Thanks a lot for taking the time to evaluate the move request and for writing few lines.

I do understand what you wrote about WP:PT2, especially after Skynxnex very good comment probably did not just change my point of view.

I would however, like to ask you to reconsider your verdict that this was a consensus based on WP:PT1. I have discussed the previous closure with the closer Hilst here. In the meantime not much happened, which supports to close the debate. Only Joy argued in the meantime based on the disambiguation stats that they point towards WP:PT1 not being fulfilled, while I explained that the very low usage numbers of the disambiguation page do not allow statistical relevant analysis without a huge effort of disentangling all the influences. I provided three different ways of calculating the constellation pageview numbers, all being above 55%. And while 2 persons at the beginning of the debate said the numbers are clearly too low (based on stats going back to 2015, not current ones), 4 people agreed the numbers are high enough, two of them towards the end of the discussion (while even !voting OPPOSE, mostly argueing with WP:PT2). So if you subtract the persons simply writing statements and the ones !voting based on low number stats or outdated stats/numbers, there is a clear consensus that WP:PT1 is fulfilled.

This debate was a sobering expereince, because after 2 relistings and lots of OPPOSES, I could not get an answer why according to WP:PT2 Orion the hunter is equally long-term significant. Till the first closure noone gave an answer that was consistent with the guidelines, not based on name origin (given as non-determinative in the guidelines) or being proof by assertion. In this last week another 3 of such comments were given and, however, to hightlight it again ONE very good comment.

I do not think more discussion will bring a consensus. But I would appreciate a lot if you reconsider why you see a consensus of WP:PT1 towards being not fulfilled. I am aware this would only change the result from not moved based on consensus to not moved based on no consensus, but future potential discussions should not be hindered by a not moved based on a consensus, which has not been reached in the debate.

Maybe I misunderstand you, but it feels a bit disappointing if it is the case that enough OPPOSES based on non guideline conform reasons or no reasons are enough to steer a debate to a 'consensus'. To my best knowledge such a case should not even stop a consensus in the opposite direction, otherwise it can probably never being reached. I can see your doubts regarding WP:PT2, while the doubts in the debate are actually very weak, almost all comments being against guidelines, which would warrant more discussion, that will likely again not lead to a result, but your point on WP:PT1 I can not see why.

If you can tell me based on which part of the discussion you see the consensus towards not moving proven, maybe I missed some good reasons, I would appreciate that and of course accept it. Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the opposition along PT1 lines is as weak as you portray it, honestly. For instance, I would disagree with the characterization of longer-term pageview stats as "outdated." In my view, pageview stats that stretch from 2015 to the present are often more informative than stats that only show a snapshot of a brief moment; as an example of their utility, they can show whether trends at any one time are anomalous or are part of a consistent pattern. I also didn't find myself convinced by the arguments to discount WikiNav numbers. From what I've seen across various RMs, WikiNav data tends to be a well-trusted reference point for investigating possible primary topics. That norm can certainly be overruled by consensus in a given discussion, but I didn't see the breadth of support that I would want to see in that process.

I was also unconvinced about the utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.

That said, while I do think it appropriate to use some of my own discretion to evaluate the strengths of various arguments made, ultimately I close based on what arguments were found to be most convincing by the discussion participants themselves. And there too I see editors largely supporting the idea that the stats, read as a collective, favor keeping the articles at their current titles. Bkonrad/Older and Joy both made their cases at length in the RM; Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis, Mdewman also gave a brief concurrence, and Jruderman argued that the 3:1 pageview ratio (i.e., of "Orion (constellation)" alone vs. "Orion (mythology)") fell short of the much more likely than any other single topic standard of PT1. This is a large proportion of the RM participants, using several angles of analysis that to my eye were consistently fairly sound, and all coming to a shared opinion that the constellation does not meet PT1.

Regarding Skynxnex, their comment makes the case that 65% more for the constellation than everything else combine probably does meet WP:PT1's test [...] but not by much. The 65% number they quote also counts Orion Nebula's views toward Orion (constellation), though. In the RM you note that "Orion (constellation)" alone only reaches 55% of search results; given that Skynxnex views 65% as meeting PT1 only narrowly, I don't think their stance can necessarily be assumed to hold true at 55% as well. For that reason, I was hesitant to place too much weight on their analysis of PT1.

