Talk:Brand New

Requested move

• Brand New (disambiguation) → Brand New
• Brand New → Brand New (band)

– There are many popular uses for the term "Brand New", so the disambiguation should be at the plain name, and the band should be disambiguated. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. This is not even close. Views in the last 90 days: Apteva (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • MTV Brand New [which does not conflict] 999
  • Brand New (The Stereo Bus album) 65
  • Brand New (Shinhwa album) 2,192
  • Brand New (Salt-n-Pepa album) 3,841
  • Brand New 120,485

Apteva, you oppose on the basis of those statistics. But I have shown that they are entirely misleading. I put it to you: your contribution should count for nothing until you meet the challenge to those statistics below. In particular, see my detailed responses to ≠ User:Bkonrad below. Noetica^Tea? 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: unless anyone is contesting Apteva's figures above, the band appears to be clearly the primary usage. PamD 13:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am contesting their interpretation. Please see below, and respond. See also my responses to other editors. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You oppose on the basis of Apteva's statistics. But I have shown that they are entirely misleading. I put it to you: your contribution should count for nothing until you meet the challenge to those statistics below. In particular, see my detailed responses to ≠ User:Bkonrad below. Noetica^Tea? 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per usage; long-term significance does not appear to differentiate any of the topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

  JHJ, none of the topics has any demonstrated long-term significance; so why does a minor band from Long Island get to appropriate this common English phrase for the title of its article? Highly connected to this question, how do you counter my detailed responses to ≠ User:Bkonrad below, against the present arrangement? Noetica^Tea? 03:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

  Since I know you disagree with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION but have formed no new consensus, I have chosen sanity rather than repeat the corrections to you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Sanity? It does not appear that you choose any such thing. No new consensus is needed. Here I am fully respecting those policy and guideline provisions that you mention, setting aside general concerns about the level of consensus they truly have from the community. No, here I have called for evidence and argument. I have provided some, and I have shown that the raw pageview evidence offered above is woefully inadequate. Do you think that the support votes below, some following the evidence I present, represent insanity? Take care, I suggest. I look foward to some actual argument that will engage with the facts as presented. Noetica^Tea? 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  Sanity. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein, (attributed). Rather than make myself insane by reading and responding to your disagreement with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION in yet another forum, I stop. I wasn't implying insanity on your part or on the parts of the other !voters. Try not to take it personally, I'm sure you're no less likely to be insane than anyone else here.-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support when I see Brand New I do not think "this is a band". The term has a non-specific meaning, and there is no reason to assume on seeing it people will then of a band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The title is for readers who type in this term. These readers do seem to think of "Brand New" as a band, or at least that is what the Google rankings suggest: "Brand New" -wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Type in where, Kauffner? If in the Wikipedia search box, readers get a prompt for the present article because it has most traffic, on account of its indeterminacy. Who knows what it will be about? You do not know how many readers are after the band article, because its title "Brand New" does not reveal which of several topics that article might be about. See also prolific use in book titles. The band called itself "Brand New" because it is an extremely common term. That does not mean that they own it, or that a Wikipedia article lacking the obvious precision "(band)" makes any sense at all; least of all when all enquiries about this common English phrase are diverted without notification to the band's article, distorting our statistics! Noetica^Tea? 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If you do the same search in more reliable sources, via Google Books, you get a very different picture: [1]. And web search also get this other use in #2 position: [2]. I think Kauffner's search is mostly an illustration of extreme RECENTISM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Once again, we see raw figures offered to support an arrangement, but no argument is articulated to demonstrate how those figures are relevant. Editors, please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the policy provisions at WP:TITLE, and show with chapter and verse how omitting short and obvious precision helps anyone in the present case. In your answer, consider this WP search on Prefix:brand new. In particular, note that this statistic is worse than useless: "Brand New 120,485". Thousands of readers may be typing in "brand new" and getting to this article, though they want something entirely generic and unrelated. Yes, the common expression "brand new", too generic to have its own article here, is almost certainly most often sought. That is a natural presupposition, and it explains (as usual!) why a band has appropriated that stock-standard phrase as its name. Nice commercial manipulation of Google. And of Wikipedia? ☺?
  Noetica^Tea? 06:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Oppose. Support. The usage stats provided are quite clear. The prefix search offered for consideration by Noetica mostly contains only unambiguous partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• After further consideration, I'm changing my position to support. While I remain skeptical of the reliance on complex searches using highly specialized data sources, what I did find persuasive (and which was not explicitly described by Noetica or other supporters, but which only suggested itself to me after comparisons were made to the page traffic for other bands), is that page traffic for Jesse Lacey (31078 for last 90) is less than 1/4 than that of the band (121163). Similarly none of pages for the band's albums or songs come anywhere remotely close to the stats for that of the band. It seems extremely unlikely that only the main band page would generate such a volume of traffic while all the related topics remained at a significantly lower level. older ≠ wiser 14:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  You may want to oppose again - see below. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Those sound like reasons to oppose. Kauffner (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're right, I was confused. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
      • With respect, ≠ User:Bkonrad, I think you still are. You have posted here in what purports to be an RM discussion, but you have bypassed points that have been made against the very evidence that you appeal to. Please do discuss, with a response to those points. Noetica^Tea? 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Discuss what, that you're wrong? The stats are extremely clear indications of usage, IMO. Can you explain what it is about them that you find worse that worse than useless or in what way the list of unambiguous partial-title matches from the prefix search have any relevance? older ≠ wiser 02:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
          • No, show how I am wrong, if you think I am wrong. Once again, since you appear not to have read what I wrote:
            The pageview statistics reveal practically nothing, since "brand new" is an extremely common phrase in English (evidence presented above). To find a prompt for that article is not to find what it is about. Readers typing in and clicking on "brand new" without checking the prompts also do not know what the article is about. They could be looking for all sorts of things, given the commonness of the phrase. Nevertheless, all the hapless readers turn up at the article about the band whether they like it or not, and they are registered among the pageviews. So a band's choice of an extremely common name to capture interest has been generally successful. And specifically, the band's successful strategy is reinforced by the way Wikipedia sets up its article titles, and the way editors at RM discussions accept raw pageview statistics without analysis or circumspection. See other points I make above; and respond squarely to all this, without rushing to assume that I am "wrong". This is not about finding the best way to assist a band to promote itself. This is not about following the lazy path to a convenient and sloppy conclusion; it is about discussion to serve the needs of all readers in the best way we can. Noetica^Tea? 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
            • There are very few articles that are ambiguous with the phrase "brand new". That it also appears in unambiguous partial title matches has little bearing on a discussion of the disambiguation page. Unless you can provide some non-speculative evidence that any significant portion of the 120,485 views for the page were looking for something else, I see no compelling reason to assume otherwise. older ≠ wiser 03:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
              • Unless you can provide some non-speculative evidence that most of the 120,485 pageviews on "Brand New" represent interest in a band that has appropriated such a common English term, there is zero reason to accept that conclusion. No one here should accept it. Noetica^Tea? 03:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
                • Sorry, but that is ridiculous. I find it quite likely that that many viewers would be looking to see the article on the band. Without evidence, there is no good reason to assume otherwise. older ≠ wiser 03:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, that is ridiculous. Of course "many" will be looking for the band. "Many" will be looking for all sorts of things! But most? I will present "good reason to assume otherwise". Brand New is an American band founded in 2000, right? Here is hard evidence of usage during the band's lifetime (2000–present), from COCA, the primary resource for rigorous corpus studies of American English:
                     • Occurrences of the phrase "brand new" found with any or no capitalisation: 1102
                     • Occurrences for the band, capped "Brand New" or "BRAND NEW": zero
                     • Occurrences of "beatles": approximately 2000
                    Go to the site, sign up if necessary, and check the facts for yourself. COCA does sample Rolling Stone and other relevant sources. Dozens of hits turn up in the COCA list for "Brand New" in musical contexts, like "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag", "Brand New Me", "Brand New Key". So the band's name would have shown up somewhat more than zero times, if it were truly notable. (₰!)
                    Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
                    • So wait, you're saying there are no occurrences for the band in the corpus? I think there might be something wrong with your search (or less likely, with the corpus). Does the corpus include the New York Times which does have coverage of the band? But in any case, I'm not convinced that your search of the corpus reveals any meaningful about ambiguous usage. That a phrase is commonly used in combination with other terms does not reflect on the ambiguity of that exact phrase as a search term for entities with that name. Such unambiguous partial title matches have no relevance for this disambiguation page (aside from adding templates to facilitate searches for such partial title matches). older ≠ wiser 15:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So why are you not convinced, ≠ User:Bkonrad? Do you deny that COCA is the major resource for such investigations, among linguists and other researchers? Read about it at Corpus of Contemporary American English. You suspect that I have not done the search diligently? Check it, as I have suggested. New York Times is indeed sampled in COCA. Here is a description of the coverage of newspapers: "Newspapers: (92 million words [91,680,966]) Ten newspapers from across the US, including: USA Today, New York Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. In most cases, there is a good mix between different sections of the newspaper, such as local news, opinion, sports, financial, etc." Similarly for magazines. Rolling Stone is also sampled, as I say; the article Brand New has a reference to this archived material from there: "Brand New has cemented their place in the alternative rock landscape, and the band remains one to watch in the years to come." That is not sufficient to have it commandeer an extremely common English phrase.

