetical edit filter if we're not careful. Certes (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dabs for creation

Editors who watch this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Articles for Creation/Disambiguations. Certes (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Cydonia

needs moving to Cydonia (disambiguation) by someone with the right access. The region of Mars is now the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should hatnote to the dab page. The ancient Greek city and genus should be handled more prominently as the next two most likely things readers would be looking for but that's less of an issue. — LlywelynII 05:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: You can make technical move requests at WP:RMTR, if you believe it's uncontroversial. Otherwise, start a regular WP:RM. Incidentally, it seems premature to have reorganized the dab page before any such moves. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The primary topics are the primary topics, regardless of where the page is (mis)parked. Cf. MOS:DABORDER.

WP:RMTR is just a clearinghouse for the requests. If any of the admins able to do the work there are keeping an eye on dabs at all, they'd notice this here and either handle it or point out any issue. Random admins there might not be as clear on dab policy minutiae that might impact this. (Ditto nonadmins watching this page who might have an opinion on the rearrangement.) — LlywelynII 06:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@LlywelynII I agree that WP:RM is the way to request this move, but I don't agree that Mars is clearly the PT. The statistics from Wikinav appear to show that when people land on the disambiguation page Cydonia they are more likely to move to Kydonia than to Cydonia (Mars), and there is certainly not an overwhelming majority looking for the Mars location. PamD 21:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly is per Google but if our stats are different for our readers, then sure. I'll just move the pair to the top of the page and leave it where it is. Stuff like this is why I wasn't looking for a procedural rubber stamp. — LlywelynII 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

RDAB speedy criteria

See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RFC new R5 for a proposal to make RDAB errors a speedy criteria. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mike Hall#Requested move 6 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mike Hall#Requested move 6 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Move Kritika (disambiguation) to Kritika

There is a discussion here about whether to move Kritika (disambiguation) to Kritika. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Brains trust needed on this one please

I have posted this in the Australian Wikipedians project as well, but it has occurred to me that perhaps it should perhaps be a DAB, or there should be a separate DAB, and it would be good to have some input from DAB experts. See Talk:Adelaide University. There are lots of incoming links, plus a host of articles on things (mostly clubs) affiliated with the university beginning with "Adelaide University" rather than "University of Adelaide". I'm not sure which is the best way to go here. If the current one is converted into a DAB, it would still mean changing all the incoming links. And in the transition period, there's bound to be a lot of confusion. I don't know when the actual merger and new name will be finalised - I suspect that it will drag on beyond 2026, as it's already taken so long to get to this point. It will be a new entity, and I have no idea whether the clubs, union, etc. will retain their current names. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the primary topic for "Adelaide University" – the existing University of Adelaide, the proposed combined institution, or none of the above? Certes (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well it's difficult to know what it would be in the future, but at the moment I'd say its the University of Adelaide, as it's used interchangeably. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Then at the moment we should probably restore Adelaide University as a primary redirect to its current primary topic University of Adelaide, after moving the new article to Adelaide University (some qualifier goes here). We should then revisit the titles if and when the existing institution ceases to be a primary topic for "Adelaide University". Certes (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the advice. I may not get to it for a couple of days as I'm going away, but I think that this sounds sensible. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I know the links are wrong but it may be wise to wait a day or two in case someone replies with a better idea. Certes (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll be away anyway. 😊 Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done anything about this yet, but thinking about creating the new Adelaide University with a date in parentheses for now, and pushing the decision down the line. The thing is, which date? It was officially created in legislation this year, but won't be operational until at least 2026 (see here), and I suspect that there will be delays. I'd better copy this comment there too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You could raise a RM for the new university and see what new names are suggested. It would need to show clearly that the old university is still the primary topic for "Adelaide University" for now and should revert to being a WP:primary redirect, Certes (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Program

Are you still operating the program, new students 2600:1004:B265:3A2:C015:335A:4A53:9CE (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no specific program for disambiguation, but you may be interested in Wikipedia:Education program. Certes (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a surname a primary topic if it has a qualifier?

