WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Primary Topic RFC[edit]

The current primary topic of "Big Bang Theory" is an American TV show. I contend that the far more encyclopedic topic, the one our target readers want to read is actually about the cosmological theory. Comments welcome. Hipocrite (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm aware no regular editors of Big Bang related articles were informed of the previous discussions - that has now been fixed and so new opinions are likely.Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how Pokemon is relevant to this discussion. Nonetheless, the RFC discussion so far seems to suggest that there is no longer a clear consensus for keeping the TV show as the primary topic. Support for changing the primary topic to the cosmological theory, or a compromise/merge, appears to be growing. Jusses2 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has few articles list whereas the other is very exhaustive. It makes no sense to have two disambiguation pages on the same topic. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't disambiguate on topic; we disambiguate on title. The two dabs do not share a topic. Some titles are indeed ambiguous among smaller sets of topics than other ambiguous titles. We don't combine Cadaver (disambiguation) and Corpse (disambiguation), for instance. It makes perfect sense to have two disambiguation pages for two titles when the two titles are ambiguous among distinct topic sets. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The titles aren't ambiguous enough, especially since the Big Bang theory redirects to Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In all cases the articles should have a hatnote back to the disamb page.TR 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation)", and a request to move this disambiguation page to "Big Bang Theory" was closed only two days ago. —David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a common user, big bang=Big Bang=big bang theory; we shouldn't expect users to know under which of the many several caps-plus-minus-word-"Theory" combinatorics have Wikipedians organized each article. Both dab pages should be merged so that neither capitalization nor primary topic won't matter; this is information architecture 101.
If there's consensus that the TV show is the primary topic for the string "The Big Bang Theory", then both strings should be highlighted in the merged dab page, with the scientific theory first. Diego (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some opposition to merging boths dab pages based primarily on the idea that the merged page would be too long. This argument doesn't make sense because
  1. The merged page would be only 4 lines longer than the current one and
  2. The two most likely targets would be at the top of the list, per the compromise solution by David Levy, so the length of the merged list doesn't matter. The possibility to mislead a percentage of readers with two target dabs can thus be avoided at no cost. Diego (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a "fork"/further discussion of this requested move at wt:civility#Why is the american u.s. tv series the BiG BANG THEORY theory allowed to be more notable than what is real, really, The Big Bang Theory. (Thank you user:David Levy for the correction of my mis-typing, see immediately below.) To me, it would be less confusing if the two DABpages were merged. NewbyG ( talk) 18:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the discusison is located at WT:Notability. —David Levy 20:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would need to demonstrate that people use Wikipedia the same way they use search engines, a claim I don't believe is true, and that readers of Wikipedia are using "Big Bang" to search for the TV series more often than any other search string, a claim I also don't believe is true. Also, Big Bang leads to the theory article, complete with hatnote link to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), not hidden under the fold. Organization by cap combinatorics is explicit in WP:AT. This is Wikipedia disambiguation 101. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you Wikipedia consensus is better than scientific principles, this is what you're suggesting? ;-)justkidding I'm making a common sense explanation (or WP:IAR if you prefer) of what is known about how people look for information on the internet. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was on the internet. (Now seriously: note that I'm not talking about article titles, I'm talking about disambiguation pages, so WP:AT doesn't apply). Read below. Diego (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the universe, from which the American TV sitcom The Big Bang Theory takes its name.

Big Bang Theory may also refer to...

