This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Most people are looking for the annexation of Crimea in 2014, not the annexation of Crimea in 1783. There is already a disambiguation line about the annexation in 1783 on the 2014 page. There are only two annexations of Crimea currently. Therefore, this page is meaningless and makes navigation more cumbersome. Nuke (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's pure WP:RECENTISM, not supported by data or policy. The relevant policy is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is quite clear on this matter. The long term significance of both the first and second annexations is relatively equal, and perhaps the first annexation could be said to have had more significance because it directly led to the second. Merely because something occurred more recently does not mean that it is primary topic. If one thinks from a historical perspective, one would think that the annexation that first brought Crimea into the Russian sphere of influence would be a more significant use of the term "Annexation of Crimea". RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the 1783 annexation did allow the 2014 annexation to happen, but I highly doubt "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." means the annexation in the eighteenth century should be given an entire page for disambiguation purposes rather than a disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article on the 2014 annexation. Also, Wikipedia does not think from a historical perspective, but from a neutral point of view. The fact that only two articles are listed on this disambiguation page also shows there is less purpose to this and shows there is less reason to have an article dedicated to disambiguating these two articles. Even if the 2014 annexation of Crimea is "highly likely-much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined-to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" because it occurred within the last two years, it still passes the ten-year test and qualifies for WP:IAR based on navigation improvements either way due to the fact this can easily be done with a hatnote. There is also an exception in WP:PTOPIC for "If a topic has only ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently (ISIS does not take the reader to an article on an Egyptian goddess)", which also adds strength to making this a redirect to the 2014 annexation by the Russian Federation. Nuke (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get me. I'm saying that there is no primary topic. Neither page should have "annexation of Crimea" redirect to it, as both have relatively equal status in terms of historical significance and usage. I have no doubt that many users will want to see the 2014 annexation article. However, with regard to usage and primary topic, there is no way to say that the 2014 annexation has overwritten the 1783 annexation. Prior to 2014, "annexation of Crimea" would have undoubtedly referred to the 1783 event. The 2014 event, however, took primary status away from the 1783 event, and created a situation of ambiguity requiring a disambiguation page. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In everyday use, "annexation of Crimea" refers to the 2014 "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation". I'm sure historians and people looking to learn about the 2014 annexation would love to see this article. As you say yourself, the 2014 event took primary status away from the 1783 event. However, this has made the 1783 event a de facto edge case for readers. It should just be on a hatnote, to make navigating Wikipedia less cumbersome. This does not mean the 2014 annexation has "overwritten" the 1783 annexation. It simply means one is more likely to be what someone wants when they look up "Annexation of Crimea". Nuke (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People do not use the phrase "annexation of Crimea" in everyday use. I'm not sure what you're basing your argument on. Disambiguation pages are not "cumbersome", and having "annexation of Crimea" lead to a specific annexation is misleading, a product of recentism, and not supported by the DAB policy. RGloucester — ☎ 04:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People discuss politics on a daily basis, and in that process they use the phrase "annexation of Crimea", which means this is a phrase which occurs in everyday use, although I suppose you'd probably need to be a politician or something to use the phrase literally every day. The primary topic suggested by the phrase "Annexation of Crimea" is the 2014 annexation by the Russian Federation. WP:DAB says "The page at Michael Dobbs is about the primary topic, and there is only one other use. The other use is linked directly using a hatnote; no disambiguation page is needed." as a scenario for disambiguation using hatnotes. This is Wikipedia policy for this issue, with the exception of Recentism; however, I believe that in ten years, assuming nothing about the future, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 will still be more important to readers' interests. In other words, most people entering "Annexation of Crimea" are looking for 2014 and not 1783. This may be the result of Recentism, but it improves Wikipedia for people reading it. The information density of the two articles alone can be used as an interim source, as right now the statistics database for page views isn't working for me. Therefore, the annexation in 2014 should be considered the primary topic, and this disambiguation page should be replaced with the appropriate redirect to the page on the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation with the annexation by the Russian Empire in a hatnote. In any case, due in part to the amount of repetition, it doesn't seem we'll come to an agreement (although I'll at least try to address your misunderstandings and such), so it may be best to agree to disagree, and wait for someone else to add their opinions. Nuke (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