To summarize the above lines of thinking: the viewpoint that "Orion (constellation)" did not meet the PT1 standard attracted broad support in the discussion, backed by various editors with various arguments, and—based on my review of the rebuttals—I didn't think they had the strength or prevalence to have fully countered those arguments. Accordingly, I felt that the argumentation on balance supported that the constellation did not meet PT1. Hopefully this clarifies my thinking; if there's anything I haven't fully explained, please feel free to ask. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back, I'm not sure I completely processed that the 65% included the Orion Nebula (my own fault) and probably wouldn't have suggested it meets PT1 if I had. I hadn't really followed up much more since it is a some what close call, there was a lot of text, and I don't think there was much much to add more since it seemed clear to me the consensus was against the move (I'd probably argue that the earlier close shouldn't have been undone). Skynxnex (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to say that longer-term pageview stats are useless, this is why I used the term outdated. I agree it can give more information, but I was suggesting to use the information differently. If you follow the pageviews from 2015 you can see, that almost all Orion related pages stay constant in pageviews, but Orion (disambiguation), despite being front page, gets less and less, reducing its numbers by a factor of 4-6 from 2015 to now and that Orion (constellation) increased its numbers by 50% - 100% compared to 2015 in the recent 2-3 years. This is valueable information. But this is also the reason I took the stats from the last year, as it is more representative of the current situation, while keeping the development trend in mind.

This can be very important, as the the 3:1 pageview ratio (i.e., of "Orion (constellation)" alone vs. "Orion (mythology)") is within the last year about a 5:1 that more reasonably seems to fulfill the much more likely argument. Most of the original contributors were !voting based on the assumption the constellation does not have the majority, but counting Orion Nebula against Orion constellation. This might be equally flawed as counting it to the constellation article.

To me it felt clear, we clarified this point, why I gave several calculations, confusing indeed. But I only ask to compare the case on the same rule basis:

A) Ignore Orion Nebula (I will show under B why) and calculate the numbers: Gives you 61% at ratio ~ 5:1 or higher to others

B) Take all the side typics into account, like the Mitsubishi Orion engine or the brother of Mark Twain. But then you need to not ignore that people reading Orion's belt (outsourced article of Orion constellation), or others of this kind Orion Nebula, Betelgeuse, Rigel. If you directly go to Orion's Belt you do not count to constellatioon, though you came for that. On the other side Orion (Star Trek) and lots of other article were ignored, too not related to the constellation. The constellation articles, however, have up to 10 times the pageviews, so it is unlikely enough Orion related other articles can be found to lower the 61% number. The numbers, e.g. some here, if you don't play out e.g. Orion's belt against Orion constellation, but assume it is connnected, suggest > 61 % for Orion (constellation) among all Orion related articles (I did not do the full math, but I also did not suggest this approach) at a minimum ratio of ~ 5:1 against Orion (mythology) as well as 5:1 against Orion (spacecraft) (only using Orion (constellation) numbers !!)

C) the most reasonable to me is this one. You take only the ones people would expect to find if they only type Orion as a single word. This e.g. not includes Mitsubishi Orion engine, but also not Orion Nebula or Orion Pictures, ... please see the numbers here: You reach 66.7% for Orion (constellation) at a minimum ratio of again ~ 5:1. The mythology, constellation, SF race, spacecraft and comic book character are the ones identified with Orion, not just nicknamed from a longer name or related.

So we are back to a ~ two-third majority. Different people discussed based on different statistics. I assumed that the PT1 had a clear consensus for moving, if the rules of calculating the numbers are properly defined.

I don't mind if the debate is closed. But my question is, based on which rules for the statistics, not the number of !votes !voting on flawed statistics in the one or other direction, do you assume that PT1 gives a consensus towards not moving? Again the ones against it were at the beginning. I agree I exxagerated the weakness of the opposition along PT1 lines. But I did not exxagerate on how weak the statistical background opposition is in my point of view. Is two-thirds and a ratio of 5:1 or more really considered weak???

For the extreme case I found, the constellation Centaurus ~ 21 % of pageviews and a ratio of 3:1 (vs. Centaurus Greek mythology) or 1:3 (vs. Centaur Greek mythology) was enough that the constellation is the primary topic.

