Talk:Model

Picture

Shouldn't the picture really be at the bottom of the page. After all, this is a physical model, and the article is mainly about conceptual models in science. CSTAR 19:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit biased, because I took the pic, but physical models are fully mentioned at the start of the article so I see no reason to move the pic. Here are the mentions of a physical model in just the first two paragraphs....... (I've added the italics)

PARAGRAPH 1

The word model is used in various contexts meaning an abstract or physical representation of some thing. That thing may be a single item or object (for example, a bolt), a large system (for example, the Solar System), or even a time series such as that corresponding to stock market prices. In general, a model has no intrinsic interest, but rather it allows us to simulate or to infer something about the thing it represents.

PARAGRAPH 2

In many cases a model is a theoretical construct that represents social or physical processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them. Models in this sense are constructed to reason within a idealized logical framework about these processes. In other cases a model is a physical object such as an architectural model of a projected building or an existing one. In the case of a projected building, one possible purpose of the model is to facilitate visualization of internal relationships within the structure or external relationships of the structure to the environment. For the model of an existing building, possible purposes of the model might be visualization of renovation plans for a contractor or determination of placement of explosives for a demolition team planning on blowing it up.

All of the italicised stuff is talking about a physical model so why would you want to move the pic?

Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but there is no corresponding graphical representation of a conceptual model that I can think of (how would one even represent such a conceptual model). The placement of the graphic at the top of the article seems to give the wrong impression of the point of the article. BTW a model of a bolt doesn't have to be a physical model. Perhaps the article should be split up.CSTAR 21:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

NLP disambiguation

Do we really need two very long sentences describing NLP in a disambiguation page? CSTAR 23:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revision 20:41, 25 September 2005 by 130.123.128.114

The addition of this pre-prepared block of text by anon 130.123.128.114 should be taken with care. Currently the page is a disambiguation page, which suggests that this addition take its own page with its own article.

One approach might be to subsume the addition to the talk page until its provenance can be established. Ancheta Wis 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's surely either a copyright violation or original research, although I'm not sure which. In any case, it's certainly not suitable in the middle of a disambiguation page, so I'm just going to be bold and remove it. Someone can clean it up and make it into a new page if they want. Stephen Turner 08:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I have given the dab a bit of a clean, and listed the entries I removed below:

The Models, an Australian rock band
Model-based computing
MoML
Ptolemy Project
CoSMIC
a particular version of a series of vehicles produced by an automobile manufacturer is known as a model (dicdef)
role model — person who acts as a behavioural or moral example to others.

--Commander Keane 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: I revised CK's clean, CK absolutely reverted and left comments on my talk page about that. My explanation for my subsequent absolute reversion follows. Some thoughts on the piping: I note the MOS on piping, but think this tiny section on a style page may be subordinate to higher level policy, such as that we're not dealing with paper here (and has there been any discussion on the purported MOS status of the piping "rules", when the reality is significant non-compliance across WP?). Regarding the descriptions, I agree that these should be kept as simple as possible – but no simpler. Clearly, descriptions do not need to be pared down to the absolute minimum as an objective in itself. But let's not overlook that my revision did tighten down the definitions, and trimmed down excess fat (eg. the irrelevant piping of Walther Model's full name). Lastly, on the arbitrary deletion of actual content (the band and role model), what gives? Obey 02:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to discuss changes to the MoS, do that there. It is well established that piping and excess wikilinks don't go on disambiguation pages. Your explanations were much longer than they needed to be, the explanation exists to point a reader to the correct article, any more is not needed and obtrusive. The reason why the above entries were removed is that people looking for The Models or role model will search for these things, not model. If someone wikilinks to model from an article, they should not mean The Models, and they should not mean role model. Disambiguation pages are here to clear up disambiguation, not to list every possible use a word. I'll have a closer look at your explanations, and work them into the MoS compliant version.Commander Keane