It's sampling, right? Unbiased sampling. To show this, and to validate the method I have used, compare COCA hits for these bands, all founded in 2000 (ascending order by 90-day pageviews):

• BLK JKS (South Africa): 2429; 2 in COCA
• Echobrain (US): 9092; 5 in COCA
• Datarock (Norway): 9634; 2 in COCA
• The Futureheads (UK): 11069, 1 in COCA
• Blitzen Trapper (US): 15121; 3 in COCA
• From Autumn to Ashes (US): 15926; 1 in COCA
• Architecture in Helsinki (Australia): 18776; 3 in COCA
• 3 Inches of Blood (Canada): 22426; 3 in COCA
• The Decemberists (US): 85226; 24 in COCA
• Brand New (US): 120485, 0 in COCA

Spot the anomaly. Names of members of the band Brand New? No hits in COCA for any of them, either.

Those bands were selected intuitively from Category:Musical groups established in 2000. If I found any citation in COCA, I reported it above. Sample listings, for The Decemberists:

...
15 	2009 	NEWS 	Chicago ... and the carpe diem message here are blissful pop perfection. # 7. The Decemberists, " The Hazards of Love " (Capitol) # Speaking of pop perfection
16 	2008 	MAG 	Esquire ... the most interesting music being made now. Just look at a band like the Decemberists: Sex, drugs, and rock' n' roll have been replaced by
17 	2008 	NEWS 	Atlanta ... have deep-sixed. There's more White Stripes, Flight of the Conchords, the Decemberists. // " He's opened up substantially from the person he was in his first
18 	2007 	NEWS 	Chicago ... first release for Chicago's Thrill Jockey Records. Yes, if orchestral popsters the Decemberists are the new Jethro Tull, the far stranger Fiery Furnaces are the new Genesis
19 	2006 	MAG 	RollingStone ... doesn't look a thing like Jesus " into a killer hook. 35Summersong THE DECEMBERISTS # " Rambling, where to begin? " wonders Colin Meloy in the first
...

Any questions? Convinced now? If not, why not? (In your answer, show all working and references.)
Noetica^Tea? 23:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, no I am not convinced. I've already established that there are mentions of the band that your search has not uncovered. That is either a deficiency in your search methodology or in the corpus. And you have still not addressed in any way the issue of partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's it? That's your response to the case I have painstakingly laid out? To deal with your particular points:

• "I've already established that there are mentions of the band that your search has not uncovered."

Of course there are, in the sources that are sampled by COCA. You miss the point, yet again. It's random sampling from those sources; and I have shown that several comparable bands (founded in 2000) whose articles have fewer pageviews (far fewer in some cases) did get picked up in COCA's sampling. I found none (in the range on the WP category page that I used) with higher pageviews than the generically named Brand New, and I proved a point about that generic naming. Show how I failed to do that.

• "That is either a deficiency in your search methodology or in the corpus."

Refuted. See preceding; and see accolades for COCA from linguists everywhere. Start with this Google search on the site for Language Log, the premium academic linguistics blog (see the WP article Language Log). And show the deficiency in my methodology. Better still, replicate my research with your improved methodology and report your divergent findings here.

• "And you have still not addressed in any way the issue of partial title matches."