Thanks again for your time. Stevinger (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me, if this amount of text is a bit much. I discussed that with Hilst. According to what is given at WP:RMCOMMENT 'the debate is not a vote'. Of course every recommendation should matter. But while for PT2 the situation is difficult, PT1 seems to boil down to mathematics. And I don't see how multiple solutions to a defined problem (for the numbers at least, not the interpretation) should be possible in this case. And the interpretation limits or at least orientation for limits are given in WP:PT1 (more likely than all the other topics combined - check). Stevinger (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PT1 as written is fairly mathematical in that respect—"more likely than all the other topics combined." But even so, there's a degree of interpretation involved in reading any policy; for the example most relevant to this case, I occasionally see people argue that a topic that only marginally surpasses other-topics-combined isn't in keeping with the spirit of PT1 even though it meets the letter of the policy. Thus, when I'm working on a close, one of the aspects I examine is: where the interpretation of a policy is debated, and both interpretations feel comparably plausible, does one interpretation prevail among the participants at large? This can lead to inconsistent outcomes between different discussions, but I think it's a necessary step in determining one particular discussion's consensus.

To tie this back to your question: I think the underlying ratios at play in the Orion RM were in a sort of gray area, where a plausible case could be made that the constellation either did or didn't pass PT1. And with that fact pattern in place, I had to look at not just which arguments were stronger or weaker but also which policy interpretations were inside or outside of the mainstream. And so—although I might have found the constellation's PT1 case stronger if I were making the decision unilaterally, my read of the discussion was (1) that the constellation didn't meet the PT1 standard as it was viewed by the participants at large, and (2) that this reading of the PT1 standard fell within the bounds of reasonability. And accordingly, the right thing for me to do as the closer was to acknowledge that interpretation as the consensus.

(No worries about the length of the comment, btw! I've definitely been known to be verbose myself.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. This all sounds very reasonable und understandable. However, I still think you are not aware of everything that happened in the debate, and so few additional questions arise:

You argued very clearly 'utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.' I agree, this is understandable and I will take this into account in the future. This made you put less weight to Skynxnex's analysis and you mention 'Bkonrad/Older ... made their cases at length in the RM; Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis'. However, Bkonrad/Older argues 'all other combined certainly do not amount to over 9 million is easily disproven. Pageviews Analysis show views for just the spacecraft, mythological figure, and nebula amount to nearly 9M'. If Orion (constellation) and Orion Nebula are related, then putting it against Orion (constellation) to prove it has no majority is at least as misleading as bundling the two together. I assume this was not intentional but this way Bkonrad/Older and Srnec !voted based on the assumption that Orion (constellation) is at 44% of pageviews, while it is at 50%, if Orion Nebula is taken out and at 61% if current numbers from last year are invoked instead of 2015-now. This is quite a difference.

Regarding the disambiguation page. I did not want to argue that this is not a good rule of thumb and can be very helpful. But I tried to explain to Joy that it is not a good choice for the specific case of Orion:

1) If you search for Orion with a search engine from outside of Wikipedia, the constellation is usually preferred. So more people will directly land at the Orion (constellation) page, even the ones looking for something else. The hatnote at the Orion (constellation) page refers you to the Orion (disambiguation) page. From there you go to whatever you were looking for (but not the constellation!).

2) Even if you are directly going to the Orion (mythology) page via a search engine (less likely), there is no hatnote to Orion (disambiguation). I would in this case use the Wikipedia search on top of the page, not search for a disambiguation page. Thus people erroneously reaching mythology, looking for the constellation do less likely appear on the disambiguation page.

3) If you are already on Wikipedia and use the Wikipedia search on top of the page the Orion (constellation) page is the 2nd suggestion in the drop down menu opening after typing Orion, Orion (mythology) is the 6th suggestion. It is thus again more likely if you look for mythology to miss it and still use the first suggestion - the disambiguation page.

Regarding these 3 effects above the meaning of about 42 % of people that use the disambiguation page going then to Orion (mythology) vs. about 36% of people going then to Orion (constellation) loses statistically a lot of meaning !! Yes, we can prove more people looking for the Orion (mythology) page use the disambiguation page, but whether this proves that Orion (constellation) is not the primary topic taking the three effects on top into account is very doubtful. Btw, I assume this assymetry of hatnotes and suggestion in the drop down menu in the Wikipedia Search is not always present when the disambiguation page is used as rule of thumb and gives nicely fitting result. At least this proves, the page should not be the deciding factor here.