People will look for model as a variant of not only automobiles, but many other manufactured products. Just look at the "What links here" (for example, Porta-bote. There needs to be something along the lines of what there was for automobiles, but more general. There's another name for it in connection with automobiles, something which I think has a wikipedia article, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Gene Nygaard 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea for an article. Is there already one for automobiles or are you saying we need to create an article for that, including boats etc?--Commander Keane 14:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave aside the piping and MOS issues for now. There remains a real problem with the substantive content that has been arbitrarily removed, and the reasoning that has now been offered in support of this. In the case of role model and the band, your approach deliberately limits the useability and relevance of the article. We cannot assume users are 100% certain about what is that they are looking for. I therefore ask that you please reconsider and reinstate these entries. Also, please delete conceptual model after you see where it leads. Obey 23:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The way I have addressed the cleanup of this page is correct, apart from that reversion at the start (for which I am sorry for, but have now adjusted). Nothing was arbitrarily removed (experience in dabs, and various consensus about what a dab is went into my descisions) and I even dumped the removed stuff on the talk page. I'd just like to mention that disambiguation pages are not articles, they are pages, just to keep things clear. I'll put back in role model, I can vaguely see why you want that back in, but not The Models. I can't possilby see how someone would go to Model expecting to find an article about The Models. If you think my changes were extreme, I rather mild when it comes to removing entries. You can always go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation if you'd like some questions answered about dabs.--Commander Keane 05:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So just where do you think you'd end up if you put "Models" in the search box? Normal, conventional style not just in Wikipedia:Naming conventions but elsewhere is to omit leading articles (in the grammar sense: a, an, the, and foreign equivalents) from the article name. Gene Nygaard 10:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually visted The Models for the first time, it turns out that The Models should be moved to Models (band). I'm sorry I didn't visit it earlier, and of course it should have been included anyway - as "Models" is at the very least their alternative name. I got a bit cuaght up in the other style issues of the dab, thanks digging me out of the hole.--Commander Keane 11:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MoS

My previous changes started from a version in telegraphic dictionary style and constructed sentences from them. It appears that the WP:MoS actually condones a dictionary style which contradicts the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline. How did this come to be? A dab page appears to be useful when there are only a few items but there appear to efforts to actually control the number of dab entries as well. In light of this I am putting a number of fundamental articles on my watch list to ensure that this telegraphic style does not go too far. Ancheta Wis 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to Jerzy's guideline, from the dab project:"_ _ Don't get hung up wanting order for its own sake, where the information we are representing is just not that orderly. --Jerzy·t 08:25, 2005 July 21 (UTC) "

It just surprises me that coherent sentences should ever take second place in the encyclopedia.

One of the functions of a dab page is to unify concepts onto a single page, where similarities are actually accepted and discussed, rather than shipped off to separate articles.

If this is not the case, then this is motivation to remove the dab notice to protect an article from the dab project.

The above comment was hidden. I am not sure why, but I'll respond anyway.

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

"A disambiguation page contains no article content, but refers users to other Wikipedia pages"

"Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term"

This guideline rejects your idea that "One of the functions of a dab page is to unify concepts onto a single page". The MoS is an application of this policy. Model exists to get readers to their desired article. If you want to have an article (with prose etc) discussing "Model", create Model (word).--Commander Keane 09:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modelling vs Modeling

We cant use both! we should use the british version--GrWikiMan 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fixing vandalism

This is just to clarify what I did earlier. I reverted to an earlier version of the vandalism and then fixed it on my second edit. If I did something wrong or you want to tell me how I should have done it that would be appreciated. Thanks! --Victoria h 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling - a concept in psychology

I was searching for information on modeling as defined in psychology as the learning of a novel behavior by observing that behavior performed by another individual. I didn't edit the page to add it because I was not sure if a page like this existed already and I just could not find it. If anybody can confirm/deny with reasonable certainty the existence of a page describing the psychological concept of modeling, please let me know. Gatita84 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Model number?

I don't see any articles referring to model numbers for different items. Are there no articles about that? Ogdens (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really deserve a Wikipedia article, and instead falls within the area of Wiktionary. See the entry at wiktionary:model#Noun, particularly item 4 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what the fuck wrong with you idiots!!!!!if you hav the nfo and cannot locate it on the internet then you should fucking post it so that it would be up here!!!dumbasses..............trix and cherry piece out homos!!!referring to modelin-concepts in psychology.yea those idiots gatita 84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.129.250 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009

organizing the non-physical

I organized the large number of non-physical pages by level of abstraction (can refer to any model, can refer to any model within category, refers to processes that construct/use models), but it could conceivably be organized by category instead (math/logic, engineering, psychology, real-world modeling, other) with conceptual model uncategorized. A third alternative organization would add economic models and remove real-world modeling. Related issue: I was undecided if 3D modeling really belonged in physical or not (since a 3d model is not "real", it is about a real thing.). :) 68.144.80.168 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

model (concept)

Although it may seem hard to believe, that topic as whole has been address by some sources, e.g. [1], and it's quite interesting by itself, so a more general article is possible. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions from Talk:Modeling

3d modeling

This page needs to be an article about the type of Modeling that has to do with 3d modeling. I'd start one, but that's the whole reason I'm here, I don't know anything about it, heh.

