Jump to content

Talk:Ebola (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ugly mess

[edit]

Now this was a really poor reversion. The current, ongoing outbreak that almost every browser who types "ebola" into the search box hoping to find news about (since "Ebola epidemic in West Africa" is about the least intuitive name for an article) is now...nine items down, mixed in amongst Thai rock bands. Which is exactly the ugly mess I cleaned up last night.--Froglich (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on your talk page, and as you're still convinced you made some good edits WP:IDHT, seems like I can save some time by replying with it here. Your edit "sorted the jumble" [1] - see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC why your edit isn't helpful, and see WP:MOSDAB. only 1 link per entry [2] , keep simple and to article [3] [4] . (this is allowed per MOSDAB spelling errors [5] but I agree there's no strong case) , [6] keep section names short.
If you want more opinions, please ask. I see your move of the Ebola outbreak article was reverted, so I suggest you gain consensus for your controversial edits. Widefox; talk 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the desire to make it easy to find the epidemic article. For why we don't just add a hatnote at the virus article, see Talk:Ebola_virus_disease#Disambiguation. For why we don't list in the body of this dab WP:PTM. For the general principle WP:NOTNEWS / WP:RECENTISM. Saying all that, I'm sure we will revisit this and make it easier to find the outbreak article, as it may be a case of WP:IAR to give readers what they want. Opinions on this to gain consensus would help. What do you think Jmh649? Widefox; talk 22:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with User:Widefox. The only likely way a reader interested in the epidemic will end up at Ebola (disambiguation) would be from Ebola (redirects to Ebola virus disease), so a hatnote on Ebola virus disease is the appropriate place, not the disambiguation page. (Both Ebola virus and Ebolavirus have hatnotes linking to the epidemic already, so readers won't arrive at the disambiguation page from those if they are looking for the epidemic.) Xqxf (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are looking for an overview about the disease in question. We are not a news source. Every time a new outbreak of the flu occurs we do not put a link at the top of the flu article. Every time a new hurricane occurs we do not as far as I am aware put a link at the top of the hurricane article to the most recent hurricane. Same for plane crashes, etc. We are writing an encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xqxf Talk:Ebola virus disease#Disambiguation has why we don't put a hatnote on the article to link to the current outbreak. Jmh649 Thanks, I agree. Comment: Some of the various other articles (e.g. List of Ebola outbreaks) do have hatnotes pointing to the current outbreak article, but shouldn't per that same guideline. Widefox; talk 11:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being all that serious about putting a hatnote on that article, just poorly trying to say the appropriate place to discuss it would be on that article (rather than trying to cram in similar here via mis-ordering.) Though, I partly wanted to keep the articles consistent...but now I see the proper way to do that is to remove the hatnotes from the other two, particular after reading Wikipedia:Hatnote fully. The hatnote on Ebolavirus was already removed, and I just removed it from Ebola virus. Xqxf (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented on Xqxf's talk page, I think removing the hatnote from Ebola virus linking to the current outbreak page (which even I can't remember what it's currently called) is a disservice. Yes, you want some consistency in hatnotes, but we should also recognize the reality that the vast majority of readers who end up at the Ebola virus article are actually looking for information about the outbreak, not detailed information on its genus and protein structures. I suggest we leave that hatnote in place until the hoopla dies down somewhat. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While most people will search for Ebola and will find information about the disease. There is links from the virus to the disease and from both articles to the outbreak. Yes people may actually have to read a couple of paragraphs about the condition in question. But it is already perfectly easy to find the outbreak. If people are not willing to spend a couple of minutes they did not really care about the condition in question so why should we make it easier? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarlneustaedter see Talk:Ebola virus disease#Disambiguation . It seems common sense to include the hatnote as useful for easy navigation, but we're explicitly organised to not do that per WP:RELATED. We're set up to be an encyclopaedia not a newspaper. We can gain consensus to WP:IAR, but the shining light of popularity either indicates that RELATED should be scrapped (which I don't agree with), or this is just WP:RECENTISM / WP:NEWSPAPER. Widefox; talk 10:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Widefox - WP:RELATED doesn't really apply to my complaint, it's specific to disambiguation pages. I'm referring to a hatnote in Ebola virus - the edit removing it here. Xqxf referred discussion to this page, it appears a discussion on the disambiguation page resulted in a believed consensus to remove hatnotes from destination articles.
Yes, if someone carefully reads through the first paragraph, he can eventually find a pointer to the article on the current outbreak as the eighth out of nine links, but the hatnote is useful. It's not encyclopedic, but hatnotes are explicitly not part of the encyclopedia (they are formatted to be easily excluded in print forms), and while this isn't a newspaper, the reality is that the majority of people currently arriving at the Ebola virus article are looking for information about the outbreak. Finding reasons to bury the redirection inside the text is doing the community a disservice. The hatnote can easily be removed when the outbreak isn't making the front page of the newspapers every day (yes, this is recentism. But hatnotes are not part of the encyclopedia). Per WP:1HAT, Direct links to other articles [...] if the other article could be reasonably expected by a significant amount of readers to be at the title in question. I think this applies in this case; people could reasonably expect to find information about the outbreak under the virus name. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an open discussion at Talk:Ebola virus disease#Request_for_hat-link_modest_expansion_to_include_the_epidemic.. That would be the best place to discuss an Ebola-rated hatnote, since that article has the "Ebola" redirect. You could comment at Talk:Ebola virus as well, but that article gets much less traffic and it's probably best to have one larger discussion. Xqxf (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