Now back to tie this back to your answer and whether PT1 is met or not. In total 9 people commented on PT1, if I counted right. One person only wrote: 'several major topics share this name, there is no primary.' I hope it is fine to not count this statement. It is very general and seems not to meet the guideline ''The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations that are not sustained by arguments.' (WP:RMCOMMENT) or take 'Explain how the proposed article title meets or contravenes policy and guidelines rather than merely stating that it does so.' (WP:RMCOMMENT)

• (2/8) argue PT1 is not met based on the usage statistics majority (Bkonrad/Older and Srnec), which I just explained happened on flawed statistics and seems thus of less weight than others.
• (2/8) argue PT1 is not met based on the disambiguation page (Mdewman6 and Joy), which is also not a very strong argument regarding the assymetries in the hatnotes and in the drop down of the Wikipedia search
• (2/8) argue PT1 is met (Jruderman and Skynxnex) based on the/my bundled statistics, so also not very strong arguments for it
• (2/8) argue PT1 is met (the nominator 21.Andromedae and Stevinger (me)). Bkonrad/Older argued Orion (constellation) does not have a majority including Orion Nebula against it. 21.Andromedae replied this is not correct this way. Srnec seconded Bkonrad's analysis, why I seconded 21.Andromedae's analysis, that this is still not correct this way.

This means depending what you count it was a tie of 4 vs. 4, or a 4 vs. 2 for moving (if the first erroneous statistics is dismissed) or a 2 vs. 2 (if the bundling is dismissed, too) or a 2 vs. 0 for moving or a 1 vs. 1 (just in the week after the recent relisting) or a 0 vs. 0 (if you regard my and Joy's statistical analysis as erroneous, too). So a maximum of a tie or more !votes for moving. I btw included Joy as !voting for PT1 not met from the context, while Joy technically never !voted (recommended).

This long text later leaves me with 3 questions:

1) Why should Orion Nebula be allowed to be included against Orion (constellation) if it is related? I understand the duplicates of pageviews if it is bundled together, but if people directly reach Orion Nebula (related or within Orion (constellation)), never go to Orion (constellation) it is equally or even more skewing the stats if they are put on opposing sides.

2) If there are at least two/three effects that skew the disambiguation outflow/usage stats here, namely the assymetric use of hatnotes at constellation and mythology page and the very different suggestion position (2nd vs. 6th) in the Wikipedia search drop down, why should the disambiguation stats be an equally good rule of thumb here than for other cases?

3) If I missed a natural explanation, which surely can happen, for 1) and 2) my last question is why do you consider a 4 vs. 4 tie, even if all comments towards PT1 count, no matter how flawed the reasoning in either direction is, has a 'mainstream' or that one side 'prevail among the participants at large'? Of course lots of people !voted oppose based on PT2 arguments which you wrote is discussed with 'less precision', which I regard as strong understatement, as barely any edit is consistent with the guidelines, but this does not explain '(1) that the constellation didn't meet the PT1 standard as it was viewed by the participants at large'

I would appreciate a lot if you would also answer these questions. That would help a lot to understand your view in case you were aware of all these things. Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address your questions in turn:

(1) I'd disagree with the argument that the constellation and nebula being related means that their views can't be used in opposition to each other when attempting to calculate a primary topic; in fact, it's fairly common in the RM space for there to be debates about which of several closely related topics deserves the primary title. As a hypothetical example, one could certainly imagine a primary topic debate over SpongeBob SquarePants vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (character) vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise). I think it's reasonable to extend that principle of "closely related topics may still compete for views" to cases like this one where the closely related topics aren't the only ones under discussion; multiple articles can't have the same title, after all, so any two articles on similarly named subjects are inherently competing for the primary one. (Downstream of this, my opinion on this matter also means that I disagree with the conclusion that Bkonrad's stats are erroneous.)

