Talk:Big Bang Theory/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Comment on RfC

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

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

The only remaining step in getting from your beliefs to where we are is moving The_Big_Bang_Theory to The_Big_Bang_Theory (tv) and redirecting The_Big_Bang_Theory to this page. This can be addressed at WP:RM, and relevant wikiprojects and talk pages should be notified. Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's give all a chance to discuss. Thanks!Jobberone (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jobberone. Your opinion, of course, is welcome. But you seem to be unaware that the broader topic (beyond the disambiguation page's format) has been discussed extensively.

You're quite correct that our primary goal is to assist readers, and users have presented evidence that persons reaching certain page titles overwhelmingly seek the article about the television program. Therefore, the simplest, most helpful approach is to send them there (with disambiguation links accommodating the small minority of individuals arriving accidentally).

To be clear, there's no dispute that the cosmological model is (and will continue to be) far more important and noteworthy. But it's been shown that readers seeking its article are unlikely to do so via the title The Big Bang Theory (among other variants). In such cases, differentiation by capitalization (and sometimes other formatting differences) is a policy-backed practice.

Please see the most recent move request. Thank you! —David Levy 03:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A move request, which, as has been pointed out by other editors, not widely discussed, and by comparison, not as extensive as this one; and when more people started to weigh in their opinions, was railroaded and closed. No wonder some editors, perhaps out of frustration, threw in some name calling, which may be uncalled for.70.27.184.237 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

1. What do you mean by "not widely discussed"? A great deal of discussion occurred (in addition to the two previous move requests).

2. On what do you base the assertion that the discussion was "railroaded and closed"? I'm reminded of this allegation.

(See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/70.24.247.54/Archive) —David Levy 07:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

David, can you please link to the discussion where the behavior of readers was analized? I agree with the exact title as the preferred target for the TV show, but I'm unconvinced about the variants. I've read some in-passing mentions pointing to the volume of readers at each page but I haven't found the extended discussion; if the only statistic available is the number of readers, that's not valid to show the desired target for any of the variants other than the exact string "The Big Bang Theory". It would be useful to review that old discussion before using it as a reason to keep the current statu quo. Diego (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to the aforementioned move request, and mainly to variants containing "The" and "Theory"/"theory". (AussieLegend noted that very few readers reach the Big Bang article via redirects containing "The", such as The Big Bang and The big bang.)

The situation regarding the redirect Big Bang Theory isn't as clear-cut, but I believe that the available evidence (discussed during this page's move request) establishes that someone typing the phrase with that capitalization probably seeks the television program's article (and the only other likely target is linked directly from the top of the page, so sending readers to a disambiguation page wouldn't help anyone). —David Levy 15:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you're referring to the discussions at this page, you should then notice the objections raised by Jusses2 (00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC), 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)) and me (16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)) that page view statistics only tell us about the number of visits for each term (and thus its popularity), but don't inform wether the user arrived to their desired target because you can't extract the followed path from them. How many users wanted to see the cosmological model but arrived to a (wrong) disambiguation page instead? Page view statistics don't tell that; you can't infer what article the user was seeking using them. My point being that it's dangerous to infer too much from the available data - this can lead to terrible situations like the current separate disambiguation pages for Big Bang and Big Bang Theory. Diego (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussions at this page, you should then notice the objections raised by Jusses2 (00:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC), 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)) and me (16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)) that page view statistics only tell us about the number of visits for each term (and thus its popularity), but don't inform wether the user arrived to their desired target because you can't extract the followed path from them.

Few readers — irrespective of their targets — arrive at the page titles in question (The Big Bang and The big bang). Even if 100% of them intend to reach the Big Bang article, this amounts to a very small percentage of persons seeking that article via a redirect containing "The".

The point is that there's no reason to suspect that such individuals treat "The Big Bang Theory" any differently. (If anything, they probably are less likely to type that.) As I noted at Talk:The Big Bang Theory#Requested move, if we generously assume that all readers arriving at The Big Bang and The big bang seek the article about the cosmological model and that such persons reach The Big Bang Theory as frequently as they reach those two variants combined, that accounts for less than 0.5% of The Big Bang Theory's page views.

You noted above that you "agree with the exact title as the preferred target for the TV show", so I don't think that I'm arguing with you; I'm simply clarifying the context in which I've cited the page view statistics.

My point being that it's dangerous to infer too much from the available data - this can lead to terrible situations like the current separate disambiguation pages for Big Bang and Big Bang Theory.

As stated above, I'm inclined to agree that the two disambiguation pages should be merged. —David Levy 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, now I understand better how the number of visits at the less visited pages can provide some insights even without knowing the exact path followed by each user. Diego (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I read all of it. I understand where people are coming from and respect everyone's opinions. I tend to see things in a broad sense, follow common sense even though it is bounded by rules, look at the long term, and like the simplest approach. Many of the approaches taken can be justified in one way or more by the rules. I think people can easily get to the TV show or anywhere else they want from one disambiguation page. Of course my opinion is only one and holds no more or less than any other editor. And it is not usual for me to take any stance in a RfC much less a strong one. My strong suggestion on this one is to take the simplest approach which someone outlined below my first edit then see how it goes. Wikipedia is and should be fluid and the community can always move in another direction if that is not working. Or the community can seek another solution now. I will follow from a distance and allow all to work this out. Good luck!Jobberone (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I read all of it.