What's to address? What's the issue? I wrote this, in supporting the proposed move: "In your answer, consider this WP search on Prefix:brand new." That evidence was to show how ubiquitous the phrase is in English. So is this new evidence: intitle:"brand new". So is this new evidence: there are 162 occurrences of "brand new" in the full text of OED. It is you who have not addressed any challenges. Please do so, now.

So ≠ User:Bkonrad, it is unhelpful to do so little to justify a position when meticulous expert testimony has been given against that position. Please respond in full, this time meeting all of the points I have made.

I remind you also about intellectual honesty.

Noetica^Tea? 02:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What a load of pompous self-righteous bunk. Despite your self-proclamation of expert status, you have no credibility and there is no reason to accept your interpretations without independent verification. You have not demonstrated that there is any ambiguity. There is no reason to presume that the page views are not for the band and there is no reason to presume that the band is not the primary topic for the phrase. Sorry, but your biases are getting in the way of your intellectual honesty. older ≠ wiser 03:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, now we're getting to the bottom of your resistance. You have been shown how to verify or falsify, but you refuse to do so. You have no argument to offer against my own, and you resort to invective and a desperate ill-focused ad hominem. (And you're an admin, right? ☺) Very well. I'm satisfied that you cannot answer the substance of my evidence and arguments, after repeated requests that you do so. Let's just move on then.

Anyone else like to show where my analysis might be in error?

Noetica^Tea? 04:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The essential flaw in your reasoning is that you have not demonstrated that any other subject that is ambiguous with the title "brand new" takes precedence over the band (or conversely, that the band is not the primary topic per the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) as indicated by the high volume of traffic for that page. I'm really not sure what you think your resarch demonstrates, but I do not see any relevance for purposes of disambiguation of articles on Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 04:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I have not sought to demonstrate that any other topic is primary – just that there is no good evidence for a pretty insignificant band from Long Island to have that status. Consider WP:RECENTISM, if nothing else. But there is much more to consider; and I have shown some of it. The phrase is very common, and searched on for all sorts of reasons. What was thought to be good evidence favouring the band is now in shreds. So quite obviously, Brand New ought to be the DAB page, until we see genuine evidence to the contrary. Simple, really. Noetica^Tea? 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What you've shown, so far as I can grok, is that the phrase is commonly used in combination with other terms. I don't think there is any dispute about that. However, that has relatively little bearing on what a reader searching for the something titled "brand new" is looking for. Your research gives no reason to discount the overwhelmingly disproportionate volume of page traffic for the band. In general, disambiguation pages do not address unambiguous partial title matches. When determining a primary topic, the focus should be on the subjects that are ambiguously titled. older ≠ wiser 05:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you still miss the point. I have indeed shown what we all knew: the phrase is certainly used in all sorts of contexts. But I have shown much more. I have shown that the pageview evidence supposedly favouring of the band from Long Island has a very plausible alternative explanation. That evidence should therefore be discounted, until it is rehabilitated by argument and evidence at least equal to what I have offered against it. Noetica^Tea? 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While you do with false self-confidence seem to think that you have shown much more, I remain unconvinced by your distortions of reality (more below). older ≠ wiser 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to the page stats shown above, consider the stats for the dab page itself: 947 views in the last 90 days, including a significant bump due to this discussion. If 120,000ish people have gone to Brand New, and fewer than 1,000 have gone on to the dab page looking for other uses of "Brand New", then I think a reasonable inference is that the current setup is working well enough. Dohn joe (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you do not address my arguments themselves, Dohn joe. Will you please do so?

Before the recent artefactual spike, about 10 people a day visited the DAB page Brand New (disambiguation); in the same period, about 1440 visited the page for the band, Brand New. 10 is 0.69% of 1440. It is wildly implausible that the DAB page was found by people seeking something connected with the common English phrase, or that they were satisfied by any of the entries at the DAB page. There is a Netherlands television station; and the rest are minor topics in popular music. It is also implausible from this evidence that readers even see hatnotes, let alone follow them. We know about hatnotes; and we pursue what they offer. But there is no evidence that others do so. Points to bear in mind:

• Brand New (disambiguation) does not even turn up as a prompt in a WP search until "brand new di" has been typed. We have no reason to believe that readers would do any such typing.
• Brand New (disambiguation) does not turn up in the first 100 hits in a raw Google search on brand new.
• Brand New (disambiguation) turns up about 30th in a raw Google search on brand new wikipedia. In other words, not on the first page by the default Google setting.

The most economical hypothesis, when we set aside our own epistemic situation as Wikipedia editors interested in titles and disambiguation, is that readers have no clue about DAB pages. They are most unlikely ever to find one if it has the form "XXX (disambiguation)". Sad, but very likely a fact. What evidence is there to the contrary, anecdotal or otherwise? Please answer with reference to Big (disambiguation) (no search prompt till "big di" is typed): 2570 pageviews over 90 days, compared to 138353 for Big (a film!) and 322924 for The Notorious B.I.G., to mention just two of the articles disambiguated at Big (disambiguation). We can estimate the DAB page's share of the total relevant pageviews as no higher than 2570/800000, which is 0.32%. But it is certain that readers are looking for all sorts of things called "big", as demonstrated at an infamous RM, and by the DAB page entries and their pageview statistics.

So, the system is working? That stretches credulity. Show evidence that it is working, and counter explicit evidence that editors and closers basically get this wrong: again and again.

At the very least: When you just don't know, help the readers by default, with simple precision that plainly does no harm at all.

Noetica^Tea? 06:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. It is wildly implausible that the DAB page was found by people seeking something connected with the common English phrase, or that they were satisfied by any of the entries at the DAB page -- I'm not sure what your point is. The disambiguation page is not designed or intended to serve persons looking for an unambiguous usage. I have recently added search templates to facilitate searches, but these are tangential to the purpose of a disambiguation page.
2. It is also implausible from this evidence that readers even see hatnotes, let alone follow them. Why is this implausible? What evidence shows that readers do not see hatnotes?
3. The most economical hypothesis, when we set aside our own epistemic situation as Wikipedia editors interested in titles and disambiguation, is that readers have no clue about DAB pages. This is your polemical opinion -- there is little reason for anyone to accept your opinions at face value without independent corroboration. That disambiguation pages do not appear in the search box or in google searches means little as I would not expect anyone other than Wikipedia gnomes to deliberately search for a disambiguation page. From that, I believe is it quite reasonable to assume that the traffic to the disambiguation page comes primarily from the hatnote at Brand New.
4. Big again, really?

