text:
article with a clear hatnote to the right article, and all values in between are possible depending on both the article and the user. Similarly, getting to a DAB could be anything from a 0 to a 9.8, the 9.8 if the DAB is short and has the right article clearly identified near the top (such as your experience with The Americans), the 0 if it's not identifiable or not there at all (it happens). Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , okay, so the main if not only reason you wouldn't favor disambiguating London, Paris, etc. is because it would be disruptive in terms of breaking links, etc. But, if it wasn't for that, you acknowledge your reasoning does suggest all topics with ambiguous names, no matter how well known, how relatively likely to be sought, or how historically significant, should be at a disambiguated title. Only if they happen to be already established at an ambiguous title they should stay? Is that right? --В²C ☎ 17:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * re: "the dab is short". Really? Meet John Smith. Or even Victoria. bd2412  T 04:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Relative length of DABs
(who is rightly renowned for hard work and diligent research) said ''re: "the dab is short". Really? Meet John Smith. Or even Victoria.''

I was taken aback. Here's my subsequent research.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York&action=info DAB 6,341 bytes
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_(state)&action=info article 167,962
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_City&action=info article 358,590
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Smith&action=info DAB 23,935
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Smith_(explorer)&action=info article 55,755
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria&action=info DAB 13,980
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_(Australia)&action=info article 89,997

Sorry about the URLs, I know it's a quick and dirty!

All the DABs I looked at, even the John Smith one to which BD2412 had previously referred us twice above, are shorter than all of the articles. As I expected.

John Smith is an outrider as is to be expected, given its unique status as an extremely common name, even to the point of being used in English culture as the prototypical common name. It's almost half the length of the article on the explorer. But I'm guessing that's not typical.

Victoria seems more typical, but even that's long for a DAB. New York is likely even more typical IMO.

And AFAIK that is without taking images into account... only the source bytes of the file name are counted. In practice, the articles will be significantly longer again for the purposes of this discussion when the sizes of the images are considered. I guess other things are missing as well... transclusions for example. But I think you get the picture.

Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

And this seems to support my view too. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am dubious that every single John Smith on the list is longer than the disambiguation page, John Smith. In any case, the point is that this is a non-consideration. bd2412  T 00:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am equally dubious. There are even likely to be stubs there. Agree it is a non-consideration. The point is just that a DAB is typically much shorter than an article, and we have now seen that. Andrewa (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Why DAB length matters
above may explain something that has long puzzled me.

I have always assumed that landing on a DAB instead of the sought article was a minor inconvenience at worst. A DAB is, or should be, an efficient way of finding the sought article.

But others and notably have taken the opposing view.

In particular, they contend that landing on what they call the wrong page (which includes DABs in their thinking) is just as bad as landing on a wrong article (which to my way of thinking does not include DABs). This has led to some for me frustrating discussions at User talk:Andrewa/wrong article and related user and user talk pages where I have tried and failed to clarify the difference that I see.