—David Levy 18:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support this writing, it clarifies the roles of the two major meanings. Diego (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is a "real consensus"? Given the number of editors who participated in those discussions and the fact that the last was the result of these discussions, I think there's enough to establish that there is consensus. Try as you might, you can't credibly argue against the page view statistics. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where possible, discussions should be bought to the attention of interested parties. Since this was apparently not done the consensus is biased towards editors interested in the tv sitcom article. So although the stats are interesting they don't necessarily represent overall consensus. Let the discussion proceed, if again it closes as no consensus then you can argue that no further future discussion is needed. Since this is an RFC so should get a more thorough attention from all interested parties.Polyamorph (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it was biased at all. My examination of the page view statistics certainly wasn't. Or are you arguing that 1.7 million page views for the TV program and 200,000 for the cosmological model could be interpreted to mean that the cosmological model is the primary topic? --AussieLegend (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All those discussions consisted of a small sample of the wikipedia community, so nothing is clear. I've already stated why I think the cosmological thoery is the primary topic, see my comments above. Polyamorph (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All discussions on Wikipedia consist of a small sample of the Wikipedia community. That's how Wikipedia consensus works. This audience is definitely larger than the previous one, and consensus can change, but so far there's no new consensus emerging, just more editors repeating the previous discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand where you're both coming from. However I think you'll have a lot more problems trying to close an RfC that has already generated quite substantial interest from different editors than just letting it run its course. If consensus is the same then you'll be happy and be able to bury it once and for all. If consensus changes then the RfC was worthwhile. Polyamorph (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AussieLegend, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes a very clear distinction between a topic that is primary for a term with respect to usage, and a topic that is primary with respect to long-term significance. The page views for the TV program are very likely to fade as soon as the last season is aired; the enduring notability and educational value of the scientific theory, not so much. Now if the series had finished some years ago and it still showed the same page views you would have a stronger argument, but that's not the case. Diego (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Long term significance doesn't outweigh usage; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clear on that. Right now, the page views show that the TV series is overwhelmingly the primary topic according to our readers. If that changes then we can revisit this. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, no. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is explicit that in a case of "conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance[...], consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic". Given that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS we should wait until the series finishes airing to determine whether there's continued coverage enough to displace the scientific theory as the new most notable Big Bang topic, ever; until the media coverage wears off we don't know if the series popularity will have enduring usage to be the sought "more likely than all the other topics combined". Diego (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, no right back. We work on what the situation is now, and that is that the TV series is the primary topic. Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is about determining initial notability, not about waiting years to determine whether one subject is more notable than another in the future. There's no doubt that both the TV series and the cosmological model are notable now, but it's clear from the page views that The Big Bang Theory is the primary topic now. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that those guidelines are are about notability; I'm saying that being a primary topic is related to the level of notability of a topic, and thus the arguments in those guidelines are relevant to this case; you're free to disagree with that. But given that PRIMARYTOPIC requires consensus to determine a primary topic and there's no consensus, The Big Bang Theory definitely cannot be the primary topic according to established policy. Diego (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's safe to assume that the cosmological model always will be far more notable than the TV series is. But this RfC isn't about which of the two subjects is more notable; it's about which (if either) should be the primary topic within the structure of a disambiguation page with a particularly formatted title.
Some respondents (not you) seem to be under the impression that they're being asked which of the two subjects is primary in general (without regard for the page title's specific formatting). Obviously, the cosmological model is.
As discussed previously, I believe that the most helpful solution (i.e. the structure that would best assist readers arriving at the page) is to link the articles about both the cosmological model and the TV series at the top (irrespective of whether the two disambiguation pages are merged). And I think that the cosmological model should come first, as that simply seems intuitive. —David Levy 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't help feeling that the "specific title formatting" argument borders on WP:GAMEing the system (in form, if not intent) in order to get away with two primary topics. Fortunately the Disambiguation pages guideline makes it clear that the differences existing on this title are no basis to keep a separate topic at disambiguation and should usually be combined. I agree with you that always having both links at the top of any remaining disambiguation topic will be the best outcome. Diego (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry; my reply was unclear. I wasn't referring to the two disambiguation pages' titles. I was thinking primarily of the distinction between "Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory". (Disambiguation via capitalization is a policy-backed practice.)
I haven't had time to read all of the relevant arguments (so I don't yet have a firm opinion on the matter), but my initial inclination would be to merge the two disambiguation pages. —David Levy 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's what I'm referring too. It's OK and common practice to use capitalization to disambiguate articles for similarly named topics. But then It's not OK to use that to claim they both can be primary topics "because they're using a different name"; that defeats the whole purpose of disambiguation. Diego (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean that it's never reasonable for subject x to be the primary topic for "Page title" and subject y to be the primary topic for "Page Title"? Or are you referring specifically to a situation in which there are two disambiguation pages (each with a separate primary topic)? —David Levy 14:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A combination of both. If both "Page title" and "Page Title" can make reasonable claims to primarity, neither of them should merit the prominent location that WP:PRIMARY grants; by pure logic there's no possibility that both of them can be "prevailing over anyone else" at the same time. The fact that in the case this faulty logic was used in the past to justify creating two separate disambiguation pages is particularly infuriating, because it runs against the core functionality and purpose of disambiguation pages which is to consolidate all similar names at a single point. I don't know, maybe the culprit of all this is the Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Redirecting to a primary topic guideline; people assumed that, in order to create a redirect to an article instead to a Disambiguation, this article must necessarily called a "primary topic", even when that's not really the only reason to do it. If some common sense had been used we wouldn't be having this long debate. Diego (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think that I follow (and I'm inclined to agree). There does seem to be a belief that because Big Bang Theory redirects to The Big Bang Theory, the latter must be treated as the sole primary topic at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation), despite an apparent lack of utility in doing so. We shouldn't rigidly adhere to rules at the expense of reader convenience. —David Levy 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Examining the page view statistics for the articles, redirects and disambiguation pages, which I did, gives a clear result. In short, everything is fine as it is. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree with the various things Diego has said, much as my stomach heaves at the idea of bands and TV shows in the same system as serious science. Whatever the upshot, I would insist on the lede in each of the confusable articles being sufficiently terse and explicit to tell anyone what you are letting yourself in for when your mouse hovers over a link. JonRichfield (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this helps you, think that the system to separate scientific theories and TV shows are the categories. Disambiguation is the rational place to put science and popular topics together because they share names, and then you can still have them under different subsections so that they are never really together. Diego (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bkonrad, they are not "forced to sift through a longer list", they can use the table of contents to jump to the section on the relevant topic and skip the rest. Diego (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even with the TOC, the reader must sift through a list that includes titles that are noise for those looking specifically for "big bang theory". older ≠ wiser 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not if the TOC includes the "big bang theory" subsection titles. Moreover, the human brain is incredibly efficient in filtering the kind of "noise" you describe (which is done by scanning the page; for lists of items, eyes fixate on the list headers and the rest of content is ignored); scanning webpages is widely considered easier than browsing between them (ever heard of "lost in hyperspace" hypertext effect?). On the other hand, users arriving to the wrong page and trying to find some content that is on the other one is a "silence" (by contrast with your "noise" metaphor) that makes it *impossible* to find the desired target. A long list with headers defined on the TOC is easier to navigate than a separate webpage whose link is below the fold and offers no information scent of what is located on the other page. Diego (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also need to look at ambiguous redirects, those that could result in readers ending up at the "wrong" article, but let's weight it heavily in favour of the cosmological model by assuming that everyone who didn't specifically type in The Big Bang Theory or something with "TV" in it was looking for the cosmological model:
Relevant redirects to The Big Bang Theory:
If we assume that those 162,806 views represent people who attempted to but never reached Big Bang the total page views become 399,930 for Big Bang and 1,235,071 for The Big Bang Theory. Even using this theory, it's clear that our readers want the TV series, and not the cosmological model. Whichever way you look at it, even if you fudge the figures unrealistically in the direction of the cosmological model, the TV series is, like it or not, what our readers want and why it is, therefore, the primary topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that's why we will put in place proper links clearly labelled with the article they target, instead of making them play guess games based on capitalization and missing words. ;-) (And you keep stretching the definition of what the primary topic is, which is not "the Wikipedia page with the most page hits").Diego (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. (For what it's worth, you have convinced me that Big Bang Theory makes a good redirect to The Big Bang Theory as long as only one disambiguation page exists and its linked from all top hats; I was undecided on that particular point before). Diego (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not stretching the definition at all. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly says that one of the two major aspects in determining a primary topic is usage, which is what page views show us. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly, "one" aspect. You're treating it as the only one, which it isn't. Diego (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the case at all. The two major aspects are usage and long-term significance. Nobody has argued that Big Bang won't have a greater long-term significance, unless somebody discovers that the universe was actually created when a rabid space-goat sneezed, so there's no issue with that now. However, the page views show that as far as our readers are concerned, right now, the TV series is the primary topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You really don't see any logical contradiction in what you wrote there? Diego (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None at all. When you apply our policies and guidelines, including WP:CRYSTAL, right now The Big Bang Theory is the primary topic. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is very *ironic* that you quote WP:CRYSTAL, especially if you consider that for a long time starting from when The Big Bang Theory got wikijacked [1] it contained an announcement and a rumors, which is against WP:CRYSTAL. Also, you should do a more thorough and unbiased analysis of your claimed page views. If you consider that for a long time before The Big Bang Theory got wikijacked it was the cosmological theory which got prominent views and the wikijack skewed results afterwards and the disambiguation pages may have not been doing a good job as others have argued. Attention, David Levy, if you are still looking for a comment about importance, just review the comments and arguments from AussieLegend, clearly AussieLegend is promoting the importance of the tv show (and has been based on his contribution history).70.27.10.124 (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Many new articles are poorly written. How is that relevant to the page as it exists today?
2. Your "thorough and unbiased analysis" of the page view statistics has no basis in reality. If you believe otherwise, please cite actual data (and your interpretations thereof) instead of pulling unsubstantiated claims out of thin air.
3. AussieLegend explicitly acknowledged that the cosmological model has "greater long-term significance". His argument is that the sitcom is the primary usage of the "The Big Bang Theory" (with that specific formatting) based on usage. Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is not an assertion that the TV series is the more important of the two subjects. —David Levy 05:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there a reason that you are starting multiple new sections inside this RFC? Further, I don't think that "page hits" are relevant to what our target readers want to read. Hipocrite (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't started ANY sections. Or are you saying that all of my comments must be included in one area? Page views are directly relevant because the show us what our looking at and generally, people look at what they want. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only are our readers not necessarily familiar with how things are supposed to be capitalized (have you seen how new editors capitalize things willy-nilly), but check this out: "Siri, find the big bang theory on Wikipedia." ... "Let me search the web for 'the big bang theory'..." → The Big Bang Theory. No doubt other examples of incorrect redirects can occur with other assistive technologies. I myself had such an experience a few months back of typing the wrong thing into the search bar and being surprised at arriving at the TV show—and I am an experience editor here who (usually) knows how things are supposed to be capitalized, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirects and dab pages aside: Why the hell isn't the title of the article The Big Bang Theory properly disambiguated to The Big Bang Theory (TV show)?? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]
AFAIK this is to claim that The Big Bang Theory and Big Bang are both the primary topic. Diego (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, that's just an unfortunate side effect.
The title of The Big Bang Theory article is a valid application of WP:PRECISION. Several proposals to move the article to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) have failed, due to strong evidence that the capitalization and inclusion of "The" sufficiently disambiguate (with a hatnote accommodating the minority of readers seeking Big Bang and accidentally arriving at the TV program's article). —David Levy 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It certainly does not sufficiently disambiguate since the cosomological model is indeed known as "The Big Bang theory". The definite article is used and there is no reason to suggest that someone searching will necessarily know the correct use of capitalisation. I don't see that any of those move discussions provided any strong evidence regarding capatalisation, only that there was no overall consensus to move. Polyamorph (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I regard the evidence as strong. We'll have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, Siri sends us to the wrong article. That's a pretty clear indication that something should be changed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, but of course we need to adapt ourselves to defective technology. Brilliant. older ≠ wiser 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. How, exactly, is Siri being defective in this case? I say "search Wikipedia for the big bang theory", and it takes me directly to our very own article the big bang theory. The only defect I see is our article title. Siri is behaving exactly as it is supposed to. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Defective in the sense it is unaware of context and isn't smart enough to ask for clarification. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if someone instructing Siri to "search Wikipedia for The Big Bang Theory" seeks the TV program's article? Either way, one of the two searches will fail. And the page view statistics clearly show that the sitcom's article is sought significantly more often.
I agree with Bkonrad that this reflects a shortcoming of Siri, not our naming scheme. I'm not mocking the technology (which is impressive), but until its precision is improved, such issues will remain common. —David Levy 04:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's a shortcoming of this assistive technology, then it is likely a shortcoming of many others, not to be dismissed lightly. Even our "Search" feature is ignorant of the context of the user's queries. That's why we have dab pages: to be "smart enough to ask for clarification". That's their job, not Siri's and not the Search box. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is usually a very poor decision to base design on developing technology. Yes there are disambiguation pages and hatnotes to help readers find what they are looking for. That siri doesn't know what to do with that yet is not a very good reason to change things. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not dismissing the problem. I'm pointing out that it isn't within our power to solve it.
Ideally, in the situation that you describe, Siri would determine the relevant context and send every user directly to the correct article. Unfortunately, that isn't what occurs (yet).
Therefore, irrespective of the content to which the big bang theory points, at least some Siri users will fail to reach their intended destinations. The same is true of people who simply type "the big bang theory". So what do we do? We point the big bang theory to the article most likely sought, with a hatnote accommodating readers seeking others.
In addition to the fact that the sitcom's article receives the most visits (by far), the page view statistics clearly indicate that very few people seeking the article about the cosmological model type variants containing "the" into the search box. So yes, this is a shortcoming of Siri (and similar technologies).
Again, I'm not mocking Siri or saying that we should tell its users to go pound sand. I'm noting that we're doing our best to assist as many readers as possible. Consider our alternative options.
If the big bang theory were a redirect to Big Bang, users seeking the TV show's article would arrive at the wrong destination. As the latter is sought more often (especially when "the" is included), this would make matters worse.
If the big bang theory were to lead to a disambiguation page, everyone would arrive at the wrong destination. Instead of a majority of readers immediately reaching the intended article (and most others reaching theirs via a single click), everyone would need to follow an additional link.
And again, this scenario isn't unique to the pages in question. We apply similar setups to many other articles, so the aforementioned shortcoming (with Siri and similar technologies) manifests throughout the site.
So while I understand the problem and would like very much to address it, I don't see a possible solution preferable to our current approach. —David Levy 16:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, well, that's a (potential) problem with the word "the", not with capitalization ("big bang theory" leads to the theory article). That's an entirely different discussion. Powers T 18:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice attempt at lawyering; but it fails. WP:PRECISION describes the name that articles should have, but when it comes to the content of disambiguation pages, which is what the grandparent poster addressed, the relevant policy is WP:DPAGES, which explicitly instructs us to combine all combinations of capitals, lowercases and variants of a name at the same page. (And in fact WP:PRECISION says that appropriate disambiguation techniques should be used to help the user find one of the titles when typing the other one). But you already knew all this if you're paying attention to this discussion at all (ha! ha!), and also because it has been explained directly to you, so please stop beating the dead horse and wait for the discussion to be closed (and no, the combined page would not be "inconveniently long", which has also been discussed to death). Diego (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The instruction to which you refer at WP:DPAGES is a simple description of the option -- that single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms -- not a requirement nor even a recommendation that they should. The soot is showing as you accuse others of wikilawyering. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well WP:DPAGES specifically says "Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above" so if consensus feels that's the way it should be done then we should go with that. Polyamorph (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I have no problem with vigorous debate to determine consensus -- but I do have a problem with someone attempting to undermine another's arguments with accusations of wikilawyering while simultaneously using a highly selective parsing of the text. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selective parsing of the text, such as in linking to the guideline so that anyone can read it at whole? So far, nobody has found arguments against my interpretation of the guideline other than "it should be decided by consensus", which is a given. Diego (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, you are selectively parsing the text when you claim that WP:DPAGES explicitly instructs us to combine all combinations of capitals, lowercases and variants of a name at the same page. It only describes an option in presenting disambiguation. And several have argued against your position, despite your pompous claims to the contrary. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the above exchange (beginning with JHunterJ's message from 24 March at 15:00) comes across as an honest misunderstanding; various statements have more than one possible interpretation, which appears to have led to a snowball effect. I don't think that anyone is being deceptive.
Regardless, there's no need for insults (e.g. "pompous"). Please strike that, Bkonrad. —David Levy 13:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right David, though there is just a bit of self-delusional WP:IDHT reasoning to a claim that nobody has found arguments against my interpretation of the guideline other than "it should be decided by consensus". older ≠ wiser 14:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quit with the insults. If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion then just don't add anything. Diego has made some excellent arguments and thus far you haven't come up with a convincing counter-argument and are now resorting to discrediting Diego. Stop that. Polyamorph (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I and others have made arguments. You apparently are unconvinced. That's OK. But I'll not apologize for stating the truth about exaggerated claims. older ≠ wiser 15:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointing out obvious errors is not wikilawyering. Your inability to process incoming information is one of the reasons I took a break from this train wreck. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with the current disambiguation structure