To sum up, your arguments are not nearly as convincing as you believe them to be. Based on the available evidence, the present location of the band article is more than adequately serving the readership. Now if with your Born2Cycle-like obstinate persistence you achieve some success in changing consensus to broaden the scope of disambiguation pages to also address unambiguous partial title matches, then I would be fine with making disambiguation pages into comprehensive search indexes. But that is not the current consensus and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have numbered all your points, ≠ User:Bkonrad, and now I answer them:

1. I'm not sure what your point is, in return. Please explain. I make two claims: First, people looking for "XXXX" do not typically arrive at a Wikipedia DAB page if its title is "XXXX (disambiguation)". Second, if they do arrive there, we have little evidence that they are satisfied by the range of choices presented. Often they are looking for something specific but not covered; or for something completely generic and "uncoverable" – especially when "XXXX" is something very common in English like "big", "something", or "brand new".
2. "What evidence shows that readers do not see hatnotes?" As I have explained, anecdotal evidence from assisting naive users to find things on Wikipedia; and I should add, comparison of traffic for marked DAB pages (with "(disambiguation)") and unmarked DAB pages. What evidence do you have that the marked pages are known about, reliably found, or much used? What evidence do you have that hatnotes are reliably found, read, or followed?
3. "This is your polemical opinion." No, I have come to it by reasoned examination of pageviews, and arguments presented at many RMs, informed by evidence that I have acquired in the real world. "There is little reason for anyone to accept your opinions at face value without independent corroboration." Absolutely! And your own opinions? The evidence, and the non-polemicists' arguments in support of your opinions? "That disambiguation pages do not appear in the search box or in google searches means little as I would not expect anyone other than Wikipedia gnomes to deliberately search for a disambiguation page." Exactly: readers do not search for them, in any mode. Think about it. It means something. "From that, I believe is it quite reasonable to assume that the traffic to the disambiguation page comes primarily from the hatnote at Brand New." I have argued in detail that there is a better hypothesis. You choose not to take that hypothesis seriously; but a failure to keep an open mind is not an argument. Nor is a failure to do the hard work of empirical investigation.
4. Yes, Big again. It was closed by JHunterJ against the clear majority opinion. JHJ is known as an enthusiast for conciseness over other considerations (especially direct appeals to usability by real readers in the real world, which never seem to impress him at all though the principle is quite rightly enshrined in policy at WP:TITLE). JHJ also played a major role in shaping the conventions for film-article titles, with a huge emphasis on primary topic that goes well beyond the scope of that page and prejudges title choices for articles not concerned with films. Highly relevant to the blinkered and doctrinaire thinking we often observe at RM discussions, including this one.

To sum up, you have resorted to ad hominem attempts to dismiss my arguments, and simply refused to address the painstaking evidence I offer (unmatched by any empirical investigations of your own). Comparing me to Born2cycle is just another example of diversion rather than looking at the substance, which you seem obstinately unwilling to do. Or perhaps, I have to say, incapable of doing.

Last, your broken-record insistence on a point that I have already explained in full (about partial matches) provides confirmation: you are not really interested in discussing, but only in dismissing any uncomfortable challenge to orthodoxy. That's your choice; I make a different choice. ♥

Noetica^Tea? 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comments re #1 indicate your understanding of disambiguation pages is not at all aligned with current practice as described at WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. Readers do arrive at pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title. Page traffic statistics clearly show traffic that is not random and far greater than only wikignomes. Typically the only way to get to a page with (disambiguation) in the title is through the hatnote on a primary topic. As for whether they are satisfied by what they find there, no there is no way of knowing they are satisfied by the range of choices presented. But disambiguation pages are intended to present all Wikipedia articles that are ambiguous with term or phrase. If readers go to a disambiguation page looking for something that is not ambiguous, there is little help for them except to provide other tools to assist them in their search such as {{lookfrom}} or {{intitle}}.

re 2, see above.

re 3, regardless of what you claim, it certainly looks and quacks like rather polemical duck.

re searching for disambiguation pages, this is simply astounding. Why on earth would you expect anyone to deliberately search for a disambiguation page when they are looking for a specific topic? This is a tortuously convoluted line of reasoning. Why should I take your polemics seriously however carefully-reasoned you might think it?

re 4, while I agree that it would have been better for all if JHJ had allowed someone else to close the discussion, I very seriously doubt that any experienced move closer would have seen the discussion as consensus to move, even if there were a small majority in favor. However, your continued grousing about this event is more unseemly than the event itself.

I'm sorry, but your mannerisms are simply too tempting a target for mocking. And you say you have already explained in full (about partial matches) -- say what? I don't see any satisfactory explanation. It seems rather that the existence of unambiguous partial title matches is a cornerstone of your flimsy (oops, sorry, your detailed and thoughtful) analysis. older ≠ wiser 05:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please re-work your response so I can make sense of it. You refer to five numbered points, but there were only four (in response to your four). Also, you might look at my reply stamped 02:54, 20 January, above. It addresses those partial matches, and you seem wilful in not understanding. They are not a cornerstone; they, now supplemented with OED evidence, are circumstantial evidence that the phrase appropriated by the band is common in everyday use. O, you might also address the earlier wealth of substantial argument that you have so far steadfastly ignored, rather than persist with uncivil ad hominems. (Theoretically, I mean.) And I suggest that you steer well clear of mockery. Even if it were permitted on a talkpage, you would soon be out of your depth if we both indulged. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 07:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the numbering. As far as I'm concerned, your comments regarding partial title matches do not address (or reflect a willful lack of comprehension) of the issue. Partial title matches are not ambiguous and disambiguation pages are not designed to address such unambiguous partial title matches. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you start with the presupposition that this is a "pretty insignificant band from Long Island," then sure, 120,000 views over the past 90 days seems unlikely. If you read the article, however, and see that the band is signed by a major label and has had multiple top 40 albums and singles, including an album that debuted at #6 in the US, then that number makes sense - especially when you compare it to other similar band articles. If a search for the band turned up zero results, then there's something wrong with that search. Dohn joe (talk) 07:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if. But I did not start from that presupposition. I had never heard of this band; but that counts for nothing. Of course I did research outside of Wikipedia for notability and coverage.