Or at least it should be one of them "disambiguation" pages that could link to all the different uses of "modeling." Like the 3d kind, the science kind, the fashion kind, ect... User:67.185.148.52, 0:32, 3 July 2008‎

Merge proposal

I just restored the text of the article before the merge proposal. I don't see any discussion about this, and the text in this disambig-page wasn't merged into the model dismabig-page. Now I don't see any argument, why this disambig-page can stay the way it was/is? -- Mdd (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Modeling was duplicative of content at Model. I have merged them. bd2412 T 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non ambiguity of model

I know there is a reference to the wiki dictionary, but I feel like there should be a wikipedia article about "model", not only about how model can be interpreted. A miniature train and a climate simulation both are models while many people think it is coincidental that both those things are called "model".It is not, every non-ambiguous form of a model is always a scaled or reduced descriptor of reality in all its dimensions, contrary to a clone of reality, which is not a model. I do not think Wikipedia currently reflect this. Do people agree with me and if so, how should we improve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.203.199 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your suggestion is now partly implemented in this disambiguation page, which will hopefully serve as a model for a future full Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:ECEF:62D6:F10F:E216 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 28 September 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace the French-language link to the French article "Model" with a link to the French article "Modèle (homonymie)". Please replace the German-language link to the German article "Model" with a link to the German article "Modell". Please also check the other language links for similar linking mistakes.

Reason: the French and German articles "Model" refer only to the narrow sense of a fashion model. "Model" is originally neither a German nor a French word but a loanword from English to describe this narrow sense. In contrast, in English the word "model" has a broad sense (aeroplane model, model father, climate model, artist's model, etc) which corresponds exactly to the French "Modèle" and the German "Modell". Please also check the other language links for this error because I am not fluent in Greek etc. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:247C:36D4:EE80:7707 (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page with several items named literally "Model", so having these interlanguage links seems fine. For dictionary definitions there is Wiktionary. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood the request, or you do not understand French and German. The Russian and Greek language links are correct, whereas the French and German language links are wrong. Please carry out the edit reguest, or please pass it on to someone who understands German and/or French. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:8C59:3668:556A:1A2A (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with linking this page to the German article which lists Else Model and Model Motor Company. This page is not about the concept of models. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not expressing yourself clearly ("This page" - what page? Talk page? Model page? Modell page? Else Model page?) Please desist from confusing this simple matter and please appoint an arbitrator who speaks French and/or German.2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:EC96:F929:B09B:A0DF (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now italicised the non-English words above. Perhaps you were confusing English, German and French words?

Not done: the French and German links are to appropriate disambiguation pages that have the same Wikidata page link as this English disambiguation page. There is no need for change unless I'm missing something. Feel free to explain it to me like I'm four years old. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining in, PI Ellsworth. Yes, you are wrong. Let us start with French. The translation of English "model" is French "modèle" not French "model". Both words exist in French, but only the first covers the English range of meanings (mathematical model, artist's model, etc). The second French word "model" is used only in the narrow sense of fashion model, and is in fact a loanword from English; it is true that the French Wikipedia page for "model" lists some other meanings, but these are simply non-French names (of people, places, games) like Walther Model, the German general. Please read the French disambiguation page Modèle (homonymie) and you will see that it corresponds precisely to the English Wikipedia disambiguation page model. By the way, the Wikidata page is odd - why is "model" stated to be the same as "modelling"? 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:34AC:D16E:40E9:71B1 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this edit is not necessary, linking to the French disambiguation page that lists things literally named "Model" is fine. However, such links are not managed here at Wikipedia but at Wikidata, where you can yourself update them. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, perhaps you have not understood that there are TWO French disambiguation pages for "model". Perhaps that is because you do not know that homonymie means "disambiguation" on the French Wikipedia. At present, the link is to the wrong (narrow) French disambiguation page Model, rather than to the correct (broad-range) French disambiguation page Modèle (homonymie). Please implement. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:D17B:3585:20B3:E5C5 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand about the two French dab pages. The problem is that while I can make the changes in Wikidata, the results are disappointing. For example, I checked the German page you want to link to, but it's not a disambiguation (Begriffsklärung) page on the German Wikipedia. I changed to the page you wanted on the French Wikipedia, but that meant that all the other language links that link to "Model" on Wikidata disappeared from this page. Can't have that. So if you want these changes it would require a consensus and administrative input NOT here, but at Wikidata, where all the language Wikipedia's are controlled in this manner. Wikidata is the hub of the language wheel. You want two spokes of that wheel changed. I don't think that's going to happen easily. Truly I do understand the predicament you describe, but I don't know how to fix it. So that's where the experts at Wikidata come in. You should try beginning at Wikidata:Help:Sitelinks and go from there. Sorry we couldn't help you. You might also find something useful at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ellsworth, I appreciate it. I have used up my time budget arguing against a brick wall here (see above), so I will give up at this stage. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:20FB:C342:AFD4:B792 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, folks, where the German page is concerned, my apologies. Ellsworth, you are right that my proposed German link was not to the appropriate German page Modell (Begriffsklärung). Therefore, my amended request is as follows: Please replace the German-language link to the German article de:Model with a link to the German article de:Modell (Begriffsklärung). Thank you.2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:BC68:517D:2B1D:BF27 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These links exist at Wikidata, not here at the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Since Physical model is a short and little-sourced article, lets merge that in here for now as a section. BD2412 T 03:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Model