If they are correct then much of my thinking needs to change, and perhaps much of Wikipedia's current treatment of ambiguous page names too. And if is correct that DABs are not generally speaking shorter than articles they may well be correct. But I cannot see any chance of this view being correct. I would appreciate other comments. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If with my search term I'm searching for a particular article and I'm taken anywhere other than that article, then that's not the article I'm looking for. If it's a DAB we can quibble about it being the "wrong article", since it's technically not an article (though it is a page in article space), but it most definitively is not "the right page" and it is therefore the "wrong page". I also don't see it being better or worse if that "wrong page" is a DAB page with a link to the article I seek, or another article with a hatnote link to the article I seek. --В²C ☎ 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally really hate long disambiguation pages. When I'm navigating as a reader, I find they eat serious time in looking for the correct page, particularly as it often happens that the usage I want is near the bottom somewhere, buried underneath a shedload of placenames across the various US states, or lists of people etc. As such, I actually myself think (and I may be in a minority of one on this) that even our convention of redirecting partial dabs to the more general dab is wrong. We should have a separate dab page at the partial dab, which lists the same things as are found pertaining to that topic in the main dab. It causes a maintainability hit, but for the considerable benefit of giving users interested in one of the 2-3 topics in question a short dab page to look at. — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. But I think that's a different issue. At the risk of repeating myself, a DAB should be an efficient way of finding the sought article. And I think they can be. Yes, splitting the long ones might be a good move. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excluding redirects, pages beginning with "A" have an average size of 6325 bytes. Disambiguation pages beginning with "A" average 659 bytes. Certes (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to back up my quick and dirty figures above.
 * Are these figures wikitext only, or the whole page load? It's the page load that is more significant IMO, although I now concede that both do matter. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining in. I have no wish to quibble. Use whatever terminology you wish, and I'll try to follow it.
 * The point is just that landing on a DAB isn't nearly as bad as landing on an article that isn't the sought article (of course I'd like to simply call this the wrong article but that meaning seems to be disputed so let us just avoid the term).
 * That's even part of the reason we have DABs!
 * There are two main reasons that it's better to land on a DAB. One is that the DAB is likely to be shorter, and that's what we're discussing here. The other is of course that a DAB is specifically designed for this purpose. The article isn't. (And if some DABs aren't very well designed, as suggested above, then they should be fixed.)
 * Yes, articles and DABs are both in the same namespace. IMO that's completely irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same article namespace is only relevant to the semantic issue of whether it's reasonable to say landing on a DAB is landing on the wrong article. Whatever you call it, it's not the article the user is looking for; in that sense it's wrong. I don't agree it matters that the DAB is likely to be shorter. Unless you're on a 1990s dialup modem, the load time difference is negligible. There is no need to fully load the article. You only need to see the intro to know that it's not the article you seek, and the hatnote on the article is also at the top and loaded and rendered first, so what does article length matter? It's not like you need to scroll down and fully load the article page. That said, I do agree that landing on long DABs is even more problematic than landing on short DABs, but not because of load time. As noted above, it's because of the pain of finding the article you're seeking is usually more challenging the longer the DAB. Hatnote links at the top of articles are much more efficient and far preferable to wading through an annoying DAB page, IMHO. --В²C ☎ 22:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hatnote links at the top of articles are much more efficient and far preferable to wading through an annoying DAB page, IMHO.. I completely disagree. Hatnotes are a cost to every reader. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the load time difference is negligible wrong -- it is quite noticeable on phone or tablet even with good connection. And I very much agree with SmokeyJoe that a dab page is much better than hatnote in most cases other than completely obvious primary topics. older ≠ wiser 23:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hatnotes are a cost to every reader for who the page is the right page. Hatnotes are a benefit for many readers for whom the page is the wrong page, and that is usually due to the ambiguous title.  If titles were PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE, there would be rarely a need for hatnotes and all readers would be better served.
 * DAB pages are generally pretty nicely structured. The most likely topics are usually listed at the top.  They are usually structured logically, with a view to both logic and likelihood.  And if disambiguation pages were to all be titled with the "(disambiguation)" suffix, very few would be landing on them unexpectedly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "cost" of the hatnote at the top is zilch. Here's what's at the top of Paris, for example:
 * This page is about the capital of France. For other uses, see Paris (disambiguation).
 * Oh, the horror! What a cost!! --В²C ☎ 00:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * В²C completely ignores the cost of a hatnote. If hatnote cost were zilch, why are there output formats that strip them?  Article size is a good starting point for reading about reader considerations.
 * The Paris hatnote is 14 words. At a typical reading speed for unexpected words of 3 words per second, that's ~5 seconds to read.  At 5750 page views per day, assuming a pageview is a reader who reads at least the hatnote, that's 20 hours of wasted reader time per day.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m ignoring the “cost” of reading a oneline hatnote, and you’re ignoring the cost of reading a much larger DAB page, like 14,000 bytes of Victoria. --В²C ☎ 07:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have never ignored that, and I have no idea how you can feel justified to say that. Of course, downloading, and reading to the point of satisfactions or realization that you didn't want it, is a cost, and is a much higher cost than 5 seconds reading time for a one line hatnote.  However, few people go to DAB pages who didn't want to, and that number would be far smaller if the DAB page were PRECISEly titled using "(disambiguation)".  I would put Victoria at Victoria (disambiguation), WP:MALPLACED be buggered.
 * The hatnote cost is relatively small, but it is forced on a very large number of readers. The DAB page, at least it is helping a confused reader or rescuing a reader from bad navigation aids.  The hatnote is clutter, in prime real estate, for every reader who has exactly the page they wanted, and it is all negative.  Interesting notes about similar topics will be in the text body, wikilinked, but the hatnote is slapped on top as if it is part of a hastily cobbled boilerplate page design in anticipation of mistaken arrivals.
 * The use of PRECISE titles would reduce reader costs all round. The overuse of PRIMARYTOPIC creates small hatnote costs for the majority, a massive pain for screenreaders, and difficulties for readers who assume that another topic cannot be a the PRIMARYTOPIC for the ambiguous basename.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is (as I've said a few times now) that having ambiguous article titles is asking for trouble. And those are all ways in which we cause trouble for our readers when we do. And there will be others, see below. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * few people go to DAB pages who didn’t want to. Nobody wants to go to a DAB page. People want to go to an article. Sometimes DABs are unavoidable, but they’re never the intended destination. It’s trivial to ignore a one line hatnote at the top. It’s like the top margin crap of any document (perhaps repeated title on every page and page number); it’s there if you need it, but easily ignored if not. A DAB page is impossible to ignore. Precise titles despite primary topics would send far more to the unwanted DABs. -В²C ☎ 14:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to go to a DAB page. Disagree. But some people, such as yourself, do evidently get very annoyed. In your case with The Americans, you almost threw your tablet across the room, and even after several occurrences of landing on the DAB you didn't bother to bookmark the page you wanted to avoid further annoyance. And I guess we need to assume others will do the same.
 * For myself, I regard landing on a short DAB which has a clear, unambiguous link to the page I want as a win. Am I alone in this?
 * On the other hand, I'd regard loading a long unwanted article as a lose.
 * If there was a hatnote to the article I wanted, it's still an unnecessary diversion. I love to learn so it's not an annoyance, but to some I'm sure it would be.
 * If the hatnote pointed to the DAB, I've gained nothing (other than perhaps a pleasant diversion and distraction!) compared to getting straight to the DAB, but that one extra mouse click doesn't worry me. It takes no significant time and requires only very basic skills.
 * If there's no hatnote at all, I think I'd be justified in concluding that Wikipedia had no article covering what I wanted. I wouldn't personally draw that conclusion, because I know how slack our navigation aids are, but I fear others might! And there is no guarantee that there will be a hatnote. Perhaps there should be.
 * Precise titles despite primary topics would send far more to the unwanted DABs. Very common assumption and good question. Would they really? How? I think the opposite! Precise or unambiguous itles should make articles easier to find. And if they don't, there's something wrong with the search techniques, not the titles. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The search technique relevant here - the one WP:D attempts to improve - is entering a search term in the "Search Wikipedia" box and clicking on Go. Using precise titles for primary topic articles would send such searchers to an unwanted DAB page. Someone entering "paris", for example, would end up at the DAB page instead of at what is currently at Paris. (yes I know in your proposal you wouldn't move Paris but we're talking in generalities here, not about your proposal). --В²C ☎ 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re assuming the DAB page is ambiguously titled. Which it is, but need not be. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm warming to the idea of disambiguating all DABs with (disambiguation). It might even be worth adding to any eventual RfC. The two proposals do each enhance the other to some degree, so they're not entirely independent. Fix it all at once.
 * Discuss at User talk:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC. Andrewa (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DAB pages are generally pretty nicely structured. Agree. The only problem raised yet (not by me) is that some of them are too long. That can and should be fixed if it's a problem. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Victoria is long. Is it too long?  Would it be better split into multiple pages?  Would you reduce the Victoria page to essentially the current Table of Contents, and make each level 2 heading section a subpage?  Is there a rule for or against this?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it fine. Wikipedia talk:Article size is fairly active, that might be a good place to ask. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Same article namespace is only relevant to the semantic issue of whether it's reasonable to say landing on a DAB is landing on the wrong article. Agree. You raised the fact that they're in the same namespace, and it was a waste of your time and ours to do so. It's irrelevant.
 * it's not the article the user is looking for; in that sense it's wrong... Well, I said I'd adopt your terminology, so I guess you can call it that if you like. But similarly, is every DAB always wrong however it is accessed? And is the whole index of every paper encyclopedia wrong in that same sense? (In the one I most used as a boy, the index was an entire full-size volume.) In none of these cases are they the article the user is looking for, but just like a DAB, the index is there to help the user to find the article they want. Is it really wrong for them to use it to find the article they want, as you use the word wrong? I'm fascinated.
 * And I suppose Google Web Search is wrong too, as the page it generates is not the page the user is looking for. We must tell them that. I'm sure they'll be very worried. (->
 * But a DAB is not as wrong as the wrong article. Is that an acceptable compromise of terminology? Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A dab is not as wrong as the wrong article. That's worth repeating.  Until 2017, I could look up the population of New York and find it to be 19 million.  Wow, that city is more crowded than I thought.  Then I use that factoid and make myself and Wikipedia look foolish, or worse.  Now that title leads to the dab rather than the state article and I can pick the area I meant from the handy list of common meanings right at the top.  I may even realise that the question was ambiguous and check whether I should be researching the state or the city before I make similar mistakes. Certes (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The simple fact is (as I've said a few times now) that having ambiguous article titles is asking for trouble, and that's another good example of the sort of trouble we cause our readers when we do it. But there will be other problems that we don't guess until we notice them happening. Unambiguous (or PRECISE if you like) article titles are quite simply more logical, and will avoid problems that we cannot imagine and don't need to. Andrewa (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Having ambiguous article titles when there is no primary topic is asking for trouble." There; I fixed it for you. The problem with having the state at New York is not that "New York" is ambiguous, it's that it's ambiguous and the state is not the primary topic. If "having ambiguous articles titles" for primary topics was truly "asking for trouble", then having the respective primary topics at Paris, Albert Einstein and even the recently-moved The Americans would be asking for trouble. But it's not. Going back to the point I was just making with above, had we left the DAB at The Americans then every time anyone searched on WP for the epic 2013 TV series with "the americans", they would get taken to the DAB instead of to the article they sought. With the current configuration, with the 2013 series at the base name, the vast majority of "the americans" searchers for whom the 2013 series is the sought topic has to "endure" the one line "for other uses..." hatnote at the top, but isn't that better than having them needlessly load the DAB page, scan it for the topic they seek, click on that, and then finally present them with the article they seek? And yes, the tiny minority looking for one of the other (relatively unlikely to be sought) topics associated with the "the americans" search term does have to go through that, but it's a tiny minority.  Isn't that our goal, though? To get as many WP searchers as reasonably possible to the article they seek as quickly as reasonably possible? Isn't that why we have primary topics?   --В²C ☎ 16:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have Primary Topics because of the foolish MALPLACED practice, and because Larry Sanger thought it a good idea in 2001 for titles to be what people would wikilink mid-sentence. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And Larry was right. But we've failed to take subsequent experience into account in our implementation of the principle. If the destination of the ambiguous term is a DAB, then the editor gets a warning, and wikignomes can easily find and fix the mislinking if they don't, using the pipe trick of course. But if the mislinking is to an ambiguously titled article, nobody gets any warning at all, and as a result we just publish rubbish in ignorant good faith.
 * But now inclined to agree about wp:MALPLACED. Andrewa (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There, I fixed it for you. Words fail me. No. Give us a break.
 * The problem with having the state at New York is not that "New York" is ambiguous, it's that it's ambiguous and the state is not the primary topic. That was the initial problem, yes, many years ago, but it developed into Wikipediagate. In this matter at least we are a laughingstock. People are entitled to ask, if NYRM2016 is the best an impeccable panel containing a senior functionary can do, what is the rest of Wikipedia worth? I still believe in Wikipedia, but it still raises serious questions for me. Not for you?
 * If "having ambiguous articles titles" for primary topicswas truly "asking for trouble", then having the respective primary topics at Paris, Albert Einstein and even the recently-moved The Americans would be asking for trouble. But it's not. Moving Paris or Albert Einstein would create more problems than it would solve IMO, and there is no perfect and magic solution. The jury is out on The Americans IMO. If we do move it back someday, your successful RM will then have caused a great deal of needless trouble.
 * isn't that better than having them needlessly load the DAB page, scan it for the topic they seek, click on that, and then finally present them with the article they seek? Not significantly, no. The article is 87,266 bytes of wikitext, plus three images (and transclusions etc). The DAB is 1,046 bytes of wikitext with no images. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NYRM2016 is a manifestation of the reluctance to clearly and simply define primary topic exclusively in terms of the likelihood-to-be-sought criteria. But that kind of ridiculous debate is hardly exclusive to RMs focused on determining primary topic, or to RMs at all. It's certainly not evidence against having primary topics at base names. Regardless of the issues with moving Paris or Albert Einstein, your arguments support the position that if we were starting over with a clean slate, we should not have any ambiguous titles at all, and that those two titles would be disambiguated. If that were the case, then users searching with "paris" and "einstein" (currently a primary redirect to Albert Einstein, appropriately) would be taken to DAB pages rather than to the articles they seek.They would not be an improvement by any reasonable measure, and doing anything similar just to new articles is just as flawed for the same reasons. --В²C ☎ 16:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to have about 0% new material, so those who have been following the discussion can probably skip my replies.
 * NYRM2016 is a manifestation of the reluctance to clearly and simply define primary topic exclusively in terms of the likelihood-to-be-sought criteria. That might have helped, but if they couldn't see the merits of the move case as it was, I'm skeptical that page views would have convinced them. But I admit I do not understand. The two judgements that found no consensus almost look like text written under duress.
 * But that kind of ridiculous debate is hardly exclusive to RMs focused on determining primary topic, or to RMs at all. It's certainly not evidence against having primary topics at base names. Complete non sequitar IMO.
 * Regardless of the issues with moving Paris or Albert Einstein, your arguments support the position that if we were starting over with a clean slate, we should not have any ambiguous titles at all, and that those two titles would be disambiguated. Agree. But when we do consider these issues, it's a different ball game. So can we give that straw man a rest?
 * More to follow. I need to save regularly as my connection is flakey. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Likelihood-to-be-sought criteria is, intellectually, stupid, when viewed in isolation. It ignores the purpose of encyclopedia as a structurally organised repository of information in favour of a very primitive emulation of a component of a search engine.
 * New York was difficult because, among other reasons, it is not a pure PrimaryTopic problem. The state and the city are far from independent from each other.  Each article presents a manifestation that derived from a colony, each with a good claim of direct descent.   What do people mean when they think "New York" is a non-factual question that is best handled by artificial intelligence, and a modern search engine is doing that very well.   An encyclopedia present comprehensive coverage with navigation to narrowly defined topics.  New York is a good candidate for the Broad Conception Notion that sidesteps the very problematic PRIMARYTOPIC conundrums.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree except it is not a pure PrimaryTopic problem. The complications you list are some of what made it a PrimaryTopic problem. But what we mean by Primary Topic is, whatever belongs at the base name, and deciding that is sometimes problematic. Andrewa (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No more to follow after all. The rest is just follow-up on the straw man argument, or in other words that I'm somehow obliged to let B2C choose what evidence I'll disregard in deciding what I recommend. Andrewa (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Recap
The most important thing abut NYRM (which started this whole section) isn't that a group of editors, by whatever means, succeeded in keeping the New York State article at the base name New York, where it clearly didn't belong, for many years. The most important thing is that they did have a case in terms of reader experience, but not under current policy.

