User talk:Born2cycle

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Coherent reply policy

If I put a message on your talk page, I will be watching that page for a reply. If you leave a message here, I will reply here, unless you request otherwise.

"Kolossus (disambigution)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Kolossus (disambigution) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Kolossus (disambigution) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Go Transit[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)#Go station naming regarding station naming conventions for Go Transit. Cards84664 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Surnames as PRIMARYREDIRECTs[edit]

Hi. I found that you were involved in the early inclusion of surnames into what is now WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I am considering starting an RfC to deprecate such surname PRIMARYREDIRECTS and wanted your input. You can view my sandbox draft of the RfC proposal here. Every day, we see more and more surname PRIMARYREDIRECT WP:Requested moves, which now often devolve into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifications. I think, when one considers all the particulars related to biographical names, though, this practice probably isn't a good one in -any- case. Thanks for your time and thoughts. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

First, while most arrivals are probably through external search engines our concern is with making internal searches work well. A given base name with a primary topic must be the title of, or redirect to, that topic’s article precisely because of internal searches. I see no reason why surnames should be an exception to this principle.
As to first references being surnames... not ideal but in most cases probably not a big deal either.
Making Einstein a dab page is about as likely as making Paris one. I suggest you spend your time on something much more likely to bear fruit. —В²C 20:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
(copied your reply here, we can continue on this page) As I pointed out in my draft, internal search concerns are a wash - no matter which way we go, some segment will endure an additional click. We have no way to determine how many page views per day to the Einstein redirect are due to internal searches vs links embedded on other articles, but we certainly know that views of the actual article dwarf both the redirect and the disambiguation page. Even if some majority of page views per day type "Einstein" in the search box, I think that addressing the other concerns related to bad editorial practice will reap far greater rewards. Absolutely no one who wants to find the Albert Einstein page will fail to get there if that redirect is taken out of the picture so that we can ensure our editors follow multiple other style guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 02:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
All I can tell you is if I’m on WP and decide to look up someone well known by their surname, I’m searching with that. And I want it to take me to the article about that someone, not to some godforsaken dab page. And I’m not alone. Far from. -В²C 06:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
When you're reading an article though, don't you want the first mention of a person to be their full name? My evidence related to Einstein on that page shows that surname redirects have made editors lazy, leading to poor handling of name mentions. -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Full name is preferable in first reference of course but retaining wp search efficiency via surname primary redirects is far more important IMHO. —-В²C 14:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Then I have to ask - what are your standards for which topics get surname primary redirects and which don't? Right now we have almost no guidance on this and so the landscape is not at all WP:CONSISTENT... your ability to search for say Einstein works one way but searching for Trump works the other way despite much higher page views. The last two attempts to make a surname redirect there failed utterly. Speaking frankly, I think the reality is that whether a surname redirect is used is arbitrary and based on the relative "fandom" of a particular topic... and that is no way to define a system. Deprecating is fair and consistent... people will know what to expect every time. That consistency has value. -- Netoholic @ 20:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Netoholic, look at all uses on the surname’s dab page. If the page counts for the person in question meets primary topic usage criteria relative to the other uses, and there are considerable references (not necessarily first references) in RS to the person by surname only, then it’s the primary topic. If not, then not. By that standard the current president is probably the PT for Trump, and would be a primary redirect, if people could be objective about him. —-В²C 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The comparison between Trump and Einstein is misleading IMHO, because the biggest reason for disambiguating the former is the presence of Trump (card games). Clearly not the most sought topic on the dab page, but as we know WP:PRIMARYTOPICs are assessed on two criteria - common usage and longterm significance. The card-game concept has been around since the sixteenth century, and will most likely still be used 200 years from now, when Trump will just be known as a relatively minor historical figure, like John Quincy Adams or Andrew Jackson. So this isn't some malicious doctoring of Wikipedia rules because people don't like the Donald, it's just routine application of our own PRIMARYREDIRECT rules on a case by case basis, which is exactly what we should be doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think you've identified exactly one of the difficult things to do - finding prevalence of RS that use surname only. How does one go about that without WP:CHERRYPICKING? We have no tools to be objective about that. When a task like that is so difficult and without objective evidence, that inevitable leads to people voting on gut instinct or personal subjective preference - a problem that is amplified greatly when its about biographies. A simple, straightforward deprecation would eliminate these RM discussions and lead to a consistent handling of surnames and improve first mention handling in our articles per MOS:SURNAME. Yes, we affect searching for one set of searches - a small population on a daily basis - but making surname searches have consistent results. People will learn that, on Wikipedia, when you search for a surname, you get shown a list of people with that surname. You don't sometimes get a list and sometimes get a biography. -- Netoholic @ 08:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t mention long term significance because I was asked how I determine PT, and I ignore that confounding criterion. But PT determination has an inherent subjective element for all topics, not just surnames. That’s no reason to drop it. —-В²C 14:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think primary redirects for surname holders are overused and I would certainly reduce the number (and the number of overall primary topics) but I still agree that there are reasonable cases where this is appropriate. There have been cases like Smiles and Raleigh where it was argued that the surname holder was a significant contender but in those cases the surname holders are PTMs while even though the city in NC and the facial expression are titled differently per our NC they are still full matches. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)