Talk:Vanity Fair

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is presently a malplaced disambiguation page, since the base name redirects here. I suggest that the dab page be moved to the base name since no primary topic is obvious. This would be unworthy of discussion except that the magazine or the novel might have a claim on the base name. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it an exaggeration to call it "malplaced". The novel long predates the magazine, but is in turn based on the Bunyan book. In the short term, it should be left as it is, which is quite harmless. The Vanity Fair in The Pilgrim's Progress is worth an article if necessary, and that alone would warrant becoming the primary topic. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean malplaced in the sense of WP:DABNAME since Vanity Fair redirects to Vanity Fair (disambiguation). Either the dab page or a consensus primary topic should be at the base-named page, and in no circumstances should it be a redirect. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All right. I have to admit I didn't read your proposal carefully enough. Because I disagreed with some of your reasoning I didn't realise that I can live with your actual proposal, to move VF(dab) to VF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Righty-ho. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Undecided for now. I agree with Samuel that if there were an article on Vanity Fair from Pilgrim's Progress, that would clearly be the primary topic. However, there is no such article, and I'm not sure it would merit a full article on its own. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Move Vanity Fair (magazine) to Vanity Fair and link to Vanity Fair (disambiguation). Vanity Fair (magazine) is showing 26930 hits[1] and over 500 internal links[2] to Vanity Fair (novel)'s 10037 hits [3] amd less than 100 links[4]. The most commonly used name should be the primary topic, not the first historical use of the name. dissolve^talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

dissolve misquotes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which says:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning (but are not determining factors by themselves):

1. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere#
2. Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/
3. Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

I've just been amusing myself looking at the "top list" in http://stats.grok.se/. It indicates a massive bias towards American people and towards pornography. Since the Bunyan and Thackeray "Vanity Fair"s are neither American not pornographic, you wouldn't expect them to do well. It isn't just a case of "the first historical use of the name". The Pilgrim's Progress was required reading for every English-speaking Protestant child for over two hundred years. (Try it, it's quite easy reading and not too long.) When Thackeray and the founders of the magazine used the name "Vanity Fair", they were referring to a familiar concept. It was only in the twentieth century that Bunyan went out of fashion. As things are, it seems to me the right policy to say that there is no primary topic, and structure the articles accordingly. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel, for a different reason; I've been fixing the inbound links to the dab page and would estimate that about half are for the magazine, a quarter for the novel and the balance for a range of other destinations, including TV and films. Consequently, assigning the base name to anything other than the dab page would mean the inbound links would accumulate and be incorrect on at least half of occasions. From that prosaic angle, moving the dab page to the base name seems to be the least bad option. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we could include some instructions at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC about avoiding systemic bias? Over-reliance on what links here, google and traffic stats can give undue prominence to recent subjects and obscure a more encyclopedic balance. older ≠ wiser 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many notable uses. No convincing proof that there is a primary use here. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Rachel Maddow uses this page as an illustration

I know it's a bit silly to use the {{Press}} template on a disambiguation page, but on Wednesday's Rachel Maddow Show, Ms. Maddow used this article as an illustration of the concept of disambiguation. She was explaining disambiguation by way of an introduction to the complex history of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (a.k.a. torture) under the Bush Administration. Of course, it didn't have anything to do with Vanity Fair (in any of its meanings), but this was the first time I've ever heard of a disambiguation page being discussed in national media. Hence, {{Press}}. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was indeed very surreal to see her go all wonk on the concept of WP dab pages... maybe she can be made an honorary member of WP:WikiProject Disambiguation.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Bunyan's Vanity Fair

Note that "Vanity Fair" only is of secondary importance in the The Pilgrim's Progress article. It is clearly less important than the Thackeray novel that made the name "Vanity Fair" a household name (and the entry that easily half of the other entries are related to). The Bunyan novel might still be plenty important, but not from this disambiguation page's perspective: a reader of this page is more likely to look for the 1848 novel than the 1678 one. CapnZapp (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think that is the case, you can purpose a move. But as it is, there is no primary topic. older ≠ wiser 09:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying that my comment is in no way related to the previous move discussion. I am not asking for a move. CapnZapp (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You are formatting the page as if the page move had a different result. There is no primary topic and the page should be formatted accordingly. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad: I made three separate changes. Please do not revert more than you contest. CapnZapp (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of them. older ≠ wiser 13:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, I'm afraid you failed to make that clear in your edit summaries. They each targeted one issue each, making it impossible for me to understand your motives for your revert. Now, please approach with caution so you don't fall foul of WP:3RR. More clarity would have been appreciated. Also, please consider changing your signature to make it clear it is BKonrad we're speaking with. Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Since you have reverted me three times in a row without even blinking, you clearly have issues. I will leave well alone, at least for 48 hours. My advice to you, User:Bkonrad: consider not communicating your reverts using edit summaries only. Hope you don't get into trouble. Bye for now CapnZapp (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pageviews analysis

[5] czar 04:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)