The case they did have was that the New York City article didn't belong there either, even if (as I and many believe) it is the Primary Topic. It's much better to have the DAB at the base name. But that is contrary to current policy.

We now have another case at Talk:The Americans (2013 TV series), with strong arguments both ways. There has also been some discussion of this case above. I'm not wishing to canvass !votes either way there, and have no intention of !voting there myself. My point is that there are good arguments there both ways, under current policy. Nor have I posted a heads-up at the RM to the relevant discussion above. I can argue that both ways too.

Rather I maintain that in both of these cases and many others, the reader is better served by having the DAB at the base name, even if one of the articles is Primary Topic, and that we should change our policies and procedures to reflect this.

Perhaps (as originally proposed above) we should also change the no consensus rule, but that is not necessary to fix the problems with either of these articles. It should be a separate issue. Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These are very different cases. In NYRM there are two topics that can at least vie for PT. Anyone searching with "new york" could easily be looking for either the state or the city. In The Americans, one use decimates the others in terms of likelihood of being sought by anyone searching with "the americans". Today, and for the foreseeable future, it's clearly the 2013 TV series. It's the epitome of no contest. How the reader is better served with the DAB page at the base name is beyond me. We do agree on one general point: current policy is problematic. I believe the problem is it's way too vague - that's what allows so many reasonable opposing arguments. That's policy/guideline failure. --В²C ☎ 19:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not a failure at all. Minimal rules are what has allowed WP to evolve towards its best self through true consensus, that is through the millions of edits and thousands of individual discussions among large numbers of editors, not straightjacketing rules decided by the relative handful of regulars who frequent policy talk pages. Too many rules stifle growth and discourage editors. If there are "many reasonable opposing arguments", that means there is no true consensus. Making New York a dab page has hurt more readers than it has helped, but has both hurt and helped only to a small degree, even for such highly viewed articles. In the end, it doesn't really matter that much if some true primary topics (whatever that means) are at their base name and others are not. Usually everyone finds what they're looking for, even if it takes an extra click or two. The far greater danger is a culture of some editors telling all other editors how to do things, at a macro level. Station1 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Minimal rules? We're way beyond minimal rules, and that's what often leads to all the unnecessary conflicts. We need to minimize the rules and make them more clear; less contradictory. --В²C ☎ 20:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Conflicts are not always unnecessary or 'bad'. They often clarify consensus incrementally. My fear is that when rules are made more clear and less contradictory, they may well be in a direction that neither you nor I nor large numbers of other editors may agree with. Then we're stuck. Station1 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. Have you seen User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules? I'd be very interested in your comments. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree that New York and The Americans are very different cases. That's the whole point. In both cases, P T has been a failure. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Arericans has now been moved with the closing summary ''The result of the move request was: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't work per WP:PRECISION. If the article enters into the predicted slow decline and later is no longer the primary topic, the articles can be rearranged then.''

It will be interesting to see whether the predicted slow decline actually takes place, and what happens if it does. It's possible this will become a classic case of a move that is supported by the current policy despite not being in the best interests of readers. Andrewa (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And it's possible (even likely) that this is a case of a move that is support by the current policy because it is in the best interests of the readership, and that's why the current policy is the current policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree (except I'm skeptical that it's even likely, but that's not the main point IMO). And your input at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios, where I will answer this in more detail, would be very welcome. IMO the RM was a good call given the current policy. Consensus can change of course, but I have yet to claim or achieve consensus support for my rather radical proposal on Primary Topic. And the proposal has itself changed radically since it was first formulated, and will probably change further before any RfC is moved by myself. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to participate in the eventual RfC, but there too it will be a repeat of the simple statements I've made here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but hopefully not! (-> I won't be moving an RfC until and unless I have more evidence, such as the eventual result of the RM discussed at User talk:Andrewa/P T examples and scenarios, and analysis of more of the examples on that page. I'm sure you would respond to the evidence presented. Andrewa (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That page is dauntingly long, but the most interesting cases can now be discussed at User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases... the name says it all. There are only four listed currently, but they include The Americans. Discussion there more than welcome... as I've often said, I see changing my mind as a way of building it, not diminishing it, so discussion that helps me to do this is always welcome, and one of the benefits of editing Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Search box algorithm
Where do I find the search box algorithm?

Because I think it could be improved.

In particular, it seems to discriminate against redirects. If I start to type in a title that exists as a redir, it doesn't even appear in the dropdown list until the exact match is complete. See

http://alderspace.pbworks.com/w/page/135472575/Wikipedia%20search%20box

for an example... the upper screenshot has only one letter still to type, but no hits. But when I add the last letter (lower screenshot), bingo, there it is.