The definition of "model" in the article is "an informative representation of an object, person or system." I am wondering what is meant by "informative". Is this word essential in the definition? If so, how? It seems to me that a model can be simply a representation of an object, person or system, and the word "informative" gets to the issue of whether or not the model in question is useful. 2603:800C:2440:9DF2:79AF:1A35:DD06:CFC2 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would need to distinguish from some kind of abstract representation. BD2412 T 20:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example in several of Earnest Hemingway's stories, his mention of rain represents imminent death; this does not mean that rain is a model for death. So we need to keep "informative" in the definition.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:3834:73C7:50CD:A2B1 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing two architecture-related images and retaining only third one

I am removing these two pretty pictures because otherwise we have three architecture-related images. Both these removed pictures are aesthetic, but compared to the third picture (Bourton-on-the-Water, which I am retaining), these two do not include a scale (such as a human or a penny coin) to make it immediately obvious that they are models and not simply aerial photographs of real buldings.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:3834:73C7:50CD:A2B1 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Model of a burning house at Bekonscot, Beaconsfield, UK
A scale model of the Singapore City Centre

English language problem in "German" General Model Theory

The article states: "General Model Theory - According to Herbert Stachowiak, a model is a simplifying image of reality" etc. [my emphasis in bold].

This may be correct in German, but in English a model does not require simplification. For example, a male fashion model demonstrating sportswear is not a "simplified" man - he is a representative man so that other men get an idea how the sportswear would look on them. Another case is a federal model law drafted for adoption by local governments: the model law is not necessarily a simplification, it is a precise text to be adopted.

In the German language there are no model laws, and a distinct word is used for fashion models, so indeed the German word usage for Modell (model) is more restricted than in English and thus German Modell often or always can be labeled as a simplification. But in English the various types of model, whether dry mathematico-logical or legal ones, or more aesthetic female ones, derive from the fundamental meaning of "structural design or layout".

So we need a better English-language source describing General Model Theory. [Note: the German word for model would be something like Bauplan, Blaupause (blueprint), Vorbild.] 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:1910:2D71:87E1:B446 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is an etymological link between Model and Model (person) but they are now different concepts. There would be no point to a model if it weren't a simplified version of reality. At any rate, an attributed opinion is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, but I must disagree. If someone says Margaret Thatcher is a role model for women, that means Thatcher is not a simplification but a blueprint to be emulated. And if a mathematical logician talks of a model, then that model is not a simplification but refers to a structure within the context of set theory. And a medical researcher tests toxins on guinea pigs as animal models of humans instead of on the human directly, not because the guinea pig is a simplified human but because it has similar biological inner workings. I wonder if you are being misled by the widespread euphemistic usage of "model" for pin-up girl? Just like Americans say "bathroom" when in fact the room in question has no bath? 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:E9CA:D318:6DD9:3F6D (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It is not even correct in German to say that a model generally is a simplification, because German biological and medical researchers use "animal model" (Tiermodell) in exactly the same sense as English speakers. So the laboratory rat can be a Tiermodell (animal model) for the human species when testing e.g lethal radiation doses, but the laboratory rat obviously is not a "simplified" human. The assumption or hope is that the rat has the same biological mechanisms as the human (a hope that is sometimes disappointed).

So if no-one objects, we should remove the word "simplify/simplification" from the article. It is a minimal change affecting only two words I think.109.155.98.140 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the "simplifying" model claim is a misquote, as this claim is not present in the cited source Stachowiak 1973 pp131-133, so I have now deleted this statement from the article.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:40AF:814B:AB4D:E46F (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

One or more editors have changed the disambiguating hatnotes atop this page. I have reverted per WP:BRD and they have requested a discussion here. Please can we have a third opinion on these questions:

Should "other uses" appear ~~before~~ after specific alternatives, as recommended in the Template:About documentation and standard practice on thousands of pages (A Princess of Mars, A Viking Saga, Afghan cameleers in Australia, ...) or should the order be swapped for this article?
Should Model (person) be listed as an alternative meaning of "model" (this article's title and that article's base name) or of "modelling" (a redirect to this article)?