• As I reported, there were zero mentions in COCA, the dominant corpus of American English, though there are mentions for "The Decemberists" and "Blitzen Trapper" (comparable US bands, started in 2000).
• There is no evidence that "Brand New" stands out egregiously above "The Decemberists" or "Blitzen Trapper" in the magazines "SPIN" or "Billboard".
• Searches in the Rolling Stone archives find 37 hits on "Blitzen Trapper", and 156 hits on "Decemberists". I could find none by the same means on "Brand New", because they all seemed to be for something else: "Brand New Day", "Brand New Eyes", "Brand New Me", "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag", and so on. Please, show me what I have missed.
• Brand New have had 3 albums peaking in the US top 40: at 6, 31, and 6; their best single peaked at 124.
  The Decemberists have had 3 albums peaking in the US top 40: at 35, 14, and 1; their best single peaked at 19.
  I don't know the situation for Blitzen Trapper.
• 90-day pageviews:
  Blitzen Trapper: 15121
  The Decemberists: 85226
  Brand New: 120485.

Those 90-day pageviews are therefore suspicious. At the very least, there is serious doubt about their utility, since it cannot reasonably be doubted that many readers turn up at Brand New and are disappointed. Most importantly, we do not know how many. We cannot know how many are after one of the other WP articles that include the string "brand new", since we have no empirical findings about the use of hatnotes (the only way most readers would even find the present DAB page). Nor can we know how many or the worldwide readers are looking for something completely different, or something generic.

Dohn joe, you write: "If a search for the band turned up zero results, then there's something wrong with that search." An interesting article of faith. Justify it, in light of the evidence I adduce above.

Noetica^Tea? 03:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had, and I would've thought that your own stats just above would have led you to the same conclusion. If one band, The Decemberists, has had three albums, with an average peak of 13, including one in the top ten; and another band, Brand New, formed the same year, has also had three albums, with an average peak of 14, including two in the top ten; it is simply not reasonable for a search for the one to return 156 cites and the other zero. Faith has nothing to do with it. The simplest, most reasonable conclusion is that there's something wrong with the methodology. If there is a more reasonable explanation than a faulty search, please present it. Dohn joe (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dohn joe, more evidence could easily be given if you are not satisfied that reaching number 1 in the top 40 trumps other considerations. You introduced achievement of top-40 ranking as a measure; I worked according to your rules, loosely stated though they were. I worked with overall ranking in the US, for US bands. What would you prefer, now? And why do you disregard the overall US singles rankings: Brand New achieved 1, at rank 124; The Decemberists achieved 1, at rank 19. Inconvenient for your case?

"If there is a more reasonable explanation than a faulty search, please present it." If you have any actual evidence that any one of my searches is faulty, by all means show it. I may have slipped on some detail somewhere; but not, I think, in anything that affects the outcome. I have shown you where to go and what to do; off you go, and do the search yourself on "Brand New" in the Rolling Stone archives. I look forward to a report of your findings. Sheer opinion carries no weight against empirical data, analysed with rigour.

Noetica^Tea? 07:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It took me about three minutes to find this article in the Rolling Stone archives: [3], with the following quote: "Brand New, man. That band said it the best on that Devil and God (Are Raging Inside Me) record...." So yes, a search that finds zero cites is faulty, and an analysis based on such search results cannot be trusted. Dohn joe (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Dohn joe. You're not following a consistent methodology. We already knew that references to the band "Brand New" could be found on the Rolling Stone site by some means or other. (I reported one above: "Brand New has cemented ...".) It's a question of how many hits, for various bands, using the same regime for each. I wrote, just above: "I have shown you where to go and what to do; off you go, and do the search yourself on 'Brand New' in the Rolling Stone archives." You refuse to do that search, trawl through the results, and report? Very well, I offer this report under a different regime, using bands from the same list I used before:

Google site searches; COCA hits; 90-day pageviews
(using site:http://www.rollingstone.com) 

                   Rolling Stone COCA pageviews

"decemberists"               352   24     85226
"blitzen trapper"            156    3     15121
"blk jks"                     19    3      2429
"futureheads"                 12    1     11069
"brand new"                   11    0    120485
"datarock"                     8    2      9534
"architecture in helsinki"     6    3     18776
"echobrain"                    2    5      9092

Only in the case of "brand new" was it necessary to scrutinise all Google hits (600+) for irrelevant uses of the phrase. I did that, and you can too. It is possible that there are one or two to add to those 11 references to the band; but this makes no difference to the power of these statistics.

Your analysis, please.

Noetica^Tea? 23:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Noetica - you said that you could find no relevant results in a search for "Brand New" in the Rolling Stone archives, and suggested I do so, saying, "Please, show me what I have missed." That is exactly what I did. I did that precise search, sorted it by date, and on page three was the result I posted above. I showed you something that you missed. You then proceeded to falsely state that I had not done so, claiming that I had refused to do that search, with no basis whatsoever. I'd appreciate an apology. Dohn joe (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I apologise, Dohn joe. But you gloss over some important details; and you did not tell me which methodology you followed. In all of these searches and analyses we are working statistically. For example, I wrote just above: "It is possible that there are one or two to add to those 11 references to the band; but this makes no difference to the power of these statistics." And just before that: "We already knew that references to the band 'Brand New' could be found on the Rolling Stone site by some means or other. (I reported one above: 'Brand New has cemented ...'.) It's a question of how many hits, for various bands, using the same regime for each." Since you did not report what method you used, I was at a loss. The incidental hit you mention was on page 3 of the 909 results, and the band's name was not visible on the results screen! Compare the vastly greater presence of "Blitzen Trapper", visible at a glance. All 37 hits genuinely refer to that band, because the name has no other meanings (unlike "brand new"); and 10 of those hits turn up on the first page (sorted by relevance) in headings. Please help me here: does any one of the articles that mention the band "Brand New" do so prominently in a heading? I found none. I found 11 rather incidental mentions, and concluded that "Brand New" has far less coverage in an iconic popular music magazine than comparable bands with fewer pageviews on Wikipedia.

I will be interested to see your analysis of all the results I present using the different methodology, by which I found just 11 mentions in Rolling Stone.