Surely, that could be improved upon? Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * mw:Help:CirrusSearch has an overview and links at the bottom to further details.  was only created three hours ago and may not yet have filtered through to the index of titles close to search strings. Certes (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you!
 * But the timing doesn't seem to be the problem... try Alternatives to deletion for example. Same result exactly. Andrewa (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I type "Wikipedia:Alte", that redirect appears as suggestion 8 of 10. When I type "Wikipedia:Alternatives to d", it is the only suggestion. Certes (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser... I wish I'd taken screenshots! Because now that's what happens for me too.
 * But it's not what happened when I first looked for that redirect (relevant to another discussion). Nor when I immediately retried it just to be sure. Thanks for the links above, I will investigate further. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Information on your “search” box behaviour can be found at Special:Preferences. Note that it is very short of a search engine search, it is title auto-complete allowing for two typos, by default. It is very useful, it is good for what it is, but it is not “search”, but goto. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that to call it not “search” is just confusing... I use it as a search regularly, and the box I see is labelled "Search Wikipedia". I take your point that the type of search is different to say Google, but it's still a search so far as most people are concerned. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the labelling of the “Go to title” box as “search” has been and is horrendously confusing. If you enter text and go, it does not invoke the search function, but does precisely as described in your preferences. To access a real search, you have to scroll down below all the suggestions, or you can invoke the GUI with no entered text to get to the real full search function interface. Usually, it is far easier to use google with a “+wikipedia” term. If you do that, google will remember your personal unarticulated preferences. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can do a real search by preceding the title with a tilde, e.g. ~wave, but that's not intuitive. Certes (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is that documented? Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Help:Searching. Certes (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, got it! Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's only confusing to those with some background in computing science, and not even all of those. We're a general encyclopedia. Most of our readers understand search Wikipedia without confusion or difficulty. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical of that. I believe that most readers are familiar with searching by google, which is a powerful AI dynamically learning search engine.  The confusion I allude to is with editors, and I believe that most editors have some computing knowledge.  I believe in precise titling and labelling.  For the Go box, it should be labelled "Go to title".  The magnifying glass should be reserved to a real search, pressing it should always invoke a real search engine.  At least, if you attempt to go to a non-existing page, the search function is invoked, but if there is a bad title, a bad redirect, or an overzealous PRIMARYTOPIC decision, a Go box user who think they are searching for something will be waylaid.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of dealing with IBM... occasionally, when they couldn't fix a problem for which they'd accepted an APAR, they'd close it as "Documented as a restriction" and eventually the manuals would be updated to say that the bug existed.
 * I think our users want a search box. I certainly use and value it as such. If we can improve it we should. But it's not just a go to and most users wouldn't even know what that meant, although they would guess close enough maybe. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, it is barely more than a GOTO. It is more in that it handles 2 typos and has some redirects functionality when generating the JAVA dropdown lists of suggestion auto-completions, and in the case of zero matches it invokes the search function.  For what it is, it is great, but it is mislabelled, it is not a search box.  The criticism are: (1) it can suck readers down holes of bad, imprecise titling, if they really wanted to do a search; and (2) it is causing editors to misuse the word search.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Very interested in how it can suck readers down holes of bad, imprecise titling. Certainly agree that imprecise titling is bad. We should fix it! Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's also possible that yesterday's denial of service attack is still having effects or is being repeated. That might prevent your partial title from being transmitted to Wikipedia's servers, or the suggestions from being returned.  I briefly had timeouts a few minutes ago, though the problem may lie elsewhere and everything works smoothly for me now. Certes (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Curiouser and curiouser... I wasn't even aware of that DoS attack. Andrewa (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A Dutch friend (not an editor) saw a news report on 6 September that Dutch (but not English?) WP was down, possibly an attack. I suspected an attack on English WP at about that time, I couldn't load any WP pages (I tried in those two languages). Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia handled the DoS in a low-key way: see WP:VPT and the Phabricator report. If the Twitter account (now suspended) is to be believed, those responsible soon moved on to various gaming servers but gave no details of their methods.  (I suspect a botnet abusing IoT, which is an accident waiting to happen.)  NCSC seem to have a clue and may be able to prevent a recurrence. Certes (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The same minute I suggested above that DoS may be the problem, Phabricator was updated to confirm that there had been more disruption. The problem seems to have gone away and, if it recurs, it will be a symptom of a more widespread problem. Certes (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now working for me: suggestion 5 of 10 for "Lieutenant General o" and sole suggestion for "Lieutenant General of the A". I think that either new pages take a while to index, or there were connection problems.  One thing I have noticed is that redirects are suppressed when their target is shown: typing all or part of "Adipocyte" doesn't suggest .  That feature seems sensible. Certes (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the logic, but that feature seems to me to be undesirable in at least some scenarios. It means that if a surfer types in wave wanting the physics article, this is what they see. It would be far better for them if wave (physics) appeared on that list.
 * And that is probably an example of the problem I see with our treatment of Primary Topic. We have been unimaginative. Someone recently said that the search box is not even an example of a search. To many of our readers (myself included) it is the normal way of searching Wikipedia. More important, we assume that everyone agrees on the default meaning of a term... and we call this meaning Primary Topic of course. But for many if not most ambiguous terms, some of our readers will assume a different default meaning. And that will be true whatever criteria we use for Primary Topic. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see the advantage of suggesting Wave (physics). On the other hand, we don't want to fill the list with ten redirects to the same article, to the exclusion of other topics, especially if five of them are misspellings.  There are possible solutions but they may require more effort than the benefits merit.  For example, we could introduce a concept of "main qualified title" – the title we'd use if the topic were not primary – but someone would have to identify and mark that redirect for millions of articles as well as modifying the software to display them.  Showing no redirects is probably less bad than showing them all. Certes (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All good points. Redirects are already categorised. Redirects labelled R from misspelling, R from incorrect name etc should be sorted last in the list. But R from alternative name should be above them. Redirects from article moves should be shown unless specifically excluded, and a template and category should be set up to allow this... R excluded from searches perhaps. And probably an explicit R included in searches for completeness. I don't think any other new concept would be needed. Andrewa (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing lines
As well as wave (physics) there's another important omission here, and that's wave (disambiguation). It would be really helpful to let the reader know that this exists... and maybe to tag it in some way so they get a hint that it's a list of the articles they might want. I'm not convinced that every reader, particularly a new reader, will correctly guess the meaning of (disambiguation). Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To see Wave (physics), you need to have entered the "(" character. When you do that, you also get to see the Wave (disambiguation) as a suggested autocompletion.  There is a fair bit of random-like behaviour going on.  The short JAVA autocomplete suggestion list implies that that's all there is, but there is actually many more titles than shown.  One of the reasons I like MonoBook skin is that it gives you the explicit option of "Go" versus "search", but the frustrating JAVA suggestion list covers these buttons, limiting your options to "Go".  Also very frustrating is that if the device or connection is weak, the JAVA list is delayed and erratic.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But do we really expect our readers to know to enter the "(", let alone change their skin? The default skin should make the whatever-you-want-to-call-the-box-now-labelled-"Search-Wikipedia" as easy and effective to use as possible. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wave is a failure of WP:PRECISE, and a poor application of PRIMARYTOPIC. It should be moved to Wave (physics).  It fails as a PRIMARYTOPIC because it is not the PRIMARYMEANING, but a derivative of that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with considering terms is that they go awry in the search box whenever a second word or more is introduced. Consider as simple a phrase as "Kiss Me". We have a disambiguation page, Kiss Me. But if you were to search in the search window, look how many close-but-irrelevant results you would have to go through. Now consider what would happen if you were to add the multiplier of a third word, for example with Kiss the Sky versus the search for that phrase". bd2412  T 04:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So the Go Box is best with single word searches and titles, and so some editors would like all titles to be single words, as far as possible? That seems to be an unintended objective that's a consequence of making the Go Box work.
 * For searching Wikipedia mainspace, I much prefer to google "Kiss the Sky +Wikipedia" for example. I pretty much only use the internal Wikipedia search engine for searching other namespaces.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I use it often in the main namespace. It almost always works better than Google, in my experience. Suppose I want the chemical element krypton. Why would I type krypton site:en.wikipedia.org (which just took me to Krypton (TV series) with no hatnote, no idea why) or even just krypton wikipedia (which takes me to the element as the second hit, after the TV series) when typing krypton in our search... sorry, non-search labelled search... box takes me straight to the correct article? Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You use what, the "Go to title" function, or the Wikipedia internal search engine. The "Go to title" function works great when you know what you are looking for and are confident that a page on it exists, and it has a simple title.  It works poorly for something less tangible that might be covered in a section in some other article, or if you have the name wrong.  Google is great for when you are searching for something common but you are using the wrong words, google somehow "knows what you mean".  The Go to box is useless if your words are on the tip of your tongue and wont come off.
 * Parenthetically disambiguated articles, like Krypton (TV series), don't get hatnotes. You are supposed to know to remove the parenthetical part from your url to get to the DAB page, or the unexpected primarytopic.  This is easy on a desktop, annoying on an iPad, and a right pain in the arse on an iPhone in mobile view.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I type krypton into the box labelled Search Wikipedia and press the enter key. Almost always works well. Am I the only one who does this? It seemed rather intuitive.
 * And I'm not for one moment suggesting that Krypton (TV series) should get a hatnote just because Google is wrongly taking readers there. The point is just, Google is not God. We easily can and should do far better with our own internal navigation aids. (And quibbling about whether these are really "search" or not... words fail me. Our own documentation pretty consistently calls it search, and I think that's what our readers understand it as. But if we form consensus to change what we call that box, fine.) Andrewa (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it "quibbling", or do words matter? Using the Go Box is not like doing a search.  Using the Go Box is like going to the alphabetically listed contents and choosing a quick match.  That is not a search by any reasonable definition, but Wikipedia is teaching readers and editors alike that it is.  If we are to accept the Wikipedia interface as beyond the influence of mere mortals, than we need to recognize the creation of yet another word with multiple conflicting meanings (Contronyms).  They should be avoided.  There has been a lot of talk of "what readers will search for", which is firstly a psychoanalysis of a hypothetical person, and secondly uses a word that carries contradictory meanings.  Even if that can't be fixed, is should be recognized.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Words do matter a great deal. I'm very much a fan of Benjamin Whorf et al in that regard. But trying to impose this esoteric distinction is quibbling. We know what we mean by search, and if English is sloppy in this regard this is not the place to fix that.
 * But just to repeat, if you can establish a consensus to change the text from Search Wikipedia to something else, I'll go along with it. I probably won't support it, depending on the exact proposal, but you can still form a rough consensus. Have a go by all means. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The above is such a mess re stringing that I'm giving up with this particular reply. See MOS:INDENTMIX and User talk:Andrewa.

But replying to '' Wave is a failure of WP:PRECISE, and a poor application of PRIMARYTOPIC. It should be moved to Wave (physics). It fails as a PRIMARYTOPIC because it is not the PRIMARYMEANING, but a derivative of that.''

Exactly. Except it's not an unusual failure, just a good example. To the point that I have now of course come to the conclusion that we have such a poor idea of what we even mean by Primary Topic that it would now be better deprecated.