If you are commenting as an unregistered editor, please clarify whether you are the same person who made the changes. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding so promptly, Certes. Indeed I am the IP editor who made both edits today (7 May 2024), despite my IP changing somewhat. First of all, I believe you are being a little disingenuous by insisting on your edit of 22 April 2024. The status quo would be the version prior to April 22. Please revert as per your cited Wikipedia policy. Secondly, I really appreciate your effort above laying out the two alternatives, but I am confused, because your examples (Princess of Mars etc) contradict your claim, in that those articles are examples where "other uses" follows, not precedes, the alternative meaning. Typo on your part, or am I being dense? As to "modelling": I think your first option makes sense, in other words the status quo if I have understood you correctly. 2A00:23C6:54AD:5701:CD98:76E9:2D8:F9E4 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised that the 22 April IP edit was also yours. I've reverted further to before that point. That then raises another couple of questions:

3. Should we mention Model (person) in a hatnote at all? I think we should: I monitor new incoming links to Model daily, and most of them were intended for Model (person) and need correction.

4. If so, should we describe it as an "occupation", an "activity/profession" or something else?

As this is getting complex, I've invited the experts at WikiProject Disambiguation to comment. Certes (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant to suggest that "other uses" should go after rather than before specific meanings. My apologies for the confusion. Certes (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Certes. As to 3: the link to (fashion) model is prominently displayed in the lead, so I do not see the necessity for the hatnote (but see my query on numbers below). However, I suggest the prominence of this link can be enhanced, by renaming another article, see my next point 4. As to 4: I suggest the article Model_(person) should be renamed Fashion model. This requires the current article on the 1945 film Fashion Model to be reverted to Fashion Model (film), as it was many years ago. The person responsible for the shortening seems no longer active on Wikipedia.

As an aside, I did not know you can analyse "daily incoming links". I presume you mean the daily numbers of users clicking on links called "Model" somewhere on Wikipedia, and then immediately seeing that the page is not what they want and clicking to Model_(person) instead. Have I understood you correctly? If so, can you tell me how to access this information, or failing that, can you provide a breakdown of the numbers over the past 7 days? 109.155.0.202 (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean a bot-generated report User:Certes/Backlinks/Report which lists pages which link to Model (or certain other pages) today but did not do so yesterday. I fix such links daily so they lead to the correct destination such as [[model (person)|model]]. There weren't any new ones today; the last was on Monday when a link appeared in Fanfix and needed the usual correction. Certes (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This report lists the last 500 such corrections I've made. (It takes about 30 seconds to run.) It includes a few false positives where I've mentioned models in an edit summary for some other reason. Of course, it excludes similar errors which other editors already found and fixed before I spotted them. Certes (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So if I now understand you correctly, your bot regularly makes you aware of any casual editor who has placed a link to the wrong model article, and who evidently did not check whether it is the relevant model article? If so, then I would argue that such temporary editorial errors are not a justification for permanent hatnote placement. Instead, we should ascertain whether users landing on a page feel they have arrived at the correct destination, or whether they immediately click elsewhere. When googling for "model", the Model_(person) page comes topmost, so I doubt there are many Model_(person)-seekers who accidentally arrive at this general Model article. But let me know if I have got it wrong. 109.155.0.202 (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My logic was that, if 500+ active editors who know their way around Wikipedia well enough to create wikilinks assume Model to be an article about fashion modelling, then a significant number of readers might jump to a similar conclusion and benefit from a hatnote. Here's hoping a disambiguation expert comes along soon to provide further insights. Certes (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My guess is that many editors are young, male, single but full of testosterone and not representative of Wiki users. But let us put your hypothesis to the test: Let us remove any Model_(person) hatnote completely for, say, one month. Then look at the pageviews function both for Model and for Model_(person) and see if there is a measurable change in pageviews on either page. All right? (If there is a better tool to measure the effect, let me know.) 109.155.0.202 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than removing the hatnote, we might use click data (perhaps via WikiNav) to discover how many visitors are using it. The latest data (March 2024) shows Model (person) as the most popular destination for people clicking through, though not many clicks are recorded in total. An alternative approach is to route the click through a temporary redirect, piped to display as the actual page title but with a subtle difference such as a dot on the end. Page views for that redirect could then be measured. Certes (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert, but it seems to me you have already answered the question by stating that "not many clicks are recorded in total". Does that mean hardly anyone is using the available hatnote or links to Model_(person)? Or am I misunderstanding you? 109.155.0.202 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. My experience with WikiNav elsewhere strongly suggests that it records astonishingly few clicks between any pair of pages and is more useful for measuring the relative popularity of routes rather than their absolute usage. The barchart headed "Outgoing Pageviews" shows high percentages, though they are percentages of a low total. Certes (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, could you please rename the article on the 1945 film Fashion Model as Fashion Model (film)?, which is its original name years ago. There is consensus for this reversion on its Fashion Model 1945 film Talk page there but the person responsible for the shortening seems no longer active on Wikipedia. 86.153.41.32 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised a formal move request there. Certes (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another couple of new models on the catwalk today: Amel Rachedi and Lolita Javier. Certes (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But comparing the pageviews in the period April 22 - May 7, with the pageviews before and after, I cannot see any decisive effect of your hatnote edit and reversion. It seems the users are more discerning than these hasty editors. 109.154.20.5 (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Model (person) is actually the WP:primary topic for the title "Model" based on pageviews. It gets around 5 times the views of this article and much more than all other articles titled "Model" combined, so needs to appear prominently in this article's hatnote. The usual format, which also follows guidelines, shows "This article is about..." (optional), followed by the next most likely topic(s) the reader might be looking for, followed by a link to a dab page if one is needed. Next comes Redirects that point to the article followed by other topics for that title in the same order as above. That format is most helpful to readers because it is logical and consistent. Station1 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your statements appear wrong. The primary topic criterion that you cite requires a high level of educational value - what is educational about a fashion model, which is a very narrow sense of a model? Secondly, Wikipedia articles on models in computational sciences are viewed up to 5000 times per day, much more than fashion model, so your numerical argument is undermined. Thirdly, the fashion model/Model (person) article currently is in a mess, including for example gravure idols who do not even contain the word model, but excluding for example the concept of a teacher who is a shining model for other teachers. I am reverting your edit for the moment but welcome your comment. 81.136.28.184 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A fashion model may be a narrow sense of the term, but it is merely a sense of the term—a "sample" person on whom fashion is draped as a means to display the fashion. BD2412 T 13:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)]][reply]