Noetica^Tea? 23:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether the page traffic is an anomaly can be determined, with a little experiment (although considering this discussion so far it seems unlikely there will be consensus to move the pages even temporarily). If you are correct, then if Brand New is moved to Brand New (band), we should expect the page traffic for the band article to drop significantly. Assuming it might be possible to reach consensus for such a trial, if the traffic for that band article remains higher than than of all the other articles on the disambiguation page combined (which is one of the current criteria), would you agree then that the band article should be moved back? older ≠ wiser 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have often hoped that we could get such experiments done, and I agree that in the present case it would be hugely revealing. The results of the experiment would be valuable for very many titling decisions. I would want the move to last for at least six months, and I would want to evaluate all the evidence after a further three months. But it's wishful thinking. Would I agree, given the result that you mention, to have Brand New where it is right now, and not a DAB page? I would more readily acquiesce; but in fact (and depending on all the exact numbers), the alternative might still not serve readers better. After all, both on Google and on an internal WP search readers would find exactly what they wanted at the top of the list, with the phrase "Brand New (band)" clearly visible. Sorting all these issues out would require a suite of varied and expertly designed experiments, followed by careful analysis. Intellectual honesty, and scientific rigour. A complete lack of prejudice.

Noetica^Tea? 08:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So basically, you would make the move and then reserve the right to stonewall any attempts to move it back on the basis of other as yet unspecified considerations. Realistically, I would not expect many to agree with the conditions you lay out here. A month or so after all internal incoming links to Brand New have been fixed should be more than sufficient to see if the band article traffic was anomalous. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course not! I am not proposing that an experiment be actually done; I am seriously supporting this move, for the readers' sake. Stonewalling? O right, you mean sticking to one's original position and refusing to consider any evidence that turns up. Like what I tabulate above, for example. Or this, conveniently derived from articles on the DAB page we are discussing:

            Google site searches; COCA hits; 90-day pageviews
            (using site:http://www.rollingstone.com) 
        
                               Rolling Stone COCA pageviews
        
            "rhymefest"                   38    7     16156
            "salt n pepa"                112  ≈50     96986
            "brand new"                   11    0    120485

Uh huh? How can you still think most pageviews for this generic phrase "brand new" are seeking the band Brand New? Rated, as we see from Talk:Brand New, as of low importance for both WikiProject Alternative music and WikiProject Emo. I'm ready to be corrected, and persuaded. Show me actual systematic evidence and I'll respond – after you have responded to what I have systematically presented.

Noetica^Tea? 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Noeticas statistics, which I find far more compelling than Aptevas, show that whether this band is the primary topic by usage is questionable, and it is clearly not the primary topic by long term significance, itself being named for a phrase dating back to at least the 16th century. The advantages of this move outweigh the disadvantages. --Qetuth (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Qetuth. I'm convinced by the evidence that has been produced that this is not the primary meaning. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support—I find Noetica's analysis of external sources for notability compelling. Tony (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Noetica has convinced me that Apteva's figures are superficial and potentially misleading. What's more, 'brand new' is a sufficiently commonly used term not to warrant having to reside at some disambiguation page; even though the band's name is in caps, the article really ought to go to a '(band)' namespace – there are many much more famous bands with otherwise common-sounding names that reside in '(band)' namespace: Queen (band). Nirvana (band), Pretenders (band), Garbage (band)-- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, Nirvana (band) gets on average 3 times as many hits than 'Nirvana'; both Garbage and Queen are even more dramatic at 9 times for the band, and that doesn't prove these bands need to be moved into the undisambiguated namespace. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 00:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have to say that Noetica's analysis of the corpus not only suggests that renaming the article is a good idea, it suggests we should rename the article because currently by having the generic name be at the article on the band we are misleading many users who want to find something else when they type in "Brand New", but who may give up and go elsewhere because obviously wikipedia is not the place to find it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think we next should move Big (disambiguation) to being the main page. My guess is many people who type in "big" in wikipedia really want to get to the wikitionary entry on big.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

So can we please mark that as Support (typed in as '''Support''')? Just for clarity in assessing consensus. Noetica^Tea? 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per Noetica's analysis, the trivial analysis does not support the conclusion that the obscure band is the primarytopic for Brand New. It's actually hard to see why anyone would want such a generic and ambiguous term to go straight to the band, given all the other meanings. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per Noetica and WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Those who oppose the move do so based on a Wikipedia-centric, editor-defined metric of "usage" for the term; but PRIMARYTOPIC is worded on what readers are likely to look for. The statistics outside Wikipedia are more reliable for the primacy of a topic and a term than the Wikipedia server statistics, which don't have any scientific nor professional validity, so they don't provide weight to the level of usage for each meaning - mainly because the statistics towards the use of the band are distorted for its article being in the place of an English idiom. Diego (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Having the band be the primary topic for this term is absolutely ridiculous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The band, though I have never heard of it, is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I mean, what else could someone else searching with "Brand New" be looking for? It's highly unlikely to be anything else. Much of the argument in support, at least from Noetica, here and elsewhere, seems to be heavily based on the assumption that users searching WP rely on the relatively new auto-completion feature in WP search that requires a browser to support javascript, and that it is turned on (turn off javascript and try it). We should be taking this into account at all when deciding whether a given use is the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of the argument? Only some of it, surely. Note: javascript is turned on by default in modern browsers, and most readers of Wikipedia are sure to see prompts when they search in Wikipedia. You give not the slightest evidence that many people going to the article called Brand New are interested in, or have even heard of, a certain band band from Long Island. I, on the other hand, give strong evidence and arguments against such facile claims.

All we have to do is stop treating Wikipedia as a hermetically sealed system. It interacts with Google, and it is about the real world. Wikipedia is made for real readers in that real world. This makes some editors uncomfortable. But we cannot change the facts by replacing them with simplistic and defective algorithms. We cannot make a useful encyclopedia that seeks evidence only within itself, by fanatically promoted and fantastically self-serving rules.

