Talk:Catching Fire (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Catching Fire → Catching Fire (disambiguation)
• Catching Fire (2009 novel) → Catching Fire

– I believe the Collins novel is unequivocally the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per page view stats in the last 30 days, the 2009 novel was viewed 1.3 million times [1], and this disambig just 72,000 times. [2] People are definitely expecting the Collins novel over the 1982 one (which doesn't even ahve an article) or the other book. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Things catching fire are likely to be with us much longer then three routinely ephemeral books and a film. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • But we don't make disambiguation pages solely because it's associated with a common term. See Mess Around (song), Overnight (documentary), or heck even Something which I'd expect to be about the term in general but is actually about The Beatles song. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Pretty obvious that when readers search for "Catching Fire" they are looking for the novel by Collins. Added to that, I don't see that anything on the dab page has more long-term significance or educational value. Jenks24 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. How on earth can we know that readers looking for "catching fire" (with whatever capitalisation) are looking for a novel? Or a film (see the coming film with that title)? Or a video game? Or a manga comic? Or an episode of some TV series? Or the concept of combustion? I've been around for a while myself, and I keep my eyes and ears open; but "catching fire" to me means only "combustion". I am surely not alone in this. Nothing at all is lost, if we retain the precision in the present title. Let's think how these things really work, for real readers in the real world out there.

♥ ☺

Noetica^Tea? 22:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"How on earth can we know that readers looking for "catching fire" (with whatever capitalisation) are looking for a novel?" Through the magic of page view statistics, which have been provided in the nomination. That "Catching Fire" means something else to you is fairly irrelevant – remember we are here to serve the real readers in the real world. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You answer what you think is easy to answer (and I can't see how your answer is successful), but you do not address the more important point. Obviously a great number of people are successfully finding the article for the novel under the present arrangement (see figures, above). Why think they would have the same degree of success if the article had a less precise title? At present, readers searching internally on "catching fire" get a prompt to follow: "Catching Fire (2009 novel)". That's handy! But they would get no such prompt under the proposed arrangement. They would find and follow the bare suggestion "Catching Fire", and without having a sense of control, empowerment, or direction end up at the destination they had hoped for. Meanwhile, an unknown number of enquirers aiming for the perennial topic "combustion" (or perhaps something else) would be similarly disempowered, but unlucky to boot! Now, who knows? There may be more to say. We cannot assume that the situation is at all simple, and that we are on top of all the issues. The evidence from other RM discussions suggests that we often don't manage them consistently or successfully. Clearly we need to track the logic of these things more rigorously than we have been. Noetica^Tea? 13:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument effectively boils down to you believing that parenthetical descriptions should be used on all articles where the title isn't universally known. As you know, this is contrary to the current policies and guidelines and your recent attempts to effect change at the talk pages of those policies and guidelines have not met with consensus. If you can get consensus to change the policy/guideline, then I will be happy to agree with your arguments, but not before then. On your last point, I agree we need a better way to track old RM discussions (some sort of archival process?). Jenks24 (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jenks: "Your argument effectively boils down to you believing that parenthetical descriptions should be used on all articles where the title isn't universally known." No, that is not what I am saying at all. Your argument seems to be that we should reduce helpful precision to an absolute minimum, and very often dispense with it altogether, justified by a mechanistic invocation of contested guidelines and ignoring arguments that appeal directly to the interests of readers. Noetica^Tea? 03:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Noetica: "Your argument seems to be that we should reduce helpful precision to an absolute minimum, and very often dispense with it altogether, justified by a mechanistic invocation of contested guidelines and ignoring arguments that appeal directly to the interests of readers." No, that is not what I'm saying at all :) I sincerely believe that this move, as well as being inline with policy, would be in the best interests of our readers. At this point I think we're just talking past each other, so perhaps it would be best to just agree to disagree and see what the closing admin decides. Jenks24 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Jenks, in good faith I accept that as what you believe. Unfortunately, I find no substance in your posts here to support that belief. I genuinely cannot see how you arrive at that belief. Contrast the substantive points and questions that I have proposed (finally addressed below; and I have answered in turn). Unfortunately also, we cannot always trust admins to be astute in processing the substance in RM discussions, or to be open and unbiased. Many of us think this is a serious problem that needs wide community attention. For the time being, I will exert myself at RMs to offer honest analyses – detailed analyses that take most seriously the interests of readers as an immediate concern, with flawed, contested, and badly interpreted titling provisions coming a distant second. Noetica^Tea? 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This novel is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the page view stats show. 1.3 million views in the last month? Versus 72,000 for the dab page? Sending people who type "catching fire" to a dab page is a disservice to our readership - which is who the encyclopedia should be serving. Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I favor holding arguments of primary topic based solely on page views to a high standard (i.e., more than a simple majority), but this case is beyond question (apart from the like of Noetica's precious rhetoric). older ≠ wiser 22:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Where you cannot dismiss the amply detailed content by argument, you denigrate the whole as "precious rhetoric". An interesting rhetorical move on your part, User:Bkonrad (≠) – but it has nothing to do with rational process, which is what we need in RM discussions. Noetica^Tea? 02:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC) ♪☺
    • Yes, I admit I don't have the graceful and tolerant patience of David Levy (see, for example [3], [4], [5]) and find it difficult to put aside irritation at repeated vacuous, pretentious and condecending abuse masquarading as rational argument. Others have already addressed the lack of substance to your supposed argument. older ≠ wiser 12:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Obtuse refusal to look at the substance, still. From one who should know better. Peripheral considerations from outside this discussion, wheeled in to provide a distraction from your dodging the points that I make above. I can make them straight, I can make them with rhetorical additions: in neither case do you answer them. To narrow the focus to the rhetoric, and to personal externalities, is to indulge in a flagrant kind of ad hominem, not in rational dialogue. Now, do you have substance, to counter my substance? Or just more and more of the rhetoric that you pretend to deplore and abjure? Noetica^Tea? 17:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
        • So far as there is no actual substance to your arguments, there is little to respond to. In this case, the numbers speak more loudly than anything I can add. And FWIW, even on those occasions where I agree with you, your manner of presentation is often so off-putting that it gives reason to pause. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