JHunterJ, there are two lines reasoning for merging the DAB pages, of not only the search engine one. Analyze this scenario:

  1. An unsophisticated user (who happens to be blind and is using a screen reader) is looking for the TV show, enters the words "big bang" at Google and follows the first link. This brings her to Big Bang.
  2. Noticing that this is about the universe thingy and not the show, points her reader to the top of the page that literally says "This article is about the cosmological model. For other uses, see Big Bang(disambiguation)."
  3. Upon hearing this, she follows the "Big Bang (disambiguation)" link, arriving to Big Bang (disambiguation).
  4. Now this article begins repeating the definition of the cosmological theory of the universe. Next, a table of contents has a pointer to the "2 Film and television" section, which she follows.
  5. In this section the third link is for a The Big Bang (TV series), (a children's TV...)". By this point, the reader already has already clicked the link and been sent to the wrong TV series article.
  6. As an epilogue to the story, the top hat at The Big Bang (TV series) finally points to the right article with "For the 2007 sitcom, see The Big Bang Theory" but only after having hopped through two wrong articless, the wrong disambiguation page and two suggested links that pointed to the wrong place; and finally founds the right one just because I've added it today to fix this nonsense; the original top hat just sent her back to the circular Big Bang (disambiguation) as the first option.

Note that the same situation would have been faced by someone who is a slow reader, who arrived to the first DAB page by typing the shortest query term ("big bang"), i.e. by the people more likely to make navigation errors and most in need of a well-structured disambiguation page. I never claimed that is wrong for all the possible readers, but the provided example shows that it is bad for those that would benefit most from it. Now what part of all of the above is not a problem or not the most likely course of action for the stated scenario?

(For those interested, here is the link to several research studies on the average length of queries at search engines, and here the one for the link most likely to be followed at a web page). Diego (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this hypothetical reader were so "unsophisticated" as to click on the hatnote link at step 3 for Big Bang (disambiguation) instead of the equally prominent Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) link, there is quite honestly little that can be done to help them. Wikipedia goes to great lengths to make it easy to navigate the maze, but what more can be done if readers make deliberately obtuse choices? older ≠ wiser 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your "deliberately obtuse choices" are the ones with the most information in them and thus the ones more likely to be used. The hypothesis above is a cognitive walkthrough, i.e. an analysis of the actual information that we have provided to the reader. You may "go to great lengths" to make it easy to navigate, but if you are placing the information at wrong places all your good will won't make a difference.
You comment on the two links to disambig at step 3; both have the words "Big Bang" in them so there's a 50/50 probability to follow either of them. That means that 50% of the readers in this scenario will face the stated problem. (You could also read about inattentional blindness and eye tracking to understand why someone will miss the second link - short answer: this is how our brains are wired). Diego (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make some faulty assumptions though. A person looking for the tv show titled "The Big Bang Theory" is unlikely to be unaware of that title and to deliberately select the link for Big Bang (disambiguation) rather than the equally prominent Big Bang Theory (disambiguation). With clever rhetoric, it is possible to make just about any hypothetical sound reasonable to the unwitting. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is nothing faulty assuming that some percentage of users looking for a title with "Big Bang" in it will click on a link with the words "Big Bang" in it. You're making your own faulty assumption that readers will read both links before making the decision, but it's a fact that people don't read web pages while navigating[8], and another wrong assumption is thinking that the small difference between the two links is enough to make an informed decision (it isn't). The assumption that "readers will know to look for the word 'theory' because that's how editors have arranged it" is not in line with how people navigate web pages. Diego (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why make things more difficult for readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for when they see it with the dubious proposition that some minimal number of clueless readers who click on the first link they see need to be spoon-fed information?
(ec with above post) IMHO We ought to expect readers to make semi-deliberately obtuse-ish choices. Lotta people do dumb searches, I know that I do lottsa times. Who searches for something they already know? (2pennies) NewbyG ( talk) 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but to what lengths should we attempt to anticipate the innumerable ways in which people might make dumb choices? And especially, should we simultaneously make it more difficult for those readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for when they see it? older ≠ wiser 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should anticipate the most likely ones. Diego (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but I see no solid evidence of likelihood other than suspect hypothetical suppositions. older ≠ wiser 12:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to single me out. The past 3 or 5 move requests that have resulted or maintained the current arrangement were not isolated to my opinion. Yes, per Bkonrad, the current arrangement's hatnotes will assist even very restricted users in the navigational needs. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am looking at it this way, maybe I am wrong. I reckon, someone who enters "big bang" in a Search, no the, no theory, no CAPS, ought to easily get to either (main-ish or primary-ish) article, because they could be looking for either article. So, if they have to wade through 10 or so entries on a Dab page, that works for me, the other entries are for free and might entice a look.
Else, do the compromise that user:DL suggested, I don't know how the full details of how that will work, myself, but it seems workable and suitable at the current state of consensus. Ty NewbyG ( talk) 00:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, so do you see a problem with the current arrangement of hatnotes and redirects? If you're not actually sure whether what you're looking for is called "big bang" or "big bang theory", then you might have to visit two both pages, but as it appears you may be browsing semi-aimlessly for things with some combination of "big" and "bang" in the title, is that such a bad thing? Such casual browsers might welcome a less focused listing, but for why force readers who are able to recognize what they are looking for to filter out the noise in a less focused list? older ≠ wiser 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most readers don't mind "the noise"... They will understand that a merged dab page is being as inclusive as possible to aid navigation. Blueboar (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those who are inconvenienced, I doubt it will seem so. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Readers looking for The Big Bang Theory won't be inconvenienced, because that link will be placed in the first paragraph and thus the length of the list doesn't matter. Diego (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) Who are these "most readers" you've polled about the noise? How did you reach that conclusion, which is not part of the disambiguation guidelines? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bkonrad, 1) users may be fully aware of how what they're looking is called, but have no idea how Wikipedians have arranged things; 2) the show is called "The Big Bang Theory", and the scientific principle is called "the Big Bang theory", so links for "big bang" and "big bang theory" are not enough to differentiate between both targets; 3) readers who recognize correctly guess that they should be looking for the second and not the first classification will find a very short list under the "Film and television" header, so a merge doesn't hurt anybody; and 4) skipping content in a single page that you don't want to read is easier than locating content in a separate page that you don't know is there because it's not in sight. Diego (talk) 06:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5), the merged page would be exactly four lines longer than the current one. I don't believe that your opposition to a merged dab comes from a rational concern about the length of the list. Diego (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, how much longer that the relevant current one? Yes, the concern is rational about efficiency in navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The relevant link to the most visited article will be at the top of that dab page, so the length of the list below it does not affect the efficiency in navigation. Or are you arguing for the convenience of those people looking for the Styx album, the Harem Scarem album and the Family Guy episode? Diego (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For both groups, yes. Since the Styx album, Harem Scarem album, and Family Guy episode are not known as "Big Bang", those readers are best served by the shorter dab page. Since the elements of the longer list at the "Big Bang" disambiguation are not known as "Big Bang Theory", even those readers are better served, with a smaller impact, by the separate dab pages. The only people who benefit from the combined dab pages are editors who take umbrage that the TV show is listed above the theory on Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) (even though Big Bang, Big Bang theory, etc., etc., all correctly get the readers to the theory first). Readers who intend one of the albums or episode but shortcut the search will still find the correct dab page in the hatnotes on Big bang. But all of this has been said before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree that readers will be best served by a short page that is difficult to find better than one long page that is unmissable. For example those looking for the Family Guy episode will remember "that one where Stewie caused the Big Bang". With that information, both Big Bang (disambiguation) and Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) are equally likely targets. Its extremely rare that will remember the exact title of one episode; such reader will benefit from having "The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy)" listed with all the shows titled "Big Bang" under "Film and television"; that way they are not forced to know in advance in which of the two separate classifications the editors placed it, like the current classification mandates.
Your unproven wild guess that people will correctly navigate to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is based on the assumption that they know the exact title, and/or understand that Wikipedia editors are differentiating articles with respect to the capitalization in one single word. Readers that don't know how editors have classified the pages (i.e. ALL the readers that need disambiguation) will make a choice at random, and once at the wrong page there is no easy way they can recover from the error. Diego (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's stop with the accusations of "unproven wild guess" -- your proposition, although purportedly drawn by inference from some research is equally unproven. Unless you are proposing to conduct some well-formed usability studies, nothing is "proven". older ≠ wiser 12:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can agree with that and call both positions unproven. Now, I have shown several research studies pointing out the first principles that explain why structures like the one used here are likely to cause problems. What are your third-party evidence that readers will correctly know to distinguish between "Big Bang", "Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory" in most cases? Diego (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are making some big leaps to establish what you call first principles. Primarily that the research you reference is analogous to the issue under discussion here. Has the published research made any claims about navigation in the Wikipedia? Have third-party sources established the first principles to which you appeal? I challenge you to point to specific evidence that there is actually a problem that needs to be fixed? Why should we assume that most readers will not be able to distinguish between "Big Bang", "Big Bang theory" and "Big Bang Theory"? There are page view statistics, which provide some indications that readers by and large able to get to where they want to. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer your questions: 1) yes [9][10][11] [12][13] (there are many studying navigation at Wikipedia using usability principles) 2) yes [14][15] (the principles of information foraging are well stablished), 3) the problem I found is the problematic flow shown in the cognitive walkthrough below which has found one potential problem with non-cero probability using a well established method[16][17], 4) Why should we assume that a choice between three links is easier than having a single link?, and 4) page view statistics don't show what navigation path users are following, nor how much of those readers left the site at a disambiguation without finding their desired page, so they aren't informative about the success rate for the users with problems (i.e. the ones that are using dab pages). Diego (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navigation options