Yes, but what action do you propose? If you follow Station1's helpful link WP:primary topic and read it, it points to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad-concept_articles, which is the I think the current status of the Model article. 81.136.28.184 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the most useful hatnotes would be something like

The first link leads to our most-read article with base name Model. It seems more useful here than under Modelling because it navigates between two pages with base name Model rather than Modelling. The second link is our standard route to miscellaneous other meanings and the third link is a standard redirect hatnote – I hope both are uncontroversial. Certes (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to 81.136.28.184: Primary topic does not require a "high level of educational value"; I assume you're thinking of long-term significance, but that's beside the point. No one is proposing that Model (person) be moved to this title. My point is that Model (person) gets LOTS of views, so a significant minority of people who land on Model might actually be looking for Model (person) and we need to direct them to the article they want and expect as seamlessly as reasonably possible. If there's an article about models in computational science that lots of people are looking for under the title "Model", that should also be included in the hatnote, along with Model (person). Whether that article is a mess or not has nothing to do with a hatnote on this article. Hatnotes are solely navigational aids to get readers to the article they want, whether we think they should want it or not. Station1 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning everyone. It appears to me speculative simply to say that many readers have ended up on the wrong page and wish to be on a different page, thus trying to justify introducing a hatnote. As stated above, most people probably use Google to search for the word "model", and Google clearly shows Model (person) as the topmost link. So we could equally counter-speculate that too many Google users searching for "model" end up on the Model (person) page and are disappointed not to find what they want; in this line of argument, a hatnote would need to be placed on the Model (person) page pointing to this Model page. Conclusion: before we do anything, we need an objecive measure how many users (coming from Google or elsewhere) are being led to the wrong page. Can you editors find out how many people land on Model and then click immediately on the Fashion model link in the lead, and conversely, how many users initially land on Model (person) and then immediately close it down becasue they are not interested in fashion models? I am guessing that registered editors might have a suitable tool at their disposal.81.157.241.181 (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, Model (person) is actually the primary topic by usage for the title "Model" and that is why Google shows that article first in a search for the term. Google's algorithms show that's what most people are looking for. They do also link to Model three results down from Model (person) when I search. When we have misplaced primary topics on WP, as does happen sometimes for various reasons, I think it's entirely reasonable to put a hatnote on those articles, but many editors will oppose that based on WP:NAMB, reasoning that the qualified title is not ambiguous and readers searching for a model that is not a "person" will not be at that article because of its title. As to measuring how many people click on the links to Model (person) from this article, Certes already mentioned a tool called WikiNav above, and its limitations, but the pageviews I linked to also make it obvious that some readers landing here will want Model (person) above other articles sharing the title "Model"; the exact numbers are not important, only that are not negligible. Station1 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that registered editors do not have appropriate webpage tracking tools akin to Google Analytics. Hence I have implemented the second-best analysis, which is comparing pageviews with and without the hatnote, see new section below. As far as I am concerned, this lengthy discussion section can be archived, and any discussion continued, if desired, in the new section below. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No; let's continue here. The important discussion is about the best hatnotes for the page, not solely about one comparison of page view counts between two years. We must also consider other evidence, such as the observation that the vast majority of editors who create links to Model do so by mistake under the misapprehension (so obvious that they didn't even need to check) that any article with that title must be about fashion models. Even if we make the unlikely assumption that every single casual reader is more clued up about Wikipedia naming conventions than than those experienced editors, the editors alone constitute a significant number of visitors sufficient to merit a hatnote. Certes (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two example editors you showed earlier are making dozens of edits a day, it is inconceivable that they are checking any links, whether Model links or any other links. I acknowledge these hasty editors are a problem for us conscientious editors to deal with. But we should not make innocent Wikipedia readers suffer by cluttering articles with hatnotes. The pageview analysis below shows that your 16-day hatnote experiment was ineffective and quite possibly counter-productive. I am willing to change my mind, but that has to be based on facts, such as on a Google-Analytics-style page analysis showing whether normal users (rather than hasty editors) are landing on the wrong pages. The evidence below strongly suggests it is not so. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each diff that I linked above happens to name the user who made the previous edit. Both are indeed prolific editors. However, those previous edits did not introduce the link to Model. In each case, the link had already been added earlier by a different editor not named in the diff I linked. Both editors are relatively inexperienced (<1000 edits), and one of them has since been indefinitely blocked. Certes (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather bizarre quibbling over a fairly trivial detail. I completely agree with Certes suggestion above that the hatnotes should be like the following:

This is simply common sense and conforms to what is de facto standard. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to this formulation, as there has been no consensus otherwise, and the proposed change to the hatnote has been objectioned. BD2412 T 12:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another disambiguation geek of sorts here, supporting the hatnote formulation just above, suggested by Bkonrad. PamD 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the hatnote is what I would favor. As Station1 notes above, Model (person) could be considered, based on traffic, the primary topic for the term, so it is reasonable to assume that a non-negligible number of users will land on this article, through various avenues, expecting it to be about fashion models. Letting those users know immediately that they are in the wrong place, and giving them the link to the right place, is the common-sense user-friendly way to go. The additional verbiage that the dissenting editor is concerned about is minimal—six words added to a hatnote that has to be there in any case. —ShelfSkewed Talk 14:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "reasonably assuming", why do you not simply make a page analysis? If you are not willing to invest the effort, then accept the existing pageview analysis below which indicates that your assumption is wrong. This discussion has to be based on data, not on assumptions. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certes' report of regularly fixing incoming links intended for Model (person) is data. BD2412 T 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is data for editors' antics, not data for Wikipedia readers. Editors edit (without reading in this case), and readers search (typically google) and read. You cannot conclude from one behaviour to the other behaviour. The page analysis below indicates this fallacy. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antics? BD2412 T 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, antics. Editing a link blindly without first checking it is not the hallmark of a serious editor. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a serious accusation, and not reflective of what Certes reports having done. BD2412 T 18:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we share the same high standards of editing. It is serious. And fiddling with hatnotes is not the way to solve this serious "hasty editing" problem which is widespread. Take a moment to look at the editing history of the two example editors that Certes provides - search for the keyword "catwalk" if you are lost. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I presume that by "example editors" you mean "example edits". I looked at those at the time. They are clearly good edits; the subjects are people who work as models.~~ I see, you are referring to the editors whom Certes corrected, and not the corrections. Nevertheless, they are reflective of the reality of what readers who also edit are expecting. BD2412 T 20:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are stating the obvious. Again, the real question is, do we pander to hasty editors by cluttering articles with hatnotes, or do we serve the general Wikipedia reader, who does not edit and may come to us through Google? My clear preference is that it is our duty to serve the latter and admonish the former. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Stating the obvious" is observing that editors, hasty or not, are a representative subset of readers. BD2412 T 22:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you correctly said "readers who edit", not "readers" generally in your previous sentence. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to make examples of any editors. I linked diffs of my own minor contributions which fixed the links. It is an unfortunate quirk of the diff feature that it also names the editor who made the previous edit to the page. However, in both cases, that previous edit (though constructive and welcome) did not affect the link to Model, which had already been added several revisions earlier by a different editor. The named editors' contributions are not relevant to this discussion, and I have no reason to believe that they create bad wikilinks. Certes (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Certes, I apologise to the two editors (even though I have not mentioned their names), it is my misunderstanding. My mistake does not affect the thrust of my argument: we should not indulge hasty editors with hatnotes, as the available data (pageview comparison below) indicate that the general Wikipedia reader does not make the same mistake. If someone provides better data showing that readers benefit from a hatnote (in addition to the existing fashion model link in the third sentence of the lead), I am willing to change my view. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers don't convey much. The sample size is small, and they only show how many users viewed the pages, not how they got there. —ShelfSkewed Talk 16:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sample size do you consider sufficient? 81.157.241.181 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote experiment 22 April - 7 May 2024