?I have been creating some name pages carved out of DAB pages on and off for some time, and it suddenly occurred to me that perhaps the name should be a primary topic in this case Lerner - only I have created it with a disambiguator, as it is primarily a surname from which the other topics arise... Which rule applies here Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What matters is whether there is a primary topic for the string "Lerner", i.e. are people using that string primarily looking for any one thing? My first impression is no - googling for "Lerner" -Wikipedia the first three pages of results are about 50/50 people with the surname (Ben Lerner most commonly, but far from exclusively) and other uses. To me this suggests that the disambiguation being primary is best.

There is no general rule though as what the primary topic is can only be determined based at the level of the individual topic. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, [3] is a technically correct application of WP:NAMELIST, but the problem is that the said guideline isn't necessarily well thought out. Its application happens to force the concept of strict separation of disambiguation and set indices - which we as a community expressed a lot of ambivalence about in a recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment/Archive 9#Request for comment, as navigation outcomes for readers aren't necessarily improved by doing that.

The practical result of these changes is that we might now have ended up promoting a bunch of topics that happen to be called that way but are less well associated with the term by the average reader - compared to the surname.

One way to try to measure these things is to compare clickstreams from before and after the change. I have the following clickstream archives downloaded so here goes:

clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 14
• total: 14 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2022-05.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 14
• total: 14 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:

• total: to 0 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:

• Lerner Al_Lerner link 13
• total: 13 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:

• Lerner Aaron_B._Lerner link 10
• Lerner Abba_P._Lerner link 12
• total: 22 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:

• Lerner Al_Lerner link 10
• Lerner Alan_Jay_Lerner link 10
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 12
• total: 32 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:

• Lerner Michael_Lerner link 11
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 11
• total: 22 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 11
• total: 11 to 1 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

• Lerner Theodor_Lerner link 16
• Lerner Lerner_Enterprises link 16
• total: 32 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

• Lerner Abba_P._Lerner link 10
• Lerner Al_Lerner link 10
• total: 20 to 2 identified destinations

Generally, it's hard to tell much because all of these numbers are close to the anonymization threshold (<10 per source-destination pair).

So the Enterprises are a topic of interest from before which now gets more visibility, which could be good. But the other three companies might be getting promoted, while these people are getting demoted, and this could be bad.

At the same time, we clearly see that alphabetical sorting has had an effect on navigation outcomes. It's not at all clear whether that was good or bad.

--Joy (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joy, Here and elsewhere you present copious amounts of data, but to be honest, it is presented in a way that is completely opaque to me as to what it signifies. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bkonrad apologies, I often forget to link the introductory materials and explain well.

The description of this data format would be at meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream. Long story short, the system to analyze the records where the readers visited allows us to see how many visits happened between two pairs of pages; we can use that system to figure out patterns of reader navigation.

The system is organized in monthly batches, so we see the sum of what happened each month. The visualization of the most recent month is at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Lerner but for older months, there's no visualization at this point. So we have to reach for the raw data, by downloading the files and finding what we want inside them. That's what I do - I do a search of the monthly data files that I downloaded for all instances of "Lerner", for example.

About the individual line format - if e.g. we have one that says:

Lerner Theodor_Lerner link 16

that means there were 16 observed cases where a reader was at Lerner, and afterwards they navigated to Theodor Lerner.

We also see the keyword "link", which indicates there was a link being followed - otherwise it could say "other", which would mean the reader e.g. reached for the search box or something.

Now, the significant limitations to these statistics in this case exist because if there had been 9 observed cases where a reader was at Lerner, and afterwards they navigated to e.g. Main Page, this wouldn't show up - to protect reader privacy, all such cases where there were <10 cases the analysis are omitted.

Please let me know if this suffices to explain, or should I clarify further. --Joy (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)