Here are the most informative options for navigation that are being offered to people that are looking for the current "The Big Bang Theory" show:

  1. Big Bang (disambiguation)
  2. Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)
  1. Film and television:The Big Bang (TV series)
  2. See also: Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)
  1. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang": The Big Bang (TV series)
  2. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang theory": The Big Bang Theory
  1. The Big Bang Theory
  2. Film and television: Titled "Big Bang": The Big Bang (TV series)

What of the four options is the one that offer the least difficult choice for a (not dumb) reader that is looking for the 2007 sitcom (which is the one with highest audience of all the articles with "Big Bang" in their titles)? Diego (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on Navigation options

I will get the ball rolling, my maths may be dodgy, but I count, if a a merged Dab page for Big Bang is the preferred option, just TWO (2) extra lines, (we lose some entries since we're losing one redundant dab-page). Check my maths, please, people, seriously, I don't wish to mislead, and we are finally getting some focused listing of options, should make this discussion more forwardy. NewbyG ( talk) 08:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I count four new entries at Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) that are not at Big Bang (disambiguation): the TV show, the Styx album, the Harem Scarem album and the Family Guy episode. Diego (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many extra lines over the current Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) page for the readers looking for one of those topics? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The relevant link to the most visited article will be at the top of that dab page, so the length of the list below it does not affect the efficiency in navigation. Diego (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The layout of the dab pages is irrelevant to the readers reaching the primary topic; those readers won't see the dab page. Instead, compare the current navigation path for someone looking for "Big Bang Theory (Styx album)" vs. their path under the ill-conceived merged dab. There is a misunderstanding in the purpose of disambiguation pages -- it is not to settle a hypothetical question of dominance between science and pop culture, but rather to assist readers seeking topics under a title that is ambiguous reach the sought topic quickly. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh? All your opposition to my arguments is because you think I'm arguing for the dominance between science and pop culture? I don't care a damn about the dominance between science and pop culture, all I want is to avoid the nonsense of two navigation links with exactly the same navigation scent, to avoid a 50% probability to get the wrong disambiguation. I though we agreed that the most likely topic to be looked for is The Big Bang Theory, and this structure is causing a non-trivial change that some readers will have to navigate through two separate dabs and end up at The Big Bang (TV series) instead. How's that good for the primary topic? Diego (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to apply your information scent expertise from Google to Wikipedia, I think you need a broader RfC than just "Big Bang Theory". Possibly at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (because encyclopedias are not Internet search engines). Otherwise, the 50% statistic doesn't apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The expertise is not from Google, it's from humans. Do we have human readers at Wikipedia, or just editors? If we don't have humans, I would agree that it doesn't apply. Diego (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you cannot distinguish between Google and Wikipedia, then this argument will continue to circle. It is possible that analysis of people's use of search engines such as Google may correspond to people's use of Wikipedia perfectly, not at all, or somewhere in between. You are assuming perfect correlation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You keep misrepresenting the provided studies. The browsing studies have not been performed at Google nor search engines, but at navigating web sites; those results have been replicated throughout all kinds of web sites, and thus are fairly general - so now it's your turn to provide some evidence that Wikipedia in some way has special characteristic that disprove the scientific general results that I have provided. I've added above some that have been performed at Wikipedia to illustrate that the principles I stated have been actively used at this place with some success (although not for this particular case). Diego (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The studies have only just been provided, so I can be forgiven if I've misrepresented them. Evidence is already given above and in the series of move requests that preceded the IPs canvassing that preceded this RfC: pageviews of the articles involved indicate that readers are reaching the sought articles efficiently with the current arrangement. No problem to solve. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The informaciton foraging articles and the Alertbox columns by Nielsen were provided yesterday, however; and the Nielsen Group makes the hugest survey studies in the world. Pageviews are only evidence of the successes, not the failures and navigation paths, which are what disambiguation pages should strive to improve. Do you have any evidence that the paths described above are not likely to happen, contrarily to what the principles in the field predict? Diego (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(after ec) The issue of specificity does not arise for those starting by looking for "big bang". Readers looking for things with the more specific title "big bang theory" will need to sift through a longer page with many entries that are not titled "big bang theory". older ≠ wiser 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are reasons why that may be a good thing (and few reasons why that would be bad), see my comments above. Diego (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternate proposal