Any ambiguous article title fails WP:PRECISE and is just asking for trouble. Articles that are already at ambiguous names (or are at names that later become ambiguous) shouldn't be moved, that's also just asking for trouble. But just deprecating P T for new names is almost as good, and very little trouble indeed. Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary topic and Incomplete disambiguation conflicts
Hi all. I have recently closed a requested move discussion on Steve Smith (cricketer) (located here) which I determined there was no consensus. In short, those supporting the move to a further disambiguated article title argued that the current title was an incomplete disambiguation. Those opposing the move argued the article subject was the primary topic, and similar to some other cricketer articles (e.g. James Anderson (cricketer)), should be titled without their year of birth. Through reading this guideline, I was not able to determine how to title articles when there is a conflict between WP:INCDAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so I am opening an RFC to see if we can determine which takes precedence in future discussions. The options forward I see (there may be others) are:

 * Option 1: INCDAB takes precedence over PRIMARYTOPIC
 * Option 2: PRIMARYTOPIC takes precedence over INCDAB

I would appreciate the community's thoughts on this matter. Steven  Crossin  Help resolve disputes! 07:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC) replaced references to PRIMARY with PRIMARYTOPIC --В²C ☎ 21:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a recent closely-related if poorly-attended discussion at Redirects for discussion. I found this argument compelling: if Mohammad Irfan is WP:PTOPIC among all people with that name (and I am convinced that he is, as a well-known international player who was also caught up in a major cheating scandal, whereas the other cricketers are very minor figures), then should redirect to him. (I didn't join in that discussion, because the traffic was all one way.)
 * IMO a similar argument applies where there is no, or another, PTOPIC, and a qualifier is needed; as with e.g. Steve Smith and James Anderson. If one topic with a qualifier is overwhelmingly better known than others with the same partial qualifier, then it is PTOPIC to that limited extent. I am more reluctant than many to argue for a PTOPIC: they collect bad incoming links which are difficult to find and fix. That said, I agree with your reasoning and the result in that recent RM. Narky Blert (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 * There is no "primary" for a qualifier. So once a page uses disambiguation any primary discussion is just pointless and ego-driven. Whatever option from the option list says what I said, I support that. --Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * weak Option 1 In the above example I did participate and vote with a primary topic rationale, Steve reasonings for no consensus do raise an issue and an order of precedence does seam a logical idea, but I have a concern with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Primary is about Wikipedians conducting their own research(WP:OR) and deciding that one is more significant than all others(WP:NPOV). WP:5P2 says Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong, to me thinking about Primary thats is an exact description of how it works, we take our personal experience Steve Smith was a National Captain, National Captains have longer careers, are generally the more talented players. Then with we look to justify our opinion with Google hits, and other sources, while we can produce lots of numbers to support our opinion we wouldn't dare write in the article, Steve Smith former Australian cricket captain is the most notable Steve Smith to have played cricket because its original research and not something that has been written about by a third party we can cite. In any order of precedence Primary should be well down the list, possibly not on it at all. Gnangarra 08:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My understanding of this RfC is that the proposal meant to reference WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not WP:PRIMARY. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, fixed Gnangarra 23:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the PRIMARY/PRIMARYTOPIC problem. --В²C ☎ 21:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Misapplying "primary topic" It's never been my interpretation that a parenthically disambiguated title, e.g. one that already ends in (cricketer), could be a "primary topic" of an already partially-disambiguated title. The primary topic would be just plain "Steve Smith". There are no other quasi-primary titles like "Steve Smith (cricketer)". The other reason there should not be a "Steve Smith (cricketer)" if there is more than one cricketeer is that the policy WP:PRECISION would fail: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article ... There should not be multiple levels of "primary" for "Steve Smith".—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are actually quite a few similar titles, such as Alabama (band), Lemmings (video game), Jane Seymour (actress), Lohengrin (opera), etc. There are not large numbers of these because it's fairly unusual for something to be the primary topic for a disambiguated title, but when they happen, they should not be treated differently from any other primary topic. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Those would not comply with policy WP:PRECISION. Imagine being the reader that is redirected to a dab, think that you picked the "right" article, just to go there to find out it's the wrong (ambiguously-titled) article, and having to disambiguate yet again (if you haven't given up already).—Bagumba (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They do comply with WP:PRECISION. If they didn't, no primary topic ever would. WP:PRECISION clearly says "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic...". Your example makes my point: Imagine someone seeking "Steve Smith (cricketer)" instead being redirected to Steve Smith the dab page. There is no benefit to anyone, even to the one person in a hundred who wants the other cricketer. Station1 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not convinced that a sufficient number of people would search for “Steve Smith (cricketer)” to warrant the incomplete disambiguation. Only 0.7% of visits to Thriller (Michael Jackson album) came through the redirect Thriller (album), and that is with several internal links to the redirect. I don’t think users are likely to type in parentheses in a search field, and internal links that are redirected to dab pages would be retargeted to the appropriate article, just like any link to a dab.--Trystan (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly to the extent this whole issue affects only the relatively few people who would search for or link to something like "Steve Smith (cricketer)" it's relatively unimportant. But if the only benefit is to make an extremely rare mislink more obvious to editors, I think those few readers take precedence. Station1 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith (cricketer) should be redirected to the specific dab section, Steven Smith, where there are three specific cricket possibilities. I agree, readers should not be sent to the top of the generic long list.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But even if that were done (and the anchor never broke), instead of 99%+ of those readers being at the right article automatically, 100% of those readers will have to decide whether they want Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1989) or Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1961). Most will decide correctly, but perhaps fewer than 99%, so we wind up with more readers on the wrong article than if there were no dab page involved. In addition, those who still get to the right article had to go through an unnecessary extra step. The <1% who really want the older Smith are no better off than clicking on a hatnote. Another consideration is that many people do search Google with strings like "steve smith cricket" and Google will show the primary topic for that string no matter what we title the article. If we title the article Steve Smith (cricketer, born 1989), there will likely be no hatnote on that article per WP:NAMB, ironically making any other cricketers named Steve Smith on WP more difficult to find. Station1 (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Reading the guideline as a whole and considering the logic behind the concept of recognition of a primary topic, INCDAB comes into play only when there is no primary topic. There will be no primary topic in most cases, but certainly not all, and Steve Smith (cricketer) is a good example of the latter. Chances are |Steve_Smith_(cricketer,_born_1961)|Stephen_Smith_(cricketer,_born_1822) better than 100 to 1 that someone searching for or linking to "Steve Smith (cricketer)" wants the famous one who is the subject of the article. By placing a hatnote on that article, no one searching for the famous Steve Smith (cricketer) is inconvenienced by landing on the dab page, while the rare reader who wants the other Steve Smith (cricketer) simply clicks on the hatnote. That is the same logic behind all primary topic article titles. Station1 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I don't know how the INCDAB wording slipped in, but I thought this was settled at WP:PDAB long ago, which to this day lists many examples of partially disambiguated titles, all of which, like Jane Seymour (actress), are perfectly fine, despite Jane Seymour (Canadian actress). The current wording at INCDAB is misleading and needs to be corrected. --В²C ☎ 21:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jane Seymour (actress) fails WP:PRECISE and is not perfectly fine. At best i It is grudgingly fine. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * She "fails" PRECISE to no greater degree than any other primary topic does; that's fine, by definition. More to the point, I would argue that disambiguating her further would make the topic less recognizable than it currently is. The actress named Jane Seymour is widely known. Add more precision by way of a country of origin and/or birth date in there and you only raise questions about whether that's the Jane Seymour, since such details about her are not nearly as well known as her being an actress, and could cause many to suspect that it's some other Jane Seymour. --В²C ☎ 23:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that. It implies degrees of how Primary is the Primary Topic.  It is unfortunately a really bad term.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Extreme cases should not set precedent. "Smith is often regarded as one of the best batsmen in the world and considered the "best since Bradman" due to his high batting average".  This Steve Smith eclipses the other cricketers.  Where there is no primary topic, certainly no primary topic for Steve Smith, the title should err towards precision.  However, even if there were a rule against parenthetical primary topics, this would be an exception.  No one who knows anything about the other cricketers will not know about this one.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no PRIMARYTOPIC v. INCDAB conflict to resolve. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply because there is no PRIMARYTOPIC.  The challenge is INCDAB: "it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page".  Note that the word "should" is not "must".  The INCDAB text could be improved, or it could be accepted that "should" allows for many exceptions.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Option 2, in rare and narrowly defined circumstances, such as Kiss (band). bd2412  T 23:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2, I suppose, although I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't really apply. WP:INCDAB should probably be rewritten and simplified to indicate that a disambiguation page shouldn't have a disambiguator in its title (other than "(disambiguation)" if there's a primary topic). The naming conventions for various topics might specify whether to support things like "Thriller (album)" and "Thriller (Cold Blood album)" or whether to always further qualify the qualifiers. But that should be up to the naming conventions, not the disambiguation guidelines. The technical problem that disambiguation exists to solve is solved either way, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should just be concerned with where Thriller (or Steve Smith) lands, not where Thriller (album) (or Steve Smith (cricketer)) lands. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 3: WP:PRECISION, being policy, takes precedence over naming convention guidelines. (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC simply does not apply to qualified titles, and WP:INCDAB needs to be rewritten to address only the avoidance of disambiguation pages with qualifiers in their titles, and to point to WP:PRECISION and topic naming conventions for non-disambiguation titling guidance.)