(2) Arguments based on predicted reader behavior, such as by the ones regarding the hatnote asymmetry or the suggestion position, are inherently somewhat speculative—accordingly, I usually only weigh them highly if they're widely supported in the discussion. I don't see that level of support as having occurred in the RM discussion; the note about the suggestion position was only mentioned by you, and doesn't appear to have been engaged with or to have slowed further opposition after its original mention on July 5. Meanwhile, unless I'm missing something (please feel free to correct me if I am), the hatnote asymmetry doesn't seem to have been discussed in the RM itself at all. With these factors not appearing to have been heavily supported in the discussion, I don't see them as successfully contesting the utility of the DAB stats for this purpose.

(3) To start by addressing the numbers: as I touched on earlier, while Skynxnex argued that PT1 was met based on the 65% number, their analysis ("not by a lot") did not convince me that they would feel the same about the 55% number that remains when "Orion Nebula" is discounted. Accordingly, I'm inclined to instead count them as neutral on the PT1 question. Then, as for Jruderman, their only comment states that the ratio is not enough to create a primary topic (emphasis mine) and then goes on to note other factors that they feel further weaken the primary topic claim. Thus, I think they should be counted on the PT1-is-not-met side of the debate. Based on those two adjustments, my read is that the numbers shake out to 5 vs. 2 in favor of not moving, rather than 4 vs. 4. Given these numbers, and my belief in the accuracy of the statistical arguments presented against moving, I think it was reasonable to conclude that the prevailing view in the discussion was that the constellation did not meet PT1.

Let me know if anything needs further clarification. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address your replies: (Thank you)

(1) This response is surprising. But I actually fully agree to your SpongeBob SquarePants example. This shows related articles' views can be used in opposition. But there is a major difference to here. The character, franchise and series indeed compete for the very same name. It is not just about the relation but also about the name. The choice for the statistics of Orion was arbitrary (Joy said that in the debate). Why was e.g. Orion's Belt not included? If in another hypothetical example bacteria are found in the Atmosphere of Jupiter (unlikely), and everybody reads this article should this challenge Jupiter as primary topic? If someone decides this is not precise enough and creates Stratosphere of Jupiter and another one Upper Stratosphere of Jupiter, ... Or a more down to Earth example. If some famous person is injured (hopefully not) should a separate article about this injured part of the person, challenge the primary topic?

Or if there was only Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology) for Orion. You argue that because of duplicates Orion costellation should not be bundled with subregions, understandable. But if many people are interested in all parts of the constellation this creates duplicates, too. You just need to include Orion's belt, Orion's sword, and Orion Nebula against Orion (constellation) and it lowers the apparent interest into Orion (constellation) enough that in this case the mythology can compete.

Or a less hypothetical case. There was the RM of Venus --> Venus (planet). Would you as hypothetical closer allowed Venus Williams (analog to Orion Nebula, but not even related) in the stats? It is dominant and puts Venus down to about 30%. Venus Williams is pretty famous, but it would surprise me, if I type Venus and Venus William's page appeared.

Regarding your example the equivalent of Orion Nebula, would be maybe SpongeBob Squarepants' Gary or SpongeBob Squarepants' Patrick (like Orion's Belt or Orion's Sword). These characters are very popular, but should not compete for primary topic of SpongeBob Squarepants. At least in my point of view.

I gave several examples because I think that such cases cannot be in the interest of Wikipedia. Either lots more related articles would have been needed to be included in the stats of Orion or only the ones that compete for the name Orion. Where am I wrong?

(2) I agree this is speculative. But the DAB statistics shouldn't be regarded as valid for every case and so do not not need to be contested individually. If we agree that the basis which I described for the DAB stats is speculative, then someone using it as an argument should explain why it is valid. Not after using it as argument in the first place, but after being asked, like I did with Joy. I hope we agree that an argument that is not engaged, if I understand you correctly, does not make the argument wrong. Not that I am saying some of my arguments weren't weak, but otherwise ignoring very good arguments in future debates would be beneficial. Joy reminded me that I shouldn't say only 1.4% of people use the disambiguation page because of duplicates, valid point. But if I argue we cannot disentangle several influences for duplicates regarding search engines, Wikipedia search, position in the drop down menu, assymetry in hatnotes, ... regarding the DAB this is not valid? I described the search engine differences btw with Joy. The word hatnote was not used, but it seemed not of interest. Again, not taking arguments into account does not make them invalid to my best knowledge.