What if we remove the entry for the cosmological theory from this page? That way it wont appear to be "beneath" the TV show, and readers seeking the theory are never going to reach this page anyway. They'll:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Points for creativity, I suppose, but no. All possible items must be on the disambiguation page. Powers T 14:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or WP:IAR if there's a good reason to do so (here, to avoid the presumed "importance" ranking of the upper-T TV show and the lower-t theory). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IAR is only to be invoked to improve the encyclopedia. This proposal merely staves off editorial pique, which is better handled through other mechanisms that don't interfere with the quality of the encyclopedia. Powers T 19:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another alternative proposal

A compromise was proposed by User:David Levy some 20 hours ago in this discussion, it seems close to workable to me, and with a slight tweak, it may satisfy some of us, or even gain consensus in the time-frame of this Request for commenft. On the other hand, it may not. I invite further comment here, particularly any cogent argument that reveals irredeemable flaws that would disqualify this (tweaked) proposal, or see the "original" compromise proposal as of 18:18, 14 March 2012 (user:David Levy)

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the universe, from which the American TV sitcom The Big Bang Theory takes its name.

Big Bang or Big Bang Theory may also refer to...

Terms which differ by the presence or absence of an article (i.e., "a", "an", or "the" in English). For example, Cure (disambiguation) also contains instances of The Cure.

Terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks.

So, a combined dab page, Big Bang, and Big Bang Theory, and including the other entries, then work the various redirects out. ie. "TheBig bang Theory" would go straight to the sitcom page, while Big Bang theory goes to the cosmological article. That can work, can it not? Ty NewbyG ( talk) 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Status quo: keep current redirect to The Big Bang Theory
  2. Consensus changes: Big Bang becomes primary, redirect to Big Bang or Big Bang theory
  3. No primary topic: move Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to the base name Big Bang Theory per WP:MALDAB
  4. Merge: Big Bang Theory redirects to unified Big Bang (disambiguation), Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is deleted
Please feel free to add to this list. Jusses2 (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A. di M.'s variant

What about:

Big Bang Theory commonly refers to:

Big Bang Theory may also refer to:

(This is inspired by the dab page at Mercury.) ― A. di M.​  01:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah, that option is too sensible. Nobody will like it. Diego (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so this particular proposal is merely about the DAB page, if I understand correctly now? My position is that all variants of "Big Bang Theory" should redirect to Big Bang, with the possible sole exception of The Big Bang Theory. In that light the DAB proposed above is sensible, as are most of the existing hatnotes at the individual pages.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Base name

I see the new layout has already been implemented with [18]. Congratulations on finally resolving one issue! Now the redirect target (primary topic) of Big Bang Theory no longer matches the DAB page. Copy and paste from above, I see 4 options:

  1. Status quo: keep current redirect to The Big Bang Theory
  2. Consensus changes: Big Bang becomes primary, redirect to Big Bang or Big Bang theory
  3. No primary topic: move Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) to the base name Big Bang Theory per WP:MALDAB
  4. Merge: Big Bang Theory redirects to unified Big Bang (disambiguation), Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) is deleted

It would be beneficial to discuss what is to happen with the base name within the remainder of this RFC so that there is a clear record of consensus to prevent future edit wars. Jusses2 (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barring the unmentioned option:
5. Repair the disambiguation page to recognize the primary topic and undo the misguided new layout
the consensus from the past 3 or 5 move discussions is for #1, the status quo. #3 is wrong: the disambiguation page isn't misplaced, since there is a primary topic for the base name, even though it gets buried here to avoid offending the theory crowd.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5 has already failed. This RFC, widely participated in, made it quite clear that the main topic of this disambiguation page is, without dispute, the cosmological theory. We can have another discussion about other pages and where they point, but this RFC is basically completed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it didn't. It made it quite clear that hiding the primary topic for the Title Caps title "Big Bang Theory" would remedy the umbrage needlessly taken by the editors who felt the theory was somehow slighted, even though the theory is not know by the Title Case title. I agree, this RFC is basically completed. We can have another discussion to see if consensus has changed to the conclusion that you say has already been reached, but that's #2 above, not the current consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's true that some users appeared to misunderstand the question as "Which topic has greater societal importance?" (i.e. they didn't realize that we were addressing a specific context, not comparing the two subjects in general), but it isn't fair to summarize the entire discussion in that light.
In my view, it's reasonable to handle this disambiguation page differently than we do the base title (Big Bang Theory), given the fact that a different set of readers will arrive here. The current setup, in which Big Bang and The Big Bang Theory are jointly treated as primary relative to the other items (with Big Bang listed first), seems intuitive and helpful. Therefore, I believe that the status quo (backed by the move request that ended two days before this RfC began) is sensible. (I'm not including the question of whether to merge the two disambiguation pages, which I'm included to believe is a good idea.) —David Levy 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC was clear - this page has a primary topic, and that primary topic is the cosmological theory. Period. If you are discussing a different page, go to that other pages talk page and discuss, but don't forget to notify all of the relevant talk pages. Hipocrite (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Big_Bang_Theory&oldid=131490655

Is there a consensus that there is a need for auto-archiving???[edit]

User:MiszaBot_I states that "NOTE: Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." I hope that the person who placed this bot here isn't doing this as an indirect way to sweep the issue under the rug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.58 (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope; just trying to tidy up. —WWoods (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After the RfC it is very unlikely that the talk page will get much activity, so auto archiving probably won't be necessary - it can stay on for now but once the activity on the talk page drops then it should be removed. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there anything currently still in contention? I got notified for the RFC a moment ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on RfC[edit]

Forgive me for starting a new section but I wanted to make it easier for all. I've read all the comments. Normally I don't inject my personal opinions into a RfC but try only to get all to reach consensus. Here I make an exception.