For your convenience, User:Bkonrad (≠), I replicate part of what I wrote above. I underline and enumerate points and questions of substance to which you may choose to respond. Alternatively, you may continue to dwell on style of presentation, rather than on what is presented.

[1] Obviously a great number of people are successfully finding the article for the novel under the present arrangement (see figures, above). [2] Why think they would have the same degree of success if the article had a less precise title? [3] At present, readers searching internally on "catching fire" get a prompt to follow: "Catching Fire (2009 novel)". That's handy! [4] But they would get no such prompt under the proposed arrangement. [5] They would find and follow the bare suggestion "Catching Fire", and without having a sense of control, empowerment, or direction end up at the destination they had hoped for. [6] Meanwhile, an unknown number of enquirers aiming for the perennial topic "combustion" (or perhaps something else) would be similarly disempowered, but unlucky to boot! Now, who knows? There may be more to say. We cannot assume that the situation is at all simple, and that we are on top of all the issues.

When you've done that, and withdrawn your remark about my offering no substance, take note of my reply to this final observation of yours: "your manner of presentation is often so off-putting that it gives reason to pause". I respond: The manner of people like you – pretending that the old familiar lines are the only proper trajectories, and refusing to take detailed alternative analyses seriously – is off-putting to me. So I guess we're on an even keel, right? ☺

Noetica^Tea? 03:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall not withdraw my comment about lack of substance. It is rather part of a campaign on your part to change how Wikipedia titles its articles. In this particular case, there is no merit to any of your supposed substance. But I'll play along. 1) Yes, many people are getting to the novel page, but at the cost of forcing a large number through the disambiguation page first. 2 & 3) Why assume that people arrive at the page only by using the search box or by assuming that people pay very close attention to what appears in the dropdown. That tens of thousands of readers are visiting a disambiguation page each month is a indication that people are looking for something at that title and considering that the only other topics that are actually ambiguous have far less traffic, it is safe to conclude that the vast majority visiting the disambiguation page are looking for the novel. 4) I think this is in fact false if I understand what you mean. Regardless of what page is at Catching Fire, readers typing "Catching Fire" in the search box would continue to get the same list of available options. Redirects also appear in the search options list and no one is suggesting to delete anything here. 5) Poppycock. 6) Hatnotes shall enable the relatively small number of readers who arrive at the novel article to find other articles. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If you insist that my submission is without substance, why do you not also observe the same for other submissions? What "substance" is there in submissions that appeal uncritically to the notion of "primary topic", for example, without analysing how that consideration fits into the whole picture? Like Dohn joe's and your own, for example? Or Andrea's, or ENeville's, or hbdragon88's in the preamble? Yes, I campaign against such thoughtless rule-following – especially when such rules are vigorously contested, formulated without wide community consultation, and the occasion even for ArbCom deliberation.