Let's get back to the example of Venus. The WikiNav page of Venus (disambiguation) shows that Venus = Venus (planet) is only the 6th highest page to go to from Venus (disambiguation). I would assume this is because Venus (planet) is the front page Venus at the moment, but this is also speculative and can have very different reasons, too. Would you have allowed on the basis of reaching 30% vs. Venus Williams and being by far not the highest page to go to from the DAB that the Venus --> Venus (planet) move should happen, if it was mentioned and seconded by few people? This, as discussed with Hilst and the duplication problem are the reason why Orion Nebula should not be part of the stats. Again otherwise, where is Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, ...? I was not trying to say the stats are erroneous (which I used to describe my stats, too), I am sorry that was not correct, but as my bundling it is misleading.

(3) You allow in the beginning that someone is counted as neutral if the stats are not valid. You should, however not use my misleading 55% value that was not correct in the debate either. This is why I gave you the A), B) and C) stats originally. Either it is C) with 66.7% or A) with 61%. The 66.7% appear when only the Orion name contenders are included as given in the stats above under point (1). If you allow that 65% were incorrect, then 55% are, too. And it seems reasonable 66.7% instead of 65% would not have changed something.

The same holds for Jruderman, you argue 'their only comment states that the ratio is not enough to create a primary topic (emphasis mine)', however, this refers to the 3:1 ratio, which is in several occasions discussed to be rather a ~5:1 ratio, which did not convince me they would feel the same about. And there is a second statement: 'leaving the constellation with only barely a majority of pageviews among articles with the same base name' (emphasis mine). While seen potentially differently, this confirms the majority needed and does not convince me it would change if the 66.7% would have been mentioned instead of the 55% (probably rather losing the barely from the sentence).

(If you get very technically on this, then the two DAB arguments shouldn't count, as they are not part of the PT1 point.)

Of course people could have reacted very differently, but they also might have not. And if 4 persons give sentences, that the majority is fulfilled, while the numbers after correction did not get lower, in the case of Jruderman even higher, independent of Orion Nebula artificially changing the stats, then there seems no basis to find a majority against it with 8 people in total.

Please correct me if you see problems. That examples need to speak of equivalent cases in (1), that doubts should lower the weight of an argument in (2) and that misleading stats on which decisions were made should be taken into account in (3) should always count for both sides, being for a move or being for a not move, right?

Thanks again. Stevinger (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on with the discussion for each numbered point...

(1) I interpret the core thrust of your question here as asking, which partial title matches should be counted as competing for a primary title? This is a question that can absolutely be controversial and have various interpretations, so it's a situation where I again turn to the discussion participants and see what they include (or don't) in their analyses. To that end, while there certainly wasn't unanimous agreement as to whether the nebula should be included as a competitor for the title, it was incorporated in multiple analyses (Bkonrad's and Joy's) that I viewed as solid. (I will admit that I found Joy's analysis to be overbroad in one area—the incorporation of human names like Orion Clemens—as, with exceptions for certain highly prominent figures, I don't believe most people are known mononymously. I mention this for transparency, and because it's relevant to the example of Venus Williams that you mention, but I don't think it affects the discussion as regards Orion Nebula.) The case for including Orion Pictures is also analogous to Orion Nebula here.

Overall, I recognize that this isn't the most empirical basis for determining what topics to include or exclude, but unfortunately that's kind of the nature of Wikipedia discussions. The role of closers isn't to create a fully logical analytical framework, but to assess the conclusions of the discussion as it took place in practice.

(2) I think I take a generally more positive view of DAB statistics than you do; when it comes to determining the relative usage levels of multiple topics, I'm inclined to treat those stats as relevant by default and place the onus on people seeking to challenge their applicability. As for the interpretation of arguments that were not engaged with, we have sort of a Warnock's dilemma issue here—it might mean that the argument was compelling enough to be unrebuttable, but could also mean that the argument was seen as not significant enough to need extensive discussion. When evaluating arguments in this situation, the factors I weigh include: (a) How many people are making the argument? Is it a widely agreed-upon principle by supporters of one side of the debate, or is it just a single person's idea with no sign of further traction? (b) How closely tied is the argument to the actual letter of policy? In this case, as the search-result argument was both speculative and mentioned by just one member of a discussion with roughly a dozen participants, my interpretation was that the lack of further discussion on the point more likely meant that it was viewed as of low relevance.