Any search with big bang in it regardless of grammar or capitalization should go to the main topic which is the cosmological article. It is almost a certainty this will still be the main topic for most readers over the centuries. Other 'big bang' topics will come and go search and popularity wise. On the cosmological article a disambiguation page will allow the reader to find any other current topic of their choice should the cosmological article not be what they are looking for. This follows the common sense KISS approach which I believe will help our readers the most. There is no need to make this confusing or complicated. For those who disagree I hope you will forgive me for being so forward in this instance. I look forward to what should be some interesting discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to participate. Cheers!Jobberone (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only remaining step in getting from your beliefs to where we are is moving The_Big_Bang_Theory to The_Big_Bang_Theory (tv) and redirecting The_Big_Bang_Theory to this page. This can be addressed at WP:RM, and relevant wikiprojects and talk pages should be notified. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Let's give all a chance to discuss. Thanks!Jobberone (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jobberone. Your opinion, of course, is welcome. But you seem to be unaware that the broader topic (beyond the disambiguation page's format) has been discussed extensively.
You're quite correct that our primary goal is to assist readers, and users have presented evidence that persons reaching certain page titles overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program. Therefore, the simplest, most helpful approach is to send them there (with disambiguation links accommodating the small minority of individuals arriving accidentally).
To be clear, there's no dispute that the cosmological model is (and will continue to be) far more important and noteworthy. But it's been shown that readers seeking its article are unlikely to do so via the title The Big Bang Theory (among other variants). In such cases, differentiation by capitalization (and sometimes other formatting differences) is a policy-backed practice.
Please see the most recent move request. Thank you! —David Levy 03:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A move request, which, as has been pointed out by other editors, not widely discussed, and by comparison, not as extensive as this one; and when more people started to weigh in their opinions, was railroaded and closed. No wonder some editors, perhaps out of frustration, threw in some name calling, which may be uncalled for.70.27.184.237 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. What do you mean by "not widely discussed"? A great deal of discussion occurred (in addition to the two previous move requests).
2. On what do you base the assertion that the discussion was "railroaded and closed"? I'm reminded of this allegation.
(See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.24.247.54/Archive) —David Levy 07:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David, can you please link to the discussion where the behavior of readers was analized? I agree with the exact title as the preferred target for the TV show, but I'm unconvinced about the variants. I've read some in-passing mentions pointing to the volume of readers at each page but I haven't found the extended discussion; if the only statistic available is the number of readers, that's not valid to show the desired target for any of the variants other than the exact string "The Big Bang Theory". It would be useful to review that old discussion before using it as a reason to keep the current statu quo. Diego (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was referring to the aforementioned move request, and mainly to variants containing "The" and "Theory"/"theory". (AussieLegend noted that very few readers reach the Big Bang article via redirects containing "The", such as The Big Bang and The big bang.)
The situation regarding the redirect Big Bang Theory isn't as clear-cut, but I believe that the available evidence (discussed during this page's move request) establishes that someone typing the phrase with that capitalization probably seeks the television program's article (and the only other likely target is linked directly from the top of the page, so sending readers to a disambiguation page wouldn't help anyone). —David Levy 15:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)If you're referring to the discussions at this page, you should then notice the objections raised by Jusses2 (00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC), 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)) and me (16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)) that page view statistics only tell us about the number of visits for each term (and thus its popularity), but don't inform wether the user arrived to their desired target because you can't extract the followed path from them. How many users wanted to see the cosmological model but arrived to a (wrong) disambiguation page instead? Page view statistics don't tell that; you can't infer what article the user was seeking using them. My point being that it's dangerous to infer too much from the available data - this can lead to terrible situations like the current separate disambiguation pages for Big Bang and Big Bang Theory. Diego (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're referring to the discussions at this page, you should then notice the objections raised by Jusses2 (00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC), 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)) and me (16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)) that page view statistics only tell us about the number of visits for each term (and thus its popularity), but don't inform wether the user arrived to their desired target because you can't extract the followed path from them.
Few readers — irrespective of their targets — arrive at the page titles in question (The Big Bang and The big bang). Even if 100% of them intend to reach the Big Bang article, this amounts to a very small percentage of persons seeking that article via a redirect containing "The".
The point is that there's no reason to suspect that such individuals treat "The Big Bang Theory" any differently. (If anything, they probably are less likely to type that.) As I noted at Talk:The Big Bang Theory#Requested move, if we generously assume that all readers arriving at The Big Bang and The big bang seek the article about the cosmological model and that such persons reach The Big Bang Theory as frequently as they reach those two variants combined, that accounts for less than 0.5% of The Big Bang Theory's page views.
You noted above that you "agree with the exact title as the preferred target for the TV show", so I don't think that I'm arguing with you; I'm simply clarifying the context in which I've cited the page view statistics.
My point being that it's dangerous to infer too much from the available data - this can lead to terrible situations like the current separate disambiguation pages for Big Bang and Big Bang Theory.
As stated above, I'm inclined to agree that the two disambiguation pages should be merged. —David Levy 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, now I understand better how the number of visits at the less visited pages can provide some insights even without knowing the exact path followed by each user. Diego (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read all of it. I understand where people are coming from and respect everyone's opinions. I tend to see things in a broad sense, follow common sense even though it is bounded by rules, look at the long term, and like the simplest approach. Many of the approaches taken can be justified in one way or more by the rules. I think people can easily get to the TV show or anywhere else they want from one disambiguation page. Of course my opinion is only one and holds no more or less than any other editor. And it is not usual for me to take any stance in a RfC much less a strong one. My strong suggestion on this one is to take the simplest approach which someone outlined below my first edit then see how it goes. Wikipedia is and should be fluid and the community can always move in another direction if that is not working. Or the community can seek another solution now. I will follow from a distance and allow all to work this out. Good luck!Jobberone (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read all of it.
In that case, I'm confused as to what further discussion you intended to initiate ("I look forward to what should be some interesting discussion."). As noted above, you're welcome to comment, but you've raised no new points.
I understand where people are coming from and respect everyone's opinions.
Likewise, I respect yours.
I tend to see things in a broad sense, follow common sense even though it is bounded by rules, look at the long term, and like the simplest approach.
Ditto. And in the above RfC, I supported modifying this disambiguation page in a manner that deviates from our rules (because I believe that doing so was helpful to readers).
Likewise, I believe that sending most readers directly to the articles that they seek is a simple, commonsense approach. Conversely, sending them to different pages would needlessly complicate their experience.
Many of the approaches taken can be justified in one way or more by the rules.
You have it backwards. We don't do things because our rules tell us to; we write rules describing the practices that we agree (usually) make sense. And when atypical or unforeseen circumstances arise, we make exceptions.
I think people can easily get to the TV show or anywhere else they want from one disambiguation page.
Indeed, we strive to make all realistic targets (including the relatively unlikely ones) as accessible as possible to readers not immediately arriving at the intended articles.
The encyclopedia would continue to function if we were to place a disambiguation page at every title with more than one possible meaning (e.g. by moving George Washington (disambiguation) to George Washington), but that would be relatively inefficient and unhelpful.
My strong suggestion on this one is to take the simplest approach which someone outlined below my first edit then see how it goes.
I disagree with the premise that retargeting a page title away from the article sought by a vast majority of visitors constitutes "the simplest approach". As you know (having read all of the discussions), this idea has been proposed and rejected several times (including recently).
Wikipedia is and should be fluid and the community can always move in another direction if that is not working.
Agreed. And if someone were to present evidence that the current setup is not working, I would support a change. —David Levy 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for completeness, if the disambiguation pages were merged, that would qualify as "not working": the readers who were trying to find Big Bang Theory (Styx album), Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album), or The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) would have a longer list to sift through, and no reader seeking any article would benefit (the only topic that is ambiguous with both titles would have already been reached before the disambiguation page). (The readers seeking non-primary articles ambiguous with "Big Bang" would also have a slightly longer list to sift through as well, but that detriment is slight enough to have been dismissed above.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following David Levy's logic for the current names (that I finally understand, thanks to his helpful clarification above), having a simpler navigation for those wanting to go from Big Bang to The Big Bang Theory (the article sought by a vast majority of visitors) provides a benefit several orders of magnitude higher than any other consideration. So, even if it inconvenienced a small number of readers (something that I don't agree would happen), a merged page is still overwhelmingly better, as it will benefit anyone that typed "big bang" or "the big bang" and wanted to see the TV show. Diego (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RFC appears to have been active for some time. Can anyone sum up what is still in contention? Can we close the RfC? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it has been active very long and see no need to rush to close it.Jobberone (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's been open for a month. How long are RfC's supposed to run for? A lot of the comments are just people repeating themselves now! Polyamorph (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The answer is typically 30 days, I think it's time to close. The main aim of the RfC was to determine the primary topic, I think consensus shows that the cosmological theory should be the primary topic. However, the subsequent discussion on disambiguation is more complicated. Polyamorph (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was asked to comment on Apr 10. That's three days ago not thirty. Has there been a community consensus?Jobberone (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the RfC is still active the RfC bot will keep handing out notifications (I received a notification 5 days ago for example). It seems the RfC notice has now been removed. If someone wants to perform an uninvolved close for example they can do so. I was involved in some parts of a previous discussion on this so I shouldn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RFC bot removed the template. —David Levy 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RfC began on 14 March. (You "read all of it", so it's surprising that you didn't notice that.)
And yes, it's run its course. The outcome became clear (and was implemented) a while back. Your subsequent comments, randomly solicited by a bot, pertain to tangential discussion that arose, not to the RfC's subject (how to format the disambiguation page). —David Levy 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you actually read what I said then you wouldn't make such a comment. I said I was asked to comment 4/13 and factually that is not 30 days ago. Do you treat all editors who are asked to comment with such hostility? To all good luck with resolution.Jobberone (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As has been explained, the RFC bot asks users to comment throughout the RFC, not only at the beginning. It will soon be closed by an uninvolved editor as has been running for a month. Polyamorph (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry that you perceive hostility. None is intended.
I read what you wrote, including your comment that you "don't think [the RfC] has been active very long and see no need to rush to close it."
You appear to have misunderstood the RfC's scope (the disambiguation page's format, which already has been modified as a result of the discussion) and the nature of the 30-day window (which began when the RfC was initiated, not when you were invited to participate). I merely seek to alleviate the confusion. —David Levy 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proper target?[edit]