To assess objectively the merits of placing a prominent hatnote (directing to Model_Person) above this Model article, I have compiled the pageviews in the period when the hatnote was present (22 Apr - 7 May 2024) and am comparing the values with the pageviews exactly a year ago for the same period (i.e. 22 Apr - 7 May 2023):

22 Apr - 7 May 2023 WITHOUT prominent hatnote

139 views/day for Model
1185 views/day for Model (Person)

22 Apr - 7 May 2024 WITH prominent hatnote

224 views/day for Model
1082 views/day for Model (Person)

Counterintuitively, while the hatnote directing to Model_Person was active for 16 days, the pageviews for Model_Person decreased, both in absolute numbers as well as relative to the Model article pageviews. This runs contrary to the speculation that readers are accidentally landing on the model article and need to be guided to the Model-Person article via a hatnote. There is no need to clutter an article with ineffective hatnotes. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this analysis is supposed to demonstrate. The hatnotes for the period 22 Apr - 7 May 2023 were:

For the period 22 Apr - 7 May 2024, the hatnotes were

I fail to see any very significant difference in these in terms of navigation. And besides, as others mentioned above, simply counting the overall pages views for these does not tell us anything about how readers got to those pages. It might be possible to delve into the historical data for Wikinav to puzzle some more clues about how readers navigate from this page, but I've no interest or special competence in such data mining. Perhaps Joy might be interested in looking into this. older ≠ wiser 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Technical point: you fail to see the significant text difference between versions because you need to compare the Feb 18 version [the last edit before the Apr 22 version] with the May 7 version at 16.55 hours.) I agree that navigation data would be the best approach. Surely it must be possible to do something like Google Analytics for Wikipedia usage. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to present data comparing the date ranges 22 Apr - 7 May 2023 and 22 Apr - 7 May 2024. What does it matter what the hatnote said for any period of time outside of those ranges? older ≠ wiser 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the discussion above and the Page history. I mean this genuinely, not trying to be funny. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I have and I don't see your point. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try to formulate my point in your own words. If you get it wrong, I will help you along. Start with my recent response at 20.56 hours to BD2412. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not going to play games with you. I take this to mean you have no explanation worth anything. older ≠ wiser 23:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, your conclusion is a non sequitur. But let us hope your colleague Joy contributes a worthwhile data analysis. Indirectly that would be your valuable contribution to this discussion. 81.157.241.181 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd say you're just batting around words to avoid actually saying anything. older ≠ wiser 23:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw page view comparisons are usually unrelated to a specific hatnote, because a hatnote is by far not the sole source of traffic for a destination page.

We can check clickstreams, but they are generated on a monthly basis, so this doesn't fit the parameters of this specific comparison. The visualization of that is at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Model What we have there historically is (per meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream) like this:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

Model Model_(person) link 316
Model Model_(disambiguation) link 226
Model Plan_(drawing) link 178
Model Conceptual_model link 130

...

total: 1520 to 33 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:

Model Model_(person) other 320
Model Model_(disambiguation) other 231
Model Plan_(drawing) other 193
Model Conceptual_model other 149

...

total: 1468 to 31 identified destinations

So the contention that the hatnote is superfluous is simply false, there is a steady quantity of readers who do in fact navigate from here to there and it's likely they use the prominent hatnote link, and that quantity is both larger than the other hatnote as well as noticable in the overall picture of outgoing clickstreams from this article. It's not huge compared to overall monthly incoming views at "Model", but removing it would not be beneficial. --Joy (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the current article "Model" is also a broad concept article, and it has other prominent links to Model (person), including the second link in the second sentence of the lead section, and the second list entry in the first section, "Model in specific contexts". We currently don't have tools to distinguish these clicks from hatnote clicks; we could work around this by inventing topical redirects to be able to measure these. --Joy (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]