This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all
LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the
project page or contribute to the
discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
The Advocate is a national magazine owned by Here Media Inc. It should not be confused with the Tribune Co. newspaper The Advocate, published in Stanford, Connecticut.
Nor should it be confused with "The Evangelical Advocate" owned and published by the Churches of Christ In Christian Union, and Ohio based religious corporation.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support both movies per nom. (side comment: you should have used the multi-page request so the disambiguation would have been part of the request). --
Gonnym (
talk)
07:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Historical significance isn't only metric to go by. If someone tells you 'Did you hear about 'The Advocate', you've got zero way of knowing if they mean the LGBT magazine, the movie, one of dozens of newspapers, and we should not assume to do so for the reader. This is comparable to
Mercury. You've got no way of knowing if someone is talking about the planet, the element, or the Roman god (or a bunch of lesser known things). Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}22:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Headbomb, you mean,
WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT? Because many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind". There are two criteria that matter: likelihood of being sought relative to the other topics that could be sought by the ambiguous term in question, and historical significance. The LGBT magazine prevails handily per both. --
В²C☎20:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Asserting it, with or without the "certainly", does not make it so. I backed up my "does so" claim with page view stats. What is your "does not" position based on? --
В²C☎21:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
[1] the LGBT magazine doesn't even reach 50% of pageviews, even if you filter out Help pages, and the 'see also' links. And 'The Advocate (film)' is heavily under-represented, since it's located at
The Hour of the Pig, which would further reduce the relative pageviews for the LGBT magazine. The LGBT magazine may be what first comes to mind to many people, but this is not even a majority, and there is no primary topic here. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}00:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not familiar with that massviews tool. Why are you querying the dab page and why is it showing help page pageviews? What is it showing? I'm seeing a daily average of 239 views for the LGBT publication per the link I provided above. No other use of "The Advocate" comes close. And if you think this is like Mercury, you haven't looked at
those page view stats which shows a virtual tie between the two main uses. --
В²C☎01:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm using massviews because pageviews doesn't support more than 10 links. The top relevant (removing Help: / Talk: links + see also links) results are
Yeah, but you should be including only topics that users would search for with "the advocate". That excludes at least "The Harvard Advocate" (344) and "Charitie Lees Smith" (279) which brings it down to 6883 total or 47% for The Advocate, and that's still assuming all those others are as likely to be sought with "The Advocate" as this topic is. I think despite the large number of topics, that this one is still so close to 50% of page views, that qualifies as "more likely than all the other combined". --
В²C☎18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per
В²C. I would argue that the LGBT magazine seems to be the most likely topic those typing The Advocate are seeking, especially since it appears to have been been living comfortably at this article name since 2004. On what are you basing the idea that this is not the primary topic, just the fact that there are a number of other entities with the same name? I don't think any of these minor publications and other items come even close to the LGBT magazine's notability. The pageviews provided by В²C above support that.—
TAnthonyTalk21:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reasons as TAnthony; this seems to be the primary topic, and the stats (and apparently long history at this title) seem to confirm that.
-sche (
talk)
21:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. There are way too many entries on the DAB page that are locally the only “The Advocate”. Some are even foreign, while the current basename holder is just American. Stats can be helpful, be here, with no broad coverage of any, there is clearly no primary topic without even having to look at usage. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
11:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Longterm significance. The LGBT magazine has zero long term significance for readers of the other magazines and newspapers. ASTONISH, which is addressing the same point. The generality of the PT guideline that speaks to two major aspects that editors commonly consider, implies many other things may be considered and that the two dot points are not exhaustive. Page views are an easy-to-find statistic, but they are extremely prone to bias, readers of some newspapers are more likely to be active online than of others. —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. A definite or indefinite article hardly ever satisfies
WP:SMALLDETAILS, and this isn't one of them.
Headbomb's statistics are convincing: 43% is nowhere near
WP:PTOPIC, which IMO requires something like 95% or preferably 99%. Bad links to DAB pages get found and corrected; bad links to PTOPIC pages hardly ever do.
Narky Blert (
talk)
06:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Seeing this move populate a few watchlist slots, why is the "LGBT" part needed? "The Advocate (magazine)" should be sufficient for getting off the disambig page, with potentially only
The Harvard Advocate being a possible match, but that can be handled in hatnote. --
Masem (
t)
19:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)reply
It’s not the only Advocate magazine; “LGBT” is extremely helpful for recognisability; hatnotes are crutches consuming prime space at the top of an article and should be more discuourged than a perfectly reasonable title (subtitle). —
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Advocate (LGBT magazine) →
The Advocate (magazine) – I don't dispute the finding in 2018 that this is not the primary topic for "The Advocate", but there was insufficient discussion there about whether a double-disambiguator is necessary.
The Advocate § Magazines lists two other magazines, but neither is actually called "The Advocate". The Harvard Advocate can be referred to, abbreviatedly, as "the Advocate", yes, but likewise The New York Times can be called "the Times", and we nonetheless treat The Times (of London) as primary topic there. I don't see how this is any different. There is only one magazine on Wikipedia called "The Advocate", and this is it. (Likewise I doubt
[4] is notable, and, even if it is, it is vastly less significant then the most prominent publication for the largest LGBTQ community in the world.) --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)23:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The context provided by "LGBT magazine" is most helpful to the general audience. Lots of people aren't familiar with this publication and without this context, they're left to guess. The fact that
The Advocate (LGBT magazine) gets clicked on more than other publications with a similar name is really irrelevant. ```` — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Fabrickator (
talk •
contribs)
15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This argument flies entirely in the face of
WP:PRECISE, a policy that instructs us to use only as much additional detail as necessary when disambiguating an article title. I'm not convinced that being "helpful" is enough cause to
WP:IAR here; there are countless articles whose titles might demand guesswork from an unfamiliar reader (e.g.
Blind Faith or
Drawing the Eel), but we don't throw unnecessarily detailed disambiguators on those article titles either.
ModernDayTrilobite (
talk •
contribs)
17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply
My point isn't about The New York Times being primary topic for that name; my point is that it is frequently called "the Times" but we nonetheless consider The Times of London the primary topic for The Times. --
Tamzincetacean needed (she|they|xe)10:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.