information Administrator note: Copied from previous version of this talkpage, when it was the talkpage for a redirect rather than for a DAB. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see from the history that there has been a mild edit war over the proper target for this redirect.

My thinking is that since it is "Big Bang Theory" and not "Big Bang theory" - i.e. a title, and not the name of a theory - that it should go to either directly to the TV show, or to Big Bang Theory (disambiguation) (in part because of the theory espoused in User:Jnc/Disambiguation). Most people don't know that the name of the show is "The Big Bang Theory", and I think most people looking for the show come to this title (which is how I wound up here), whereas people looking for the theory would go to "Big Bang" or "Big bang" or "Big Bang theory" or something like that. (And yes, the theory is more important, but given the popularity of the show, we probably have as many people coming here for that as we do for the theory - and it's working well for our readers we should be thinking of.) Noel (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The User:Jnc/Disambiguation essay contradicts to official Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP: Disambiguation, in several points. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If to the disambiguation, it would be a move request to move the disambiguation to the base name -- otherwise you've got a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page. If to the TV show, a consensus in this discussion will suffice. Thanks for initiating the discussion! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't see any other comments? So how about we point it to the TV show (given that many people will be coming to Wikipedia to look that up)?
PS: I hadn't read about WP:MALPLACED, but I still think the reasoning in User:Jnc/Disambiguation is correct. But I've given up on getting people to accept that that is a better mousetrap. Noel (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the tv show option is the best plan.Beefcake6412 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made the primary topic change. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If anything the "Big Bang Theory" disambig page should be merged into the "Big Bang" disambig page as the latter already includes the 3 entries in the former. If this is done then I see no problem with Big Bang Theory leading to the TV show. If you merge the two disambig pages, I would then suggest on the real big bang page you can then remove the double disambig from the top and have a link directly to the tv show as that's probably the most popular search topic after the actual theory.Flygongengar (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except for the theory, the topics ambiguous with "Big Bang" and the topics ambiguous with "Big Bang Theory" are distinct. No need to force a merger of the pages when separate pages will help the readers better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, there should be no merger with an overcrowded Big Bang (disambiguation). Shorter pages will be more convenient. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does this link to a moderately popular american TV show as opposed to the international scientific theory from which the show stole it's name? This is wikipedia, not TV guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.73.128.172 (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for joining the conversation. I've reverted your edit. The link goes to the moderately popular American TV show as opposed to the international scientific theory because that appears to best serve the readership, who apparently look for the theory as "Big Bang", "Big bang", or "Big Bang theory", but look for the TV show as "Big Bang Theory". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fail to see why a disambiguation page is selecting one use of the phrase as primary, and the others as secondary. There are five possible referents listed, and more than one of them is very widely used. Furthermore, there's obviously some difference of opinion about which is primary, which makes it even more problematic to choose one. Obviously they have to be put in some order, but why aren't the five possibilities simply listed, rather than presuming the one people are looking for? Such as:

Big Bang Theory may refer to:

-Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even though several are very widely used, the current consensus is that one of them is the primary topic. (The editors selected that, the page didn't). And it wasn't presumption, but rather an observation of the traffic of the articles. In order to change from a primary topic to no primary topic, the disambiguation page would need to be moved (through the usual WP:RM process) to the base name -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus of whom? Please, give the link to a discussion. It is obvious to me what is the primary meaning of "Big Band T/theory", maybe because I reside on a wrong side of Atlantic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus above, per Jnc (aka Noel) & User:Beefcake6412 on one side and no one on the other in October 2011. No need to make this a side-of-the-Atlantic issue; I was reverting it to the theory prior to the consensus, and reverting it to the TV show afterwards. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's all, really? Then, there is no consensus by now. Let us to start it again. My opinion is that, because all other referents bore their names from Big Bang theory and none was named from The Big Bang Theory, it is the theory what is the primary meaning, not the sitcom. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really. Consensus can change, but no evidence of that yet -- so far the disagreement has been on the supposed slighting of the theory on the disambiguation page. Word origins and derivations are not criteria for primary topic. The hatnotes and capitalization differences appear to best serve the readership at large, at the expense of misplaced umbrage from editors who may not have noticed that the theory is the primary topic for Big bang, Big Bang, and Big Bang theory, but since people rarely capitalize "Theory" when referring to the theory, the TV show base on the readership usage and without discounting the educational value of the differently-capitalized theory is the primary topic for Big Bang Theory (and The Big Bang Theory). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that we should have similar redirects pointing to different places based on trivial things like capitalization or the word "the". All combinations of capitalization and the word "the" that do not have an article on them should point to the same place, be it the primary topic or the disambiguation page. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Big Bang Theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Big Bang Theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category