 * Topic projects that want to have "levels" of qualifiers when one instance overwhelming dominates (that is, that want a primary-topic-like qualifier) would get broader community consensus for the policy exception, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 should be the default. As with all rules, exceptions are appropriate in rare cases. In general, once we go to the effort of adding parenthetical disambiguation, we should make that disambiguation complete. The standard test for a primary topic should not be sufficient to make an exception (i.e., significantly more likely to be sought than any other topic.) The appropriate standard to make an exception here would be something like “overwhelmingly more likely”.--Trystan (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Trystan wrote basically what I had planned to. I am not sure I have anything additional to add beyond what they said.  C Thomas3   (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary partial disambiguation is good and should be encouraged, not avoided, when there is such a clear differentiation in notability. Alan Davidson (cricketer) and Peter Bell (footballer) are two more Hall of Fame members that are obscurely located at Alan Keith Davidson and Peter Bell (Australian footballer, born 1976) because of the existence of a borderline notable namesake. Modify whichever guideline page you need to make this happen. The-Pope (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a really good point - full disambiguation of what should be a partially disambiguated primary topic leads to obscure titles with unknown middle names, or accurate but little-known specifics within the parentheses. This practice is not helpful. --В²C ☎ 20:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2. WP:CONCISE is one of our naming criteria. Thriller (Michael Jackson album) is a good example of a title that runs afoul of concise because some users' opposition to putting it at the preferable Thriller (album) even though someone searching for an album named Thriller will almost undoubtedly be looking for MJ's album. In this case, Thriller (album) is also WP:PRECISE enough.  Calidum   01:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That example is not typical of what Option 2 would lead to. An article only needs to receive a simple majority of traffic to be made a primary topic (more likely than all the other topics put together, as well as significantly more likely than any other individual topic). If the standard PT rules take precedence, you would have situations where up to half the traffic going to a title that is already disambiguated would arrive at the wrong article. I think a user seeing a title with parenthetical disambiguation - such as in our search box autocomplete - should be able to be virtually certain that they are getting the right article.--Trystan (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that instances where "partial disambiguation" is allowed should be limited. My concern is that unless we say explicitly that such exceptions are allowed, they won't happen in practice, so the status quo won't change at all.  Calidum   23:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This might be a good discussion to advertise at WT:AT as well as the more-used NC talk pages. --Izno (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for simplicity's sake. Always give perfectly unambiguous disambiguators. Red   Slash  21:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally option 1 since PRIMARYTOPIC only deals with terms however its not unreasonable in clear cut cases like Thriller for a PDAB to be treated as primary but by default (even more so than "general" primary topics). Readers who know about how we title things would probably try including qualifiers if they know the term is ambiguous and that's likely for Thriller. However its less clear still if a PDAB can host an article or it has to redirect to the fully disambiguated title, I'm not certain what's best but I have usually opposed to it. In favour of PDABs hosting articles is not having a simpler title redirecting to a more complex one (WP:CONCISE). Against is is WP:PRECISE suggests that only primary topics can be at the base name but its less clear if it allows PDABs.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends. In some cases, WP:CRITERIA are best met by a partially disambiguated title (i.e. Option 2). The list of extant examples at WP:PDAB shows that there's some consensus around this practice. I'd like to see WP:INCDAB updated to make this clear. Given the potential for confusion, I think the threshold for primary-ness should be even higher than normal. Colin M (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 because it is without a doubt the most helpful to readers. If someone is searching for e.g. Alabama (band) they are almost certainly going to be looking for the most famous band of that name and should be taken directly to the article they are looking for. Those relatively few looking for the lesser known band will expect expend less effort getting there from the hatnote at the bigger band's article than they would have to to pick the listing out of the 11 entries in the relevant one of 7 categories at Alabama (disambiguation). Very large numbers of our readers know how we title articles, and very nearly everybody who is looking for the article about the country music band will also know about the state. As such those people who fall into both groups will naturally search for "Alabama (band)", however it is likely that most of those people do not know that there was a different band with that name so will not know of the need to add additional qualifiers, or indeed what other qualifiers would be necessary - (Alabama band), (1980s band), (band formed 1969), (country band), (country music band) even assuming they know these facts before reading the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What about cases where it isn’t "almost certain", but just "significantly more likely", which is the standard for identifying a primary topic? For example, a couple of possible RMs:
 * Readers seeking House of Cards (TV series) are significantly more likely to be seeking House of Cards (American TV series) (90%) than House of Cards (British TV series) (10%), so move the American series to the "(TV series)" title.
 * Readers seeking Battlestar Galactica (TV series) are significantly more likely to be seeking Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) (75%) than Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) (25%), so move the 2004 series to the "(TV series)" title.
 * One might question whether those particular RMs would go through, but many ones like them would if we apply the standard PT test to disambiguated titles.--Trystan (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is a primary topic (as determined by the usual means) for a given search term, then that search term should lead directly to that article because that is what is best for readers. Only when there is more than one search term an article is the primary topic for should this equate to a redirect. It is entirely irrelevant whether this will lead to 10 or 100,000 instances of titles like Alabama (band)/Alabama (Canadian band). The only thing that matters is that we maximise the chances of a reader finding the article they are looking for with as little hassle as possible. If the US and 2004 TV series are primary topics, they should be moved as you suggest. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Those moves would be quantitatively, objectively worse for getting readers to the right article. Incdab redirects with no incoming links get very minimal traffic. Yesterday, the 30-day stat for the House of Cards one was 43, and 1 (!) for the BSG one, compared to tens of thousands of views for the related articles. If those moves were made, an extremely small number of readers would get to the article without seeing the dab (and of course not all would be at the right article). But far greater would be the number of readers who would now arrive at the wrong article because they picked the incdab title out of the search autocomplete, having no way to tell it’s not the one they are looking for.--Trystan (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , realizing this is what prompted me to start the section below; such redirects are more likely to be actually used as search terms in many cases than the parenthetically disambiguated titles. That said, I don't see why the light direct usage of the PDAB titles would make "getting readers to the right article" "quantitatively, objectively worse". --В²C ☎ 16:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The benefit of the hypothetical moves described above is that most people currently going to the incdab title (eg, BSG (TV Series)) would get to the right article without going through the disambiguation page. The cost is that people looking for the lesser-accessed article, like the 1979 BSG or the UK House of Cards, are more likely to end up at the wrong article, for example by picking “BSG (TV series)” from the search box autocomplete (where as now, the autocomplete offers up fully-disambiguated options). Because the people currently going through the incdab redirect (up to dozens) is so minuscule compared to the views that these lesser-viewed articles get (10-20 thousand), the cost will be much higher than the benefit.--Trystan (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Option 2 per Thryduulf, although I agree with bd2412 and Calidum that the usage should be limited and narrowly defined. -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 – Bagumba got it exactly right, up-thread. That said, I could see a very limited number of exceptional cases to this formulation, but the number of these should be very small, and only as a result of a clear consensus at a WP:RM discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 1 with rare exceptions. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about the best destination for a word, name, or phrase, which to my mind includes  but not .  Like most rules, a few exceptions are justified, but the threshold for joining that list needs to be set much higher than for a normal primary topic. Certes (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way is "Steve Smith (cricketer)" not a phrase? If someone is familiar with the way we title articles and knows of multiple people called Steve Smith but only one cricketer (very likely) this is exactly the phrase they are most likely to use. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a normal English noun phrase in the way that Steve Smith is, in that we don't insist on finding it in sources or necessarily expect to. See below. Andrewa (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Thryduulf, also echoing the concerns of bd2412, Tavix, et al. The bar should be set higher for these titles, but there are many cases like "Alabama (band)" or "Thriller (album)" where we really know what users are looking for. Yes, perhaps unfortunate that the term "primary topic" suggests it's all or nothing, but it's never been within our ideals to put bureaucracy over service to readers. ("Ideals" being a key word there. Not planning on watching this discussion, so ping me if needed.) --BDD (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both, aka the Thriller (album) compromise. The title, if parenthetically disambiguated, should be fully precise in specifying the subject. However, we should recognize primary topics when they exist (even if it's just for the scope of a partially disambiguated title) and make them a primary redirect to the fully disambiguated title. -- King of ♥   ♦   ♣  ♠ 23:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Important questions
There are some really good points made above IMO. I'm not yet ready to !vote on the RfC, but I'd like to discuss. All of the following is said above or at least hinted at.