Noetica^Tea? 05:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have no idea what COCA has to do with primary topics, but here is my analysis. I googled "Brand New" -wikipedia and checked the first two pages of results. There were 15 results for band, two were dictionary entries, and there was one hit each for "Brand New Conference", "52 Brand New", and "Brand New Awards" -- all partial title matches. Since only one topic came up that corresponds to a relevant Wiki article, that should settle it. But I did a page view analysis as well: 120467 / (120467 + 146 + 3799 + 2138 + 691). Bottom line: 95 percent of relevant traffic is for the band. Kauffner (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but it appears that such evidence can be disregarded when it is inconvenient for editors who prefer titles to include preemptive disambiguating information. older ≠ wiser 15:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are disregarding great solid blocks of evidence, ≠ wiser. Anyone reading the discussion above must be struck by that – unless they have a prejudice favouring your own rusted-on opinion, of course. Noetica^Tea? 03:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, that does not settle it. The clear primary meaning of "Brand New" is to refer to things that are brand new. Partial title matches are of worth, because often people can only remember part of the title. Beyond this, the fact that the various songs named Brand New did not come up early in your search in no way indicates that they are less notable. The main problem is that brand new does not refer to the band, it just means that something has just come into existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your continued assumption that we can compare the page views of what you have forced to be the primary topic to the other topics is just plain rubbish. People looking up the other topics have to proactively search for them, and most likely will have looked at the band page first. This is also true of people looking for Brand New Me and who knows what else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• "I have no idea what COCA has to do with primary topics, ...". Time you learned, then. It's the biggest most widely consulted resource for frequency studies and other analysis, by academic linguists and others interested in current English usage. Especially US English, and as such its content may be presumed to favour US bands, right? Yet comparable Australian, South African, and Norwegian bands with much lower WP pageviews show up in COCA, while Brand New, a US band, apparently does not. Something strange about the pageview evidence, then!
  As for your Google evidence, don't presume to understand how Google elevates its hits to the top of the list. There is a whole industry out there to make that happen. A close member of my family works in that exact niche. Have a look at search engine optimization, a major internet marketing strategy. It's all very commercial; big money changes hands! But Wikipedia is not about commerce or big money. It's about true notability, and serving a worldwide readership's diverse needs.
  Noetica^Tea? 03:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested analysis of statistics presented by Noetica. Above, Noetica requested an analysis of the statistics he presented regarding Rolling Stone cites, COCA cites, and WP pageviews. The bottom line? There is no correlation among these three metrics. As a result, it is not possible to prove - or disprove - from the stats presented alone, how accurate the pageviews are for Brand New. Remove Brand New from that list, and look at the ratios of RS hits to pageviews:

Google site searches; 90-day pageviews; ratios
(using site:http://www.rollingstone.com) 

                   Rolling Stone  pageviews ratio

"decemberists"               352    85226   242
"blitzen trapper"            156    15121   96
"blk jks"                     19    2429    127
"futureheads"                 12    11069   922
"datarock"                     8    9534    1,191
"architecture in helsinki"     6    18776   3,129
"echobrain"                    2    9092    4,546

What do you see? Blitzen Trapper, with 156 RS hits, has 15,121 pageviews. Architecture in Helsinki, with 6 RS hits - a mere 1/26th that of Blitzen Trapper - has 18,776 pageviews - more than Blitzen Trapper. Echobrain, with 2 RS hits - or 1/78th that of Blitzen Trapper - has 9,092 pageviews - or 3/5ths that of Blitzen Trapper. There is simply no correlation here, and thus any attempt to predict or verify Brand New's pageviews using these stats is invalid. Similar results are had with COCA hits (which I omit for clarity and brevity; ask, and I will present).

Further, I have presented metrics showing that Brand New might be viewed at least as often as The Decemberists - both have had three charted albums with an average peak between 13-14. Brand New has had two top ten albums to The Decemberists' one. (Noetica concentrates on The Decemberists' attainment of a number one album as well as a higher-ranked single. These are certainly part of the mix. But my purpose was not to prove that Brand New's pageviews are accurate - only that they could very well be.) As for new evidence, inspired by Bkonrad's re!vote above, I looked at 90-day pageviews for Colin Meloy, leadman of The Decemberists. Results? 21,712, or 26% of the band pageviews. Jesse Lacey, leadman of Brand New, gets 31,078, or 26% of the band pageviews.

These metrics show that it is entirely plausible that Brand New could receive at least comparable views to The Decemberists, and perhaps more. Note: I am not claiming it as a certainty, just that it is entirely plausible.

So where does that leave us? Essentially where we began. Without direct evidence, we simply cannot know how accurate the pageviews are for the band, and we are left with pure conjecture that the vast majority of readers are looking for something else. RMs should be decided on evidence - properly and thoroughly analyzed - and not conjecture. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize your analysis is the ultimate argument to support the move? If the different metrics are not correlated, and thus we don't have any reliable evidence, it means that there's no way to establish whether the band is a primary topic, something to which you agree. But if the topic can't be established as primary, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC makes it crystal clear that the disambiguation page should be located at the base name. If the page views (the only evidence offered so far towards the band being primary) can't be trusted, the guideline mandates to revert to the neutral situation with no primary topic defined. Diego (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. Two points to make. First: usage stats are only one way to establish primacy. Even if we were to discount them entirely in this case (which I have not done, incidentally), there are other ways to determine primacy. Second, and more important: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC only applies when "a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia". An important caveat in this case, as WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is no WP article on the dictionary meaning of "brand new". The best we can do is provide a link to the Wiktionary page (which the dab page does, and the band page likely should). Since the dictionary term is not "covered in Wikipedia", it cannot contend for primacy. And nor should it: even if we were to conclusively prove that 90% of the page traffic for Brand New was intended for the dictionary definition, what then? There is no WP article about the dictionary definition to send them to, simply a dab page with a bunch of articles they were not looking for anyway. In such a case, it remains best for our readership to send them to the article they are likeliest to be looking for. Dohn joe (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying something "not covered in Wikipedia" cannot contend for primacy, but there's nothing in policy supporting that, and there are several hints to the contrary. PRIMARYTOPIC is about what readers will want to learn. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is about what Wikipedia editors want to write about; those are quite different things. Certainly NOTDICT doesn't say that navigation and disambiguation of dictionary words shouldn't be used; it actually says the opposite. You have a nice contradiction in you argument: you say there is no WP article about the dictionary - but there is a Wiktionary article, which NOTDICT supports including navigation to help readers find it, which is linked from the DAB page; so if "brand new" is proven to be what readers are looking for, sending them elsewhere can't be the best for the readership. Diego (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Diego - I added a link to Wiktionary on the Brand New article. So now, there is a Wiktionary link both there and at the dab page. Does that help address your concerns? Dohn joe (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It would, if not for the inconvenient fact that it must violate every rule in the manual of style for links as well as WP:UNDUE. But I appreciate the attempt to build consensus. Diego (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Thinking about that, maybe yours isn't a bad solution after all for articles like this one, where the primary meaning is a dictionary word. Though it would imply to get consensus to pass it as an exemption to the manual of style, so it belongs in a separate discussion. Diego (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we think it would benefit the readers, let's WP:Ignore all rules, do it here, and start that discussion elsewhere. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through several MOS and WP pages, and I don't see a rule against putting a link to Wiktionary in an article. The more I think about it, the better I like this solution. I realize that this proposal is now buried in the middle of a loooong discussion, but perhaps it would be worth proposing below? Dohn joe (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to your not-vote, you ask what could a reader search when looking for an article titled "brand new". As a non-English speaker, when I check for an idiom I want to learn its precise meaning, tone (formal or informal, offensive...), its history, common usages, appearances in media and cultures that used it in significant ways... Nothing of this has anything to do with the auto-completion feature. On which basis do you support your hunch that wanting to learn all this is highly unlikely? Diego (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Diego. Dohn joe's attempt at a refutation would not justify the present arrangement even if it did succeed in nullifying the assembled evidence. Not remotely! No one has shown that the raw pageview statistics favour the band from Long Island, which appears to get no mention at all in a huge unbiased sample of American English since its beginnings in 2000. Yet other bands from that year, even from Norway, Australia, and South Africa, do turn up in that huge sample. More soon. Noetica^Tea? 16:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the failed refutation below. See the subsection #Count the psychopaths. Noetica^Tea? 05:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to close