. This is because second meaning is very rarely used. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "rarely used". How can a major historical event be a "rarely used" meaning of the phrase "Annexation of Crimea"? That doesn't even make any sense. There are two annexations, and neither is the primary topic. You've not provided any data to support your position, and furthermore, you fail to take into account the criterion of "historical significance" with regard to primary topic status. Even books dealing with the 2014 annexation refer to the 1783 annexation as such, as doother booksdealing with Russian history. Without disambiguation, the phrase "annexation of Crimea" is not sufficient to identify the topic per WP:CONCISE. A primary topic is "not 'what first comes to (your) mind'", as the relevant policy says at WP:NWFCTM. You fellows are basing your argument on a position that is directly contrary to the policy in play. If you still want to move forward with such a change, I suggest you file an RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a simple redirect precisely per the "Primary topic". Yes, the 2nd meaning is also used, but it is much less common. For example, first meaning appears in practically all Google news references, and even in 8 of 10 first Google books references. My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It tells A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. That is what we are talking about. Why this is so important to you? I do not care too much about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two criteria, not just one. The second is "historical significance". Regardless, you've provided no data to support the position that a user is more likely to mean 2014 when searching for "annexation of Crimea", so one can't say that 2014 is primary with respect to usage or historical significance. I care because the proposal above is contrary to our policies, because it encourages recentism, and because it has no data to support it. RGloucester — ☎ 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term significance cannot be measured for the 2014 annexation. This is a meaningless argument. Nuke (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, it can be measured for the 1783 event, and that event can be said to be extremely significant, even in the context of the rhetoric of the 2014 annexation. Even if we accepted your argument, so far unsupported, that the 2014 annexation was primary with regard to usage, it still would not overtake the 1783 in terms of historical significance. In this case, where neither event meets both criteria, the status quo would remain according to the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! That's because there was no internet in 1783, no saturated media coverage of the event. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two hundred years ago everything was different. Only modern usage matters. Once again, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.". This means searches right now. But I give up here. This simply does not worth anyone's time. My very best wishes (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've not provided evidence that 2014 is "much more likely than any other topic" to be sought by the reader, and still haven't addressed the other criteria. What I meant by the "internet" comment was that searching for "annexation of Crimea" in Google in the way done by NuclearWizard is obviously going to return a ton of results for 2014, because the nature of how history is recorded now entails a million news reports on the subject being written as it happens. 1783 is automatically going to lose in a contest like that, given that it did not have the benefit of a twenty-four hour instant news cycle via the internet, so such a search is useless for determining the primary topic. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You bear the burden of proof to provide data to the contrary, such as Wikipedia pageview data for the two annexations which is currently not available due to service issues. For me, that's impossible since it's too hard to analyze the raw data or get the services suggested on WP:PTOPIC to work. Try as you might to attack our sources, these arguments are generally not valid on Wikipedia as a biased source is sometimes the best source. It does not matter if "Recentism" is a supplemental non-enforceable essay on a WP page ("This essay is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; [...]"); the primary use is the modern event. Nuke (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The primary use is not the modern event in terms of the Wikipedia policy on primary topics. RGloucester — ☎ 04:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument. That is a claim that you have not proven past all opposing proofs. Nuke (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Proofs" is not a word that exists in this context. "Proof" is a mass noun that does not require a plural, except in certain mathematical fields. Arguments are claims, and claims are arguments. It is all pedantry. The primary topic guidance is pretty clear in saying that primary topic status should be weighed on the basis of significance and usage, and that the primary topic not what first comes to mind (e.g. because of recentism). RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoratio elenchi, Google "proofs definition". You have not validated your claim that we're not right. The only Wikipedia policy in your favor is perhaps the policy on consensus as it stands. Nuke (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