There's a critical difference between natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation, and the rules may not necessarily be the same, and aren't, and our current policies and guidelines do say this but perhaps not clearly enough.

A natural disambiguation is an English noun phrase that can be expected to appear in reliable secondary sources, and it isn't even a candidate for an article title unless it does appear in them. Our disambiguation conventions (by which I mean any construction with which we disambiguate which is not a natural disambiguation) on the other hand produce titles that will not necessarily appear in sources at all, although comma disambiguation in particular may.

So our disambiguation conventions give titles which we may adopt even if they do not ever appear verbatim in sources. All such conventions should probably follow the same rules... parentheses, commas, are there any others? I guess we should look to see whether the pipe trick recognises any others.

This should be reflected in our article title policy and already is implicitly but perhaps not even consistently. And it seems to me that this RfC is seeking to clarify exactly this. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Implementation
The recent changes to the WP:INCDAB guideline do not match the consensus of the above discussion. Participants were nearly evenly split between whether parenthetically qualified titles should have primary topics. There was some middle ground. Several contributors who thought that qualified titles should have primary topics supported a significantly higher standard than the normal PT test. Several contributors who thought that qualified titles shouldn’t have primary topics allowed for rare exceptions. An addition to the guideline based on the above discussion should reflect this middle ground.

However, as implemented in the guideline, it’s straight Option 2: apply the standard primary topic test to qualified titles. It states that such instances are rare, but stating they are rare doesn’t make them so. There is no reason to think they will be rare as the guideline is written.--Trystan (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The guideline needs to reflect the whole of the (concise) closing statement, not merely one part of it. Certes (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have re-added a sentence to INCDAB which sets out the consensus that a higher standard applies to qualified titles.--Trystan (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Dorotheus a DAB or a name page?
Dorotheus is currently more of a name page than a disambiguation page, though it has a template, and Dorotheus (disambiguation) redirects to Dorotheus. I'm thinking that the best option would be to move Dorotheus (weevil) (and its blue link) to Dorotheus (disambiguation), add the names that are just 'Dorotheus', and include a link to Dorotheus (of course). What would be the appropriate template to put on Dorotheus given that it includes given names and mononyms? Does take care of it? Leschnei (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically the weevil (which doesn't even have an article) makes it a dab but in spirit it's a name page. I would say that given name covers mononyms.  (Even if there were surnames,  would suffice.)  A hatnote can deal with the weevil: we don't need a dab just for ONEOTHER meaning. Certes (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the input. I've replaced with  . However, I didn't add a hatnote because Dorotheus (weevil) is a red link. I moved it to See also; maybe not the best solution but I'm sure that someone will put me right. Leschnei (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yuck! what a mess! part given name, part hndis (everyone on the page seems to have a mononym), part dab. Why can't people and things arrange themselves into tidy categories?
 * I suggest leaving the page as a given name page with the weevil as an SA. Messy and unstylish, but it has the merit of containing all the relevant information to point readers to what they might be looking for. Narky Blert (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 51


text:
Talk:Classification of European Inland Waterways

River waterways standarization:
 * Bangkok-max 170x22.8x8   (1900 TEU)
 * Russia- max 110x14.3x3,5 (aprox. 500 TEU) (1 USA-train 480 TEU)
 * Eurobarge   80x 9.5x2.5 (90 TEU) (1 EU-train 80 TEU)

Able for 1.6m in low water levels. Those are sea worthy and river worthy, able for USA waterways too. Aluminum catamaran 80x22.8x3.5 can cross the pacific at top speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Fresh sources

—Sladen (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Western Allied

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Western Allies
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Western Allies. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Western Allied


text:
Irith Pomeranz

Irith Pomeranz is an Israeli electrical engineer known for her research in circuit testing and fault tolerance. She is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Purdue University and a Fellow of the IEEE.

As of 2019, her current research includes: Test generation, design for testability, built in self test and diagnosis of integrated circuits.

Education and career
Pomeranz is a 1985 graduate of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, and completed her doctorate in 1989 at the Technion. Her dissertation, Fault Detection in Digital Circuits, was supervised by Zvi Kohavi.

After completing her doctorate, she became a lecturer at the Technion, and then in 1990 an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Iowa. She was promoted to full professor in 1998 and moved to Purdue in 2000.

Recognition
In 1999, Pomeranz was elected as a Fellow of the IEEE "for contributions to the area of test generation for digital logic circuits". In 2016, the International Test Conference selected one of her papers, "Preferred Fill: A Scalable Method to Reduce Capture Power for Scan Based Design", as "the most significant paper published ten years before".

title: Irith Pomeranz


text:
User:Kwanga Songwangwa/sandbox

Friend zone article by Kwanga Songwangwa Pretoria 10/02/2014 12:53

I don't know how to begin this, but one of the saddest thing that can happen is when one falls in love while the other wants nothing more the friendship and the other thing is its sad when people you know become people you knew, when you can walk right past someone like they were never a big part of your life. how u use to be able to talk for hours and now you can barely look at them. for males specifically the longer you stay in the friend-zone the harder it is to get out. if you want a girl, MAN UP AND GET HER! for females ADMIT IT, you want a boyfriend who will give you their jersey when you're cold. you want a boyfriend who will comfort you when you are down. you want a boyfriend who will kiss and hug you in front of his friends. you want a boyfriend who will ring you at 12:00am in the morning to say happy birthday and tell you he never wants to loose you. You want a boyfriend who will love you for who you are. society's fucked it will never happen.

Just because i am single and ask you to hangout doesn't mean i want you don't flatter yourself, honey i just wanted a wing man XOXO you have been friend-zoned. NB the difference between "Girlfriend" and "girl friend" is the little space in between we call it "friend-zone" ladies, guys are sick of hearing you ask where all of the "nice guys" are. they're in a friend zone, where you left them. girls get friend zoned it hurts them as much as it hurt guys, its easy to say you have been friend zoned than admitting you're TOO SHY to take the initiative. But in most instances guys friend zone themselves of which that will be their problem because what is highlighted above even though its bias and has a lot of factors to consider before coming to a conclusion of what is right and what is not right i personal think that being friend zoned by a girl/lady is not an acceptable gestures to society and to the world at large. you are only confirmed by the walls you build yourself.Dear ladies good guys are not hard to find their are in the friend right where you left them. saying we can still be friends after a break up its like saying hey the dog died but we can still keep it. move out of the comfort zone you can only grow if you are willing to feel awkward and uncomfortable when you try something new. have you ever wanted to ask a question but didn't because you knew that in your heart you would not be able to handle the answer, when a girl says aww thanks she is politely asking you to return to the friend zone that you just tried to escape. Roses are red violets are blue, i suck at poetry don't friend zone me please

title: User:Kwanga Songwangwa/sandbox


text:
Ray Wolfinger

Raymond Edwin Wolfinger (29 June 1931 – 6 February 2015) was an American political scientist and professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He was best known as the co-author (with Steven J. Rosenstone) of an influential book on voter turnout, Who Votes. Prior to his tenure at Berkeley, he was on the faculty at Stanford University. In between this academic career he was an assistant to Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, for whom he helped manage passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Wolfinger was the source of the well-known aphorism, "The plural of anecdote is data." He was a behavioral political scientist, an empiricist in search of better data and rigorous thinking and testing, and a protégé of Robert Dahl.

He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University, his M.A. from the University of Illinois, and his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley.

title: Ray Wolfinger


text:
Developing Scripts and Case Studies for cisLunarFreighter/Radio Communications/STC/sample radio dialogues

List dialogues or chat fragments here. Under the link people please put voice recordings. Our audio integrators will cut and splice along with background music and Foley effects to create final sound tracks for the game Space Traffic Control. Please create the sound files as ogg files and dual licence them under the GFDL and CC-by-SA 2.5 when you upload them. A simple microphone along with a tool such as Audicity works well, at least on my configuration. If you need assistance setting up or using the audio software tool of your choice please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Mirwin 02:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * /Dialogue 1 A ship receives clearance to take off, proceeds to high orbit and experiences an inflight emergency.
 * Control Voice[[Image:STCLaunchDialogueControlVoice1.ogg]]
 * Control Voice Nato phonetic alphabet for Callsigns [[Image:NATOPhoneticAlphabet.ogg]]


text:
User:Hay Lin

Dear Readers, the music that is in is the recent High School Musical and Rebelde. This music is just so onderful and is just elementry kids and middle school kids should listen to for it is off the hook!!!!! So buy now or be an outcast for the rest of your life.

title: User:Hay Lin


text:
横行

Noun

 * 1) walking sideways, staggering, striding
 * 2) being rampant, being widespread, being prevalent
 * 1) being rampant, being widespread, being prevalent

Verb

 * 1) Same as above.

Noun

 * 1)  side mover piece used in chu shogi and larger shogi variants

title: 横行


text:
ROKS Park Wi

ROKS Park Wi (SS-065) is the fourth ship of the Jang Bogo-class submarine of the Republic of Korea Navy, and was the third submarine to serve with the navy. She is one of Jang Bogo-class submarines to be built in South Korea.

Development
At the end of the 1980s the South Korean navy started to improve its overall capability and began to operate more advanced vessels. South Korea purchased its first submarines, German U-209 class in its Type 1200 subvariant, ordered as the Jang Bogo class. These boats are generally similar to Turkey's six Atilay-class submarines, with German sensors and weapons.

The first order placed late in 1987 covered three boats, one to be completed in Germany and the other two in South Korea from German-supplied kits. There followed by two additional three-boat orders placed in October 1989 and January 1994 for boats of South Korean construction. The boats were commissioned from 1993 to 2001.

The older boats were upgraded, it is believed that the modernization included a hull stretch to the Type 1400 length, provision for tube-launched Harpoon missiles and the addition of a towed-array sonar.

Construction and career
ROKS Park Wi was built and launched on 31 May 1994 by Daewoo Shipbuilding. She was acquired by the navy on 30 August 1995 and be commissioned 31 August 1995.