In that case, I'm confused as to what further discussion you intended to initiate ("I look forward to what should be some interesting discussion."). As noted above, you're welcome to comment, but you've raised no new points.

I understand where people are coming from and respect everyone's opinions.

Likewise, I respect yours.

I tend to see things in a broad sense, follow common sense even though it is bounded by rules, look at the long term, and like the simplest approach.

Ditto. And in the above RfC, I supported modifying this disambiguation page in a manner that deviates from our rules (because I believe that doing so was helpful to readers).

Likewise, I believe that sending most readers directly to the articles that they seek is a simple, commonsense approach. Conversely, sending them to different pages would needlessly complicate their experience.

Many of the approaches taken can be justified in one way or more by the rules.

You have it backwards. We don't do things because our rules tell us to; we write rules describing the practices that we agree (usually) make sense. And when atypical or unforeseen circumstances arise, we make exceptions.

I think people can easily get to the TV show or anywhere else they want from one disambiguation page.

Indeed, we strive to make all realistic targets (including the relatively unlikely ones) as accessible as possible to readers not immediately arriving at the intended articles.

The encyclopedia would continue to function if we were to place a disambiguation page at every title with more than one possible meaning (e.g. by moving George Washington (disambiguation) to George Washington), but that would be relatively inefficient and unhelpful.

My strong suggestion on this one is to take the simplest approach which someone outlined below my first edit then see how it goes.

I disagree with the premise that retargeting a page title away from the article sought by a vast majority of visitors constitutes "the simplest approach". As you know (having read all of the discussions), this idea has been proposed and rejected several times (including recently).

Wikipedia is and should be fluid and the community can always move in another direction if that is not working.

Agreed. And if someone were to present evidence that the current setup is not working, I would support a change. —David Levy 19:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And for completeness, if the disambiguation pages were merged, that would qualify as "not working": the readers who were trying to find Big Bang Theory (Styx album), Big Bang Theory (Harem Scarem album), or The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy) would have a longer list to sift through, and no reader seeking any article would benefit (the only topic that is ambiguous with both titles would have already been reached before the disambiguation page). (The readers seeking non-primary articles ambiguous with "Big Bang" would also have a slightly longer list to sift through as well, but that detriment is slight enough to have been dismissed above.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Following David Levy's logic for the current names (that I finally understand, thanks to his helpful clarification above), having a simpler navigation for those wanting to go from Big Bang to The Big Bang Theory (the article sought by a vast majority of visitors) provides a benefit several orders of magnitude higher than any other consideration. So, even if it inconvenienced a small number of readers (something that I don't agree would happen), a merged page is still overwhelmingly better, as it will benefit anyone that typed "big bang" or "the big bang" and wanted to see the TV show. Diego (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't think it has been active very long and see no need to rush to close it.Jobberone (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's been open for a month. How long are RfC's supposed to run for? A lot of the comments are just people repeating themselves now! Polyamorph (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer is typically 30 days, I think it's time to close. The main aim of the RfC was to determine the primary topic, I think consensus shows that the cosmological theory should be the primary topic. However, the subsequent discussion on disambiguation is more complicated. Polyamorph (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on Apr 10. That's three days ago not thirty. Has there been a community consensus?Jobberone (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

While the RfC is still active the RfC bot will keep handing out notifications (I received a notification 5 days ago for example). It seems the RfC notice has now been removed. If someone wants to perform an uninvolved close for example they can do so. I was involved in some parts of a previous discussion on this so I shouldn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC bot removed the template. —David Levy 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The RfC began on 14 March. (You "read all of it", so it's surprising that you didn't notice that.)

And yes, it's run its course. The outcome became clear (and was implemented) a while back. Your subsequent comments, randomly solicited by a bot, pertain to tangential discussion that arose, not to the RfC's subject (how to format the disambiguation page). —David Levy 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if you actually read what I said then you wouldn't make such a comment. I said I was asked to comment 4/13 and factually that is not 30 days ago. Do you treat all editors who are asked to comment with such hostility? To all good luck with resolution.Jobberone (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained, the RFC bot asks users to comment throughout the RFC, not only at the beginning. It will soon be closed by an uninvolved editor as has been running for a month. Polyamorph (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you perceive hostility. None is intended.

I read what you wrote, including your comment that you "don't think [the RfC] has been active very long and see no need to rush to close it."

You appear to have misunderstood the RfC's scope (the disambiguation page's format, which already has been modified as a result of the discussion) and the nature of the 30-day window (which began when the RfC was initiated, not when you were invited to participate). I merely seek to alleviate the confusion. —David Levy 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Big Bang Theory" listed at Redirects for discussion

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