I undid this change [7] as it doesn't follow WP:DABPRIMARY style, doesn't follow the article's wording "contagion" vs "disease", incorrectly puts the band in the see also etc. Froglich: pls stop trying to make this dab into a navigation aid primarily for the current ebola outbreak topic, regardless of style guide, other navigation needs, and other editors that disagree with you. I consider it disruptive. Per WP:BRD, please discuss here first before making these controvercial edits. Widefox; talk 18:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Froglich Instead of trying to edit war your edit in [8] I've marked for cleanup and asked for more opinions. Widefox; talk 18:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believed we have consensus for the version User:Widefox reverted to [9]. (Also, the indent for the epidemic has the side effect of making it stand out!) The later changes were made after it was clear that multiple editors support that format under the MOS. User:Froglich, if you want to invoke WP:IAR as your edit summary suggests, please get consensus first. Xqxf (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that User:JHunterJ edited this back to a similar-ish format as the consensus format, so I took the further step of not losing the other edits that had been made during the previous discussion. (As at least 3 editors who seemingly agreed with that version had been involved with those edits.) Xqxf (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also note MOS:DABPRIMARY: "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article", which is why the intro line should be "Ebola is …". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to engage in a rational conversation with a bully who 1) pretends no one else (such as, say, Neustaedter above) disagrees with him, aside from 2) the guy whose TP he's going to slather with dire warnings over 3) rules guidelines such as WP:MOSDAB whose own text instructs editors to disregard them when felt appropriate. Lastly, let's not be putting on high-fallutin' airs claiming consensus when, prior to three days ago (when I edited it) this article had no edits for a SIX YEAR period] since creation.--Froglich (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't name anyone; therefore it's not a "personal attack". In fact, unless someone is inclined to rummage through the discard bin on my TP, they won't even know who the guilty party is. In any event, do you suppose it is possible to discuss this as reasonable adults without slamming each other over the head with multiple links per sentence to mile-long "guideline" articles? Suffice to say we all know what a disambig page ought to approximately look like.--Froglich (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." WP:NPA#WHATIS. You are insulting or disparaging an editor without naming them directly. That is still a personal attack. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also favour using the redirect link Ebola for the primary topic per JHunterJ (and my previous edits), but my wording was awkward, it may be possible to word it better, once this disruption stops. Widefox; talk 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course: my edits are "disruption", whereas yours are (sing Hallelujah) consensus (which did not exist three days ago because there was no activity whatsoever) -- classic WP:OWN mentality. So, we're back to your versions in which the casual browser throwing "Ebola" at the search box runs into the technical virus article rather than the outbreak one, and the disambig article here has a non-notable Thai rock-band (currently under AfD) listed higher in the English Wiki than the outbreak killing thousands of people in an English-speaking nation (Liberia). This makes no sense whatsoever.--Froglich (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those guideline links are what will let you understand why others disagree with you, so it will help reach consensus if you read them, rather than ignoring them and other editors, invoking IAR when consensus is against you, and making personal attacks and calling others guilty parties. You're in the wrong place if you want the Ebola redirect to be retargeted to the outbreak article. Widefox; talk 21:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you still haven't given us any reason for ignoring all rules other than that apparently Ebola trumps MOS due to your personal opinion about how things should be ordered. You should seek consensus on these non-standard changes; the default consensus is that articles follow the MOS. Oh, and when I throw "Ebola" in the search box, the top two hits are Ebola virus disease and Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Do you have some mistaken impression that the disambiguation page affects the search results in some fashion? Xqxf (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind using the redirect link Ebola if the wording isn't awkward, but yes, let's solve the issue of the Thai rock band and the list of outbreaks first... Xqxf (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so on the one hand you're griping at me for "ignoring non-rules" to let an Ebola outbreak-prioritized disambig list trump MOS (which it didn't run counter to anyway, but I digress), but then on the other than hand you also think that's probably a not too-bad idea to bring the outbreaks up and the Thai band down (which is exactly what my edits achieved in the first place). Well, OK then; do we a new consensus now?--Froglich (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was replying to User:Widefox's comment above: I also favour using the redirect link Ebola for the primary topic per JHunterJ (and my previous edits), but my wording was awkward, it may be possible to word it better, once this disruption stops. (and agreeing that we should resolve your concerns before worrying about minor details like that, thus mentioning Thai bands.) This is a minor issue where the MOS says we can use either form, so we were discussing that. My reply to you is above (the 22:00 one), as the indentation level indicates. I do not support moving the outbreaks up and the Thai band down, because that is against the MOS, and that is the WP:IAR that you are still failing to explain. Xqxf (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The outbreak topic isn't known solely as "Ebola" (but is correctly linked in the body of the primary topic, and the nav template (and even that location shouldn't have a hatnote per WP:RELATED). Given there's a complete absence of a case that it is (or for any invocation of IAR), it has no place in the body of this dab right now, but may be useful for navigation in the see also. The band may be notable and unless it is deleted, it should stay in the dab and is a non-issue here. Feel free to help fix the wording so we can put the primary topic back to use a redirect per usual, and then we're back to normal. Widefox; talk 23:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was edited again to remove "Ebola virus disease" entirely, which I believe is incorrect. I've readded it with the redirect linked and noted as vernacular like on Flu (disambiguation): [10] Ebola is a vernacular term for Ebola virus disease, which affects humans and other primates. This could still be improved, but I think this makes the redirect work okay. Xqxf (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the primary topic for "Ebola" is the disease, it's not incorrect. But tweaked to accommodate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should include the full name "Ebola virus disease", but no need to use "vernacular" and hopefully not by bold/linking the first word of the title. Although it's similar to the Mozart example in terms of awkwardness, I prefer using the redirect as it makes the dab title clear and consistent (unless we really can't get the wording right). Flu (disambiguation) doesn't currently mention the article title, and has its own issues "The flu" vs "Flu" so may need more tweaks itself and not be a good example. (Xqxf for context, the reason the primary topic is at the top above the intro is essentially to separate it/hide it, as we assume readers have navigated from that article so aren't interested in it.) Widefox; talk 11:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we need to use the full name. "Ebola", by itself, primarily, refers to the virus disease (since it's the primary topic for "Ebola"), and so can here, by itself, be used to refer to the virus disease without any awkwardness. And the readers here would have already seen the base-name article (with its full name) before clicking through on the hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS non-"rule"

[edit]

As has been stated multiple times already, disambig MOS is not only not a rule, it is a guideline whose final section specifically advises ignoring it when prudent (not that my most recent contribution was noncompliant in any case). Demanding, upon the basis of this non-rule no less, that an ongoing (and likely to continue for quite some time) epidemic be jammed down into See also beneath other utterly non-notable cruft that virtually no one employing "Ebola" as a search term on the English wiki was actually attempting to find when routed though here ...is beyond myopic.--Froglich (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADHORSE. Widefox; talk 01:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There's nothing like a good piece of hickory."--Froglich (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect versus DAB page

[edit]
Yup, exactly both of you. RfC would be the right place, and as I said above this is the "wrong place" (to work around not having the redirect target the outbreak). There's no reasoned case made for changing the WP:primarytopic yet. Unilaterally retargeting the redirect away from our most popular article, renaming the outbreak article and trying to kludge it here isn't helpful. Widefox; talk 09:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To argue that "Ebola" searches should preferentially go toward "our most popular article" (i.e., the academic article on the virus, rather than the ongoing epidemic article) when the likeliest reason said article is "most popular" in the first place is due to "Ebola" being REDIRECTED there ....constitutes a circular reasoning logical fallacy.--Froglich (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC could be started. We are an encyclopedia not a newspaper. We provide overviews of issues and IMO I think that is the reason people come to use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Ebola has 520k views in October [11] while Ebola virus disease has 4.8 million [12]. This does not support your position that the redirect is driving all the traffic to Ebola virus disease. People are likely getting to Ebola virus disease from Google searches (Wikipedia's Ebola virus disease is the second hit for "Ebola" after a WHO link) and Wikipedia searches. (For comparison, Ebola virus has 950k views in October, Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa has 820k, and Ebola (disambiguation) has a whole 18k. Even List of Ebola outbreaks has 205k.) Xqxf (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) That doesn't address the circular reasoning fallaciousness of the argument I replied to. 2) On the face, your numbers seem convincing -- until one realizes that the "Ebola" article page's views are so low is because traffic is redirected -- the casual browser entering search terms never sees that page to be counted in the first place: he'd have to manually click the "(Redirected from Ebola)" link on the EVD page to back-track. Likewise, the disambig or any of the others. (I'm sure there's a huge feedback loop number skew resultant from Google's elevating one page at the expense of the others, but that's all consequent to Wikipedia's internal preferential traffic routing.) --Froglich (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I enter "ebola" into the search box and hit return, I am taken to the Ebola article and redirected to Ebola virus disease, and hits are counted for both. Even if we changed the redirect to Ebola (disambiguation), then Ebola virus disease will have 4.3 million hits instead of 4.8 million hits (and still 10x as many as Ebola (disambiguation) would then have.) But anyways, just counting hits isn't that important. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is applicable here, and the important point is usage with long-term significance. In that respect, "Ebola" is vernacular for "Ebola virus disease", both in scientific use and common use. It is occasionally also used to refer to the specific Ebola virus of the five ebolaviruses, the Thai band, or the river, so we have a disambiguation page. Nobody uses the term "Ebola" itself to refer to the situation in West Africa, so it is not relevant to even count. As others have said, start an RfC about the redirect itself if you feel it needs to go to the disambiguation page rather than the correct term. Or discuss a hatnote on the Ebola virus disease article. Xqxf (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you type Ebola into google the first link to come up is our article on Ebola virus disease. This is why we see this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "circular reasoning logical fallacy" Froglich that's a straw man argument. As others have pointed out, it isn't even a factually correct one. It was Doc James that correctly moved the article from Ebola to the current location "official ICD name" years ago leaving this redirect behind, and I've tagged it "another name such as a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym" as the name is in bold in the lede. I still don't see any reasoned argument for changing that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I agree with the consensus JHunterJ, Doc James and the majority of editors here about it. I would bet the same as Doc James, readers Google it. Our assumptions about primary topics on dabs are blunt in that there's often more navigation from Google hits, which is an essay I haven't started yet. Ebola outbreaks have come and gone, but the disease stays put. Of course, you're free to make your case here or RfC. Widefox; talk 12:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"....hits are counted for both." -- You certain about that? Did you write the code? ...I'm going to wild-ass guess that you did not.--Froglich (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, hits are not counted for the target of the redirect in the page traffic stats. At least not unless something has changed recently. This can be seen in some relatively unusual cases where the redirect has more views than the target page. older ≠ wiser 23:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over that several times WP:RELATED say why not to put a hatnote there to the outbreak. Widefox; talk 22:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to add the following diseases to the "See also" as well...

[edit]

These ebolavirus strains, themselves, can be confused easily. As this is a disambiguation page, I would suggest adding these. Epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The articles need to be updated to show that they are confused easily with "Ebola". Otherwise the See also link to the genus is sufficient, I think. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The viruses all have the name "ebolavirus", so the names Bundibugyo, Reston, etc. are inherently used as disambiguators because they are different strains. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the genus has the name "Ebolavirus", which adequately covers them. If the other strains are commonly referred to as "Ebola" or commonly confused with "Ebola", that information should be added to those articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we should probably put a note directing readers to the article that links to the 5 viruses. Epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Ebolavirus is so linked in the See also. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added them in before, but they are not really needed. Certainly as worded with multiple blue links per entry this is a non-starter anyhow which is why I undid their inclusion (as worded) per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We probably can separate the links. Epicgenius (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I previously added "(with five known species)" as a compromise - in a similar way to directing readers to anthroponymy SIAs. Does that cover it for you? Widefox; talk 10:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ebola_(disambiguation)&oldid=1196353062"