RIMPAC 2018
ROKS Park Wi, ROKS Dae Jo-yeong and ROKS Yulgok Yi I participated in RIMPAC 2018. RIMPAC 2018 took place from June 27 to 2 August 2018.

title: ROKS Park Wi


text:
Template:How-tos bookshelf

How-tos Transferring Data between Standard Dial-Up Modems - Overcoming Procrastination - How to find a book - How to solve the Rubik's Cube - How To Tie A Tie - How to make Armour - How to make your own PVR MythTV - Raising Chickens - How to Render a SolidWorks Model in Maya - How To Build An Excellent Wikibook Teaching Any Language - How To Escape the Headlock - How To Beat The Draft Board All How-tos books...

title: Template:How-tos bookshelf


text:
Talk:Devon White (baseball)

Image copyright problem with File:1997marlins.JPG
The image File:1997marlins.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Devon White vs. Devon Whyte
According to a May 10, 2011 column in the Toronto Sun by Bob Elliott, Devon White is now legally known as "Devon Whyte", which is also his name at birth. Do we change the title of this article, & ensuing references to him in this article, as Devon W-H-I-T-E OR W-H-Y-T-E? Amchow78 (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the lead paragraph has been adjusted for this - quite appropriately, IMO.  PK  T (alk)  00:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ARI1998H22WHITE.png

title: Talk:Devon White (baseball)


text:
Jamal Trulove

Jamal Trulove is an American actor from California and the victim of a wrongful conviction. He appeared in the 2019 film The Last Black Man in San Francisco.

Wrongful conviction
After he was framed by police for the 2007 murder of an acquaintance, Trulove was convicted in 2010, sentenced to 50 years to life, and imprisoned for six years.

A California appeals court overturned his conviction in 2014 and he was retried in 2015 and acquitted. In 2016 he sued the city of San Francisco. In April 2018 a jury found the two officers accused of framing him guilty of fabricating evidence and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. In 2019 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to approve a settlement of $13.1 million.

Media Appearances
In 2008, Trulove was selected by a public vote to appear on the VH1 dating show I Love New York 2, where he was nicknamed "Milliown". Tiffany Pollard eliminated him in the first episode.

Trulove appeared in the 2019 film The Last Black Man in San Francisco.

title: Jamal Trulove


text:
Talk:Bernie Knee

Name
Apparently also know as Bernie Nee. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The Blob
Article The Five Blobs says written by Burt Bacharach and Mack David (Hal David's brother). <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bernie Knee


text:
User:Myfcurrent/sandbox

Muhammad Yasir Faheem

MS in Telecommunication and Networking BS in Electronics and Communications

Lecturer in Bahria University Islamabad for two semesters

Currently working in FIC Faisalabad as an Electronic Equipment care Taker BS (17)

title: User:Myfcurrent/sandbox


text:
Electronics/Components

Ideal voltage sources

 * An ideal voltage source is a fundamental electronics component that creates a constant voltage between two points regardless of whatever else is connected to it. Since it is ideal, some circuit configurations are not allowed, such as short circuits, which would create infinite current.  (I = V / 0)

 * A water analogy would be a pump with pressure sensors on both sides. The difference in pressure between the in port and out port is constantly measured, regardless of the absolute pressure of each side, and the pump speed is adjusted so that the pressure difference stays constant.

 * Real voltage sources, such as batteries, power supplies, piezoelectric disks, generators, steam turbines, wall outlets, etc. have an internal source impedance (in series with the ideal voltage source), which is very important to understand.

Ideal current sources

 * An ideal current source is an electronics component that creates a constant current through a section of circuit, regardless of whatever else is connected to it. Since it is ideal, some circuit configurations are not allowed, such as open circuits, which would create an infinite voltage.

 * A water analogy would be a pump with a flow meter. It measures the amount of water flowing by per unit time and changes the speed of the pump so that the current flow is constant.

 * Real current sources, such as batteries, power supplies, piezoelectric disks, generators, etc. have an internal source impedance (in parallel with the source), which is very important to understand.

 * Real sources generally behave more like voltage sources than current sources, because the internal impedance in series is very low. A current source can be created from a voltage source with a circuit such as a current mirror.

Dependent Sources

 * A dependent source is either a voltage or a current source which is dependent upon another value within the circuit, usually another voltage or current. Typically, these are used in circuit modeling and analysis.

There are four main types of such sources.

Voltage-controlled voltage source (VCVS)

 * This is a voltage source whose value is controlled by another voltage elsewhere in the circuit. Its output will typically be given as $$V_o=AV_c$$, where A is a gain term and Vcis a control voltage.

 * An example of a VCVS may be an idealized amplifier, where A is the gain of the amplifier.

Current-controlled voltage source (CCVS)

 * This is a voltage source whose value is controlled by a current elsewhere in the circuit. Its output is typically given as $$V_o=AI_c$$, where A is a gain term and Ic is a control current.

Voltage-controlled current source (VCCS)

 * This is a current source whose value is controlled by a voltage elsewhere in the circuit. Its output is typically given as $$I_o=AV_c$$, where A is a gain term and Vc is a control voltage.

Current-controlled current source (CCCS)

 * This is a current source whose value is controlled by a current elsewhere in the circuit. Its output is typically given as $$I_o=AI_c$$, where A is a gain term and Ic is a control current.

 * An example of a CCCS is an idealized bipolar junction transistor, which may be thought of as a small current controlling a larger one. Specifically the base current, Ib is the control and the collector current Ic is the output.

Switch

 * A switch is a mechanical device that connects or disconnects two parts of a circuit.

 * A switch is a short circuit when it is on.

And it is a open circuit when it is off.

 * When you turn a switch on it completes a circuit that allows current to flow. When you turn the switch off it creates an air gap (depending on the type of switch), and since air is an insulator no current flows.

 * A switch is a device for making or breaking an electric circuit.

 * Usually the switch has two pieces of metal called contacts that touch to make a circuit, and separate to break the circuit. The contact material is chosen for its resistance to corrosion, because most metals form insulating oxides that would prevent the switch from working. Sometimes the contacts are plated with noble metals. They may be designed to wipe against each other to clean off any contamination. Nonmetallic conductors, such as conductive plastic, are sometimes used. The moving part that applies the operating force to the contacts is called the actuator, and may be a rocker, a toggle or dolly, a push-button or any type of mechanical linkage.

Contact Arrangements

 * Switches can be classified according to the arrangement of their contacts. Some contacts are normally open until closed by operation of the switch, while normally closed contacts are opened by the switch action. A switch with both types of contact is called a changeover switch.

 * The terms pole and throw are used to describe switch contacts. A pole is a set of contacts that belong to a single circuit. A throw is one of two or more positions that the switch can adopt. These terms give rise to the following abbreviations.

 * [[Image:Electronics_Switches.PNG]]

 * S (single), D (double).
 * T (throw), CO (changeover).
 * CO = DT.

(single|double) pole ((single|double) throw|changeover)

 * SPST = single pole single throw, a simple on-off switch.
 * SPDT = single pole double throw, a simple changeover or on-off-on switch.
 * SPCO = single pole changeover, equivalent to SPDT.
 * DPST = double pole single throw, equivalent to two SPST switches controlled by a single mechanism.
 * DPDT = double pole double throw, equivalent to two SPDT switches controlled by a single mechanism.
 * DPCO = double pole changeover, equivalent to DPDT.

 * Switches with larger numbers of poles or throws can be described by replacing the "S" or "D" with a number.

Biased Switches

 * A biased switch is one containing a spring that returns the actuator to a certain position. The "on-off" notation can be modified by placing parentheses around all positions other than the resting position. For example, an (on)-off-(on) switch can be switched on by moving the actuator in either direction away from the centre, but returns to the central off position when the actuator is released.

 * The momentary push-button switch is a type of biased switch. This device makes contact when the button is pressed and breaks when the button is released.

Special Types

 * Switches can be designed to respond to any type of mechanical stimulus: for example, vibration (the trembler switch), tilt, air pressure, fluid level (the float switch), the turning of a key (key switch), linear or rotary movement (the limit switch or microswitch).

 * The mercury tilt switch consists of a blob of mercury inside a glass bulb. The two contacts pass through the glass, and are shorted together when the bulb is tilted to make the mercury roll on to them. The advantage of this type of switch is that the liquid metal flows around particles of dirt and debris that might otherwise prevent the contacts of a conventional switch from closing.

=See also=
 * Audio for robotics
 * Diodes
 * Identification
 * Integrated circuits
 * Loudspeakers
 * * Loudspeakers, Enclosures
 * Measuring instruments
 * Mechanical components
 * Motors
 * Power sources
 * Software development
 * Resistors
 * * Resistors, Light dependent
 * * Resistors, Physics
 * Software components
 * Thermistors
 * Vacuum tubes

title: Electronics/Components


text:
Caring for computer hardware

From the official document:
 * "This unit defines the competency required to manage the selection, maintenance and siting of hardware."

Basically, that means ... (translate above into plain english)

You can read more about this unit on the National Training Information Systems Official document for ICAS3234A.

This unit is part of the following qualifications:
 * Cert III Applications Qualification in Australia

How this unit will help you
After learning and applying the skills required by this unit you'll be able to demonstrate your skills in:

 * translate the above elements and performance criteria into plain english and summarise here...

Ideas for learning the required skills
...

Ideas for demonstrating this unit
The best way to demonstrate these skills is ...

title: Caring for computer hardware