You belittle my actually taking other factors into account, beyond mechanical application of contested rules. How is that any better, in an open RM discussion, than my belittling others' mere following of such rules? I note you did not do that in the case of Anthony Appleyard, who agrees with me but offered less by way of hard argument. Now, to your replies to my substantive points and questions (which you make light of as a matter of "playing along", as if such discussion were not our core business here):

1. The proportions are what matter, not the bare numbers. Hugely more readers are getting to the article for the novel without passing through the DAB page, under the current arrangement. We have no idea what people consulting the DAB are after, or how they got there. (Many might look there and find all the information they want, and consult no other article.) But we do know that things are working rather well right now. You assert, but do not demonstrate, that significant numbers of those looking for the novel go first to the DAB page. Why think that, when there are five possible targets listed at the DAB page, one of which is the eminently encyclopedic topic of combustion (however it is named), a topic of permanent interest in the world around us?

2 and 3. You first answer a question with a question. Both are good questions to ask at RM discussions. Acknowledging that is useful. You end with this: "..., it is safe to conclude that the vast majority visiting the disambiguation page are looking for the novel". But this is not supported by what precedes it. One hugely general and important topic is not covered in a determinate way at the DAB page (the matter of "catching fire" goes under many descriptions and names). You can have no idea what proportion of views at the DAB page are aiming for that topic. To use an example of one route into our articles, under the present arrangement people can click on a prompt to the film article, bypassing the DAB page. The numbers suggest that hugely many do just that. Your conclusion is by no means safe.

4. I am happy to concede on this one for the present case. Very often, however, there may be so many prompts that the relevant redirects are crowded out of the list (as in the controversial case of French Quarter).

5. "Poppycock"? Doesn't even qualify as rhetoric, let alone rational engagement with a statement that delivers substance, even if you disagree with the substance. In discussions on WP we engage, we should not restrict our answers to bare abuse.

6. You give no reason to believe that under the proposed arrangement the numbers arriving at the uninformatively and arguably misleadingly named article Catching Fire would be low. They would almost certainly include many who are looking for the topics enumerated at the present DAB page, and in particular a topic that many would be pursuing at an encyclopedia: the matter of catching fire, otherwise called "combustion". Few readers are aware of our conventions, or the intricacies of finding and following hatnotes and the like. Our own familiarity with these, as insiders, can easily blind us to the situation of outsiders. But they are the vast majority of users of Wikipedia; and it is their interests that we aim to serve.

Noetica^Tea? 02:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC) ♥

What "substance" is there in submissions that appeal uncritically to the notion of "primary topic", for example, without analysing how that consideration fits into the whole picture? I, and most others, although unfortunately not everyone, prefer to avoid rehashing the same arguments every time around. Guidelines are assembled to describe best practices to avoid such circularity. You question the fundamentals of such guidelines around primary topic. I'd prefer to point you to the entire archives of numerous talk pages rather than re-iterate yet again what you already know and refuse to accept. If you wish to tilt at windmills, that is your own business. Anthony did not attempt to waste everyone's time with a load of specious argumentation. I don't agree with him, but be that as it may. I feel no compulsion to counter everyone who merely expresses a position contrary to my own on a specific case.

(1)We have no idea what people consulting the DAB are after. False. We can make an extremely strong inference based on the relative proportion of traffic to the various ambiguous pages. And that is quite obvious to most everyone except those with an agenda of changing established practices. (2) Already addressed. I think you are are either pretending not to understand or are truly blinded by your agenda. You can have no idea what proportion of views at the DAB page are aiming for that topic. Yes, in fact we can make inferences about this. (5) It is poppycock. There is nothing to rebut other than vaguely platitudinous speculation. (06) You might find no reason to believe this. Thankfully most other editors are not so blind. You give no reason to believe that under the proposed arrangement the numbers arriving at the uninformatively and arguably misleadingly named article Catching Fire would be low. In fact this could be proven. Move the novel article to the base name and then observe what happens to the traffic for the other pages. I suggest that the traffic to the disambiguation page would drop precipitously from tens of thousands per month to hundreds per month and that there would be no significant change in traffic to any of the other articles (with the exception that traffic to the novel and the upcoming movie will continue to increase). older ≠ wiser 12:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. ENeville (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the primary topic. Andrea (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.