At Categories for discussion ... Category:Brand New, the category for the article about the band has just been moved:

The result of the discussion was: rename per nominator to Category:Brand New (band). --[User:BrownHairedGirl]

Add this to the evidence assembled above, and the support it has had from editors arriving after it was presented and analysed.

I now propose a closure in favour of the move. Let "Brand New" be the DAB page, and "Brand New (brand)" be the accurately labelled title for an article about a band. See evidence at a related RM for the article Big (which is about a film).
Noetica^Tea? 12:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would move to table this motion, given the rigorous analysis above which throws Noetica's conclusions into severe disarray, and casts grave doubts upon the support !votes which were based on such faulty analysis. Dohn joe (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No analysis has called into question the fact that "Brand New" is a generic English term not heavily associated with the band or that lots of other things are named "Brand New" in a way that people might be looking for them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well now! Dohn joe appears to believe he has a refutation of all the evidence I assemble above. But unfortunately, he has achieved no refutation of anything. His is no "rigorous analysis", but a mere distraction from the line of argument I pursue. And John is right: Even if Dohn joe had succeeded, that would only demonstrate a general failure to bring any useful evidence to bear on the question of primary topic for this extremely multivalent title "Big". And when there are no rational grounds for finding a primary topic, call things what they are, so everyone gets to the desired article without diversion. More later. It's way past midnight here in Australia. Noetica^Tea? 16:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the failed refutation below. See the subsection #Count the psychopaths. Noetica^Tea? 04:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that Mr. Joe has admitted that "we cannot know how accurate pageview statistics are" should suggest they should not be used as evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Count the psychopaths

Yes, count the psychopaths. The sample is way too small for Dilbert to use that correlation.

A little basic statistics, Dohn joe. I'll keep it really simple – for the benefit of anyone who has not succeeded in completing a PhD in mathematics. (☺!)

Your argument presented earlier, like my own, draws attention to some very low numbers of mentions in Rolling Stone: 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 19. Now, mentions in Rolling Stone are a skittish and chancy affair. It is not possible to draw strong inferences from such low numbers about other measures elsewhere. To demonstrate correlations, our counts must be larger. After all, no one at Rolling Stone says: "O look, Wikipedia pageviews for the Australian band Architecture in Helsinki are averaging 6000 a month. Let's mention them a couple more times to preserve a constant ratio." Nor do people flock in precisely the right numbers, each month, to the article Futureheads because, well ... Rolling Stone mentioned them 12 times in the last 12 years. It just doesn't work that way. On the other hand, look at some numbers that do reliably show a correlation, using the same measure you propose. I add "Brand New" for comparison:

Google site searches; 90-day pageviews; ratios
(using site:http://www.rollingstone.com) 

Performer          Rolling Stone   pageviews  ratio
                             (RS)        (PV)

Linkin Park                  332      833156   2510
Mariah Carey                 433     1325327   3061
50 Cent                      457     1270949   2781
Eminem                       967     2521518   2608

Brand New                     11      120485  10953

Once again, spot the anomaly. A Rolling Stone count of 11 is still very low, and subject to chancy variations; but we have meaningful data here. We know that there is something like a direct correlation between RS count and PV count, and that can be confirmed by selecting a range of comparable performers randomly, and checking. The correlation need not be tight, because there are many variables that are ignored here (genre, years of main activity, SEO marketing, manipulations of Wikipedia for promotion, and so on). Take the ratio from those famous performers whose names are not confusable by bad title choices on Wikipedia ("Mariah Carey" is not a common English expression occurring over a hundred times in OED!); and estimate from that ratio the expected number of pageviews for the band "Brand New" if its article were named with precision. We would expect it to be nearer to 30000 than 120000.

Again, note that Brand New gets not one mention in COCA's sampling. And in reply to your comparison for leaders of two bands, note these numbers based on our external sources (one specialised, one general):

Performer        Rolling Stone     COCA
                       (Google)

 Colin Meloy                88        9
(The Decemberists)

 Jesse Lacey                 0        0
(Brand New)

You can pick and choose as you will, Dohn joe; you can apply rough measures of correlation between measures that are simply ridiculous for very low counts; you can draw in whatever gerrymandered statistics will suit your purpose. But you have certainly not worked with sufficient rigour to make the pageviews for the band Brand New at all plausible. The better hypothesis, by far: those pageview statistics are inflated because readers do not know what to expect at "Brand New". It's time we admitted it: simplistic rules and unanalysed data are worthless.

Help the readers; do not feed editors' obsession with conciseness.

Remember, Dohn joe: it's surprising what judicious investigation with simple statistical tools can reveal.

Noetica^Tea? 04:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)