Circling back around to the Venus question: I agree that it would be surprising for the planet Venus to lose its primary topic status because of Venus Williams, and honestly I would probably !vote to oppose it if the question came up in practice... but if a discussion occurred where a meaningful proportion of participants backed that argument, I could certainly see it being necessary to view that stance as having gained consensus.

(3) You raise a fair point regarding Jruderman—given that point, I'm willing to push them to neutral too, which would adjust the headcount to 4–2. However, as I mentioned above, I think it was a fair read of the discussion to consider Orion Nebula as among the competing titles here; unless I'm mistaken, including Orion Nebula (and Orion Pictures, whose situation is comparable) is what results in the 55% number. With that being said, I'm also admittedly uncertain whether it would change much to use the 61% number, since the 4–2 count already omits the participants who seemed to be on the fence. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time.

'The role of closers isn't to create a fully logical analytical framework'. No, of course I cannot demand a fully logical analytical framework and it should not be needed. I am still struggling to understand how you apply your basic criteria to the discussion as it took place. I will try once more to provide my core difficulty, being more precise and concise, without the high amount of confusing examples.

You write: 'to assess the conclusions of the discussion as it took place in practice'. Here my difficulties start. There have been few major suggestions that have been acknowledged by several people regarding whether PT1 is met. E.g. the analysis by Bkonrad using Orion Nebula in opposition, that was supported by Srnec and challenged by 21.Andromedae and Stevinger, so 2 vs. 2. This you allow as solid. My analysis on the PT1 stats using Orion Nebula bundled was supported by Jruderman and Skynxnex and challenged 2 weeks later only by Joy, so a 3 vs. 1. This one you see not as solid. So the conclusion of the discussion as it took place in practice is different from yours.

For this you need to have a reason. You explained: 'Skynxnex argued that PT1 was met based on the 65% number, their analysis ("not by a lot") did not convince me that they would feel the same about the 55% number that remains when "Orion Nebula" is discounted. Accordingly, I'm inclined to instead count them as neutral on the PT1 question.' and this is explained in your first answer: 'I was also unconvinced about the utility of adding the pageviews of "Orion Nebula" to those of "Orion (constellation)"; the two articles are separate, even though their topics are related, so—even if we accept that interest in the nebula's article inherently counts as interest in the constellation's article—the resulting sum would likely include duplicate views from readers who visited both pages.' So duplicates are the problem! Ok. Btw, the Orion (constellation) page lists under features Orion's Sword and there you can read: 'Orion's Sword contains the Orion Nebula, the ...' (emphasis by me)

Now I have to include a hypothetical example in order to explain my difficulties to understand. Let's hypothetically assume only 6 articles exist for Orion: Orion (constellation), Orion (mythology), Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, Orion Nebula and Orion molecular cloud complex. And hypothetically assume

A) 50% of readers are very interested in the constellation and read every article about the constellation and its subparts (everything except the mythology)

B) 50% of readers are very interested in Orion in general and read all 6 articles.

1) According to me previous suggestion to bundle the 5 Orion (constellation) related articles and their clicks the Orion (constellation) and bundle with the other 4 reaches 90% of all clicks. You argue this is not ok because of duplicates, this is understandable.

2) We ignore the clicks for everything except Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology), since they are subparts of Orion (constellation), than Orion (constellation) reaches 75% of all clicks.

3) You suggest that even subregions of Orion need to be seen as independent articles. Then Orion (constellation) against all others in Opposition reaches 22.5% of all clicks.

So despite every reader in this hypothetical example was interested in the constellation and 50% of readers only came to Wikipedia for the constellation, the percentage is 22.5% in the opposition version analysis. I suggest number 2), because if all the material of Orion's Belt, Orion's Sword, Orion Nebula and Orion molecular cloud complex was in the Orion (constellation) article, which clearly fits there, too, the percentage in the hypothetical example would be 75%, too!

And it gets even worse, let's assume the very same hypothetical example with one exception, the first 50% of people are only marginally interested, just click on the Orion (constellation) page instead of all the constellation related articles and leave. Then the calculation with the all subregions on the opