Talk:Traffic policing

Primary topic

I propose traffic policing redirects to traffic police. i.e. traffic police is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "traffic policing" (a WP:DABCONCEPT article). (This dab then reverts to being a redirect to that article.) The subsequent redirect hatnote is already at the target and it's that simple. (not to add to the justification, but this is just like policing -> police). We need to counter systemic bias that the telecoms topic is somehow a rival to the obvious primary topic. Widefox; talk 09:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's consensus for that, that leaves this dab with 1 primary, and 1 other valid entry (the third one was an example of the broadconcept) so per WP:TWODABS this dab is not needed, and a redirect to the primary with a redirect hatnote is easy. In fact, I thought this was so obvious that I BOLDly just did it.

Ping all editors User:Dsimic User:Rich Farmbrough User:Wbm1058 ‎User:Graham.Fountain User:Necrothesp. I've left a note at the dab project. Widefox; talk 09:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! We should hear opinions from other editors, of course, but I'd say that deciding on the primary topic is highly influenced by one's viewpoint. To me, for example, mentioning "traffic policing" instantly brings an association with computer networking, not with the highway patrol; searching for "traffic policing" also points into the same direction. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted before seeing your reply. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is the link (and yes I can see there's several IT editors here, but it's up to us to counter our own bias). Agree we need to reach consensus here, but if you want the dab version (in the mean-time as a PREFERREDVERSION) then also fix the hatnotes and project templates etc. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC please !vote here: Widefox; talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the hatnote from Traffic police, which should be the way to go until it's been decided on the primary topic. Please don't get me wrong, I'm totally fine with having no disambiguation page, but I find it quite hard for any of the two meanings to be prevalent: highway patrol wins from the historical/traditional aspect for sure, but computer networking is hands down the modern usage. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Yes, and I've subsequently put the target page hatnote back to how it was when this dab was in existence.

Usage != personalised & localised "bubble" Google hits. But anyhow, please could you !vote below. Widefox; talk 10:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry about the hatnote removal being wrong, and I hope you'll get it handled properly yourself. I'm not sure what would voting below look like as it's quite unclear what are the options. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

No prob, I honestly didn't expect this to be contested, so boldly fixed. The proposal is that there's a primary topic of law enforcement. Simple. Standard reaching consensus below per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC i.e. !vote (emphasis on the guideline based reasoning) Widefox; talk 10:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I understand your proposal, but I respectfully disagree with the proposed primary topic. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Propose
  • "usage" if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic: yes
    • and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term: yes
  • "long-term significance": if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term: yes Widefox; talk 10:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are proposing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

Reworded Rich, better? Widefox; talk 11:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Meh, it was better before. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Care to expand the reasoning more than you've done? There is an obligation to reach consensus. The current preferred version is only temporary pending the closure of this, it could equally be reverted to the redirect in the mean-time. If there's no argument, it's a simple WP:TWODABS Widefox; talk 11:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a brief quote from WP:TWODABS:

As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name.

As I've already explained above, in my opinion WP:TWODABS doesn't apply as there is no primary topic. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

While traffic policing may primarily mean something computer-related to IT specialists, I remain utterly convinced that the primary meaning for the vast majority of people is what the police do on the roads. I agree this should be seen as the primary topic for this term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

• I'm not sold on the idea of "counter systemic bias that the telecoms topic is somehow a rival to the obvious primary topic". First it begs the question, by assuming that it is. Secondly I don't think that would constitute systemic bias, indeed by its nature systemic bias requires multiple exemplars. And lastly it seems that the communications usage is far more prevalent than might be naively thought. Indeed the fact that Google (signed out, and even through a proxy) gives 9 out of 10 of its top hits to the communications meaning suggests that it is, if not the most common meaning, the most searched for meaning. And that is what should drive "primary usage" in these cases. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
  

Ghits just are about the best way to get a systemic bias in statistical form IMHO. Widefox; talk 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Particularly re topics dear to the hearts of IT specialists! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

We can't ignore the use of various terms in IT. That would also count as a systemic bias. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course not, but neither can we give undue weight to them just because the online writing and Wikipedia community disproportionately consists of people in that field or knowledgeable in that field. The suggestion that as many people understand "traffic policing" to mean an IT procedure as do to mean the policing of roads is, frankly, utterly ludicrous and laughable and is coloured by exactly the systemic bias I have just mentioned. I can assure you that the vast majority of people in this world have never heard the former usage. I'd never heard it before this issue first came up sometime ago, and I'm not exactly computer illiterate. Why? Because it's a technical term primarily used by people in the field, whereas the other usage is a general term used by people who aren't police officers as well as those who are. I can understand that people in the IT field are probably shocked to learn that it's not in common parlance (as this is common among people in specific fields who are so used to using jargon that it's second nature to them), but it really isn't. It's essentially jargon, whereas the other usage is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True, and that's why having a disambiguation page is the most reasonable thing to do. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not if there's a clear primary topic. And that's clearly the policing of roads, which traffic policing is understood to mean by non-IT people (that really is the bulk of the world's population!) everywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Everyone can speak for themselves, and that's what I do. Moreover, I don't know what the mankind thinks, but I can check what the mankind searches for. :) Though, let's hear opinions from more editors – trying to twist my arm doesn't bring too many benefits anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to twist your arm, since it's not up to you to decide, only to express an opinion as we are all doing. As to "what mankind searches for", see my comment above about the demographics of internet users! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

As we know, it's all about reaching a consensus. I've already read your comment above, and I have nothing more to add beyond what I already wrote. That's simply what the majority of Internet users search for. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That conclusion is a logical leap. In fact, the page views of the two articles here prove in terms of article popularity the exact opposite of that claim. The law enforcement topic is twice as popular (yes, there's a correction needed for the term "policing" vs "police" for a proper comparison). Widefox; talk 09:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

See below for my response. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Pinch yourself guys/gals: "compliance with a traffic contract" vs what everyone encounters on a daily basis. Hmm. This is ludicrous. Print it out and show it to the next person in the street for feedback. In fact, I bet you'll be a while until you find someone whose heard of the former. It will be 0% vs 100%. A clear primary topic if ever I saw one. There's no need for a dab per WP:TWODABS. I mention systemic bias, as I'm checking my own IT bias. Widefox; talk 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment the type of choice here is identical to Apple vs Apple Inc (we're comparing apples and apples TM). The merits of this pairwise comparison may lead to a different decision, but we do have the fruit as a primary topic despite Ghits. Widefox; talk 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
• Nom's reasoning: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC article usage (last 90 days): Traffic police ~4K Traffic policing (communications) ~2K . Splitting traffic police and traffic policing is undesirable. I'd actually just rest on the long-term / common sense argument of apple vs Apple Inc. Widefox; talk 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  That ain't a valid argument as it doesn't connect those two articles with the disambiguation page in any way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  A dab is for navigating to those two articles, one is twice as popular in usage. Usage is a consideration in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is valid. I've already mentioned the correction needed due to "police" vs "policing" above. Twice as many. Twice. Widefox; talk 10:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  Again, comparing the page views doesn't produce a valid argument, and here's another why... If it were a valid argument, the primary topic for "apple" should be Apple Inc. instead of Apple – compare the 90-day statistics for Apple Inc. (~625 k views) and Apple (~240 k views). Please don't call things "ludicrous" that easily. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  That appears to be logically flawed argument (if I remember the discussion - apple long-term trumped Apple usage, but it doesn't prove usage is irrelevant whatever the outcome). WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states two common considerations - usage and long-term significance. My nom is 100% yes for both factors, but I'm of the camp that prefers long-term significance to usage to determine the PT, so fully support decisions like apple beating Apple. The fact that the law enforcement topic here is twice as popular (but not necessarily twice as likely on this dab page) just rams that home (making it even more clear-cut that apple vs Apple). The fact that there's "police" vs "policing" is probably the crux here, but we cannot determine proper usage without performing an experiment here (and with such low page views that prospect seems OTT). Widefox; talk 10:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  Well, it was you pulling the apple vs. Apple Inc. argument, see your post above. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to clarify 1. usage: on page views, the law enforcement topic is more popular than other topics, and more popular than all other topics combined (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). 2. long-term per apple vs Apple. Two rights don't make a wrong. Widefox; talk 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment User:Dsimic asked me to comment here. Traffic policing (communications) seems like somewhat of a niche topic to me, even to those working in IT. As such having a disambiguation page seems overkill, and a hatnote at Traffic police would probably suffice. I would make it a separate hatnote from the one to Traffic police (disambiguation), though, if that page ends up being kept. —Ruud 12:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, as this is restoring a previous version of this, unless there's a policy/guideline based argument not to, suggest closing this. A hatnote at the target of course is needed. Widefox; talk 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, close it, I'm fine with no more arguing and various attempts to present similar things from different viewpoints. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

 Done per WP:BRD (see my edit summary). The merge target has correctly been deleted, and this page arguably failing WP:MOSDAB / PT has been redirected to the PT. Per BRD just undo if challenging. Widefox; talk 12:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the redirection. By the way, what is the merge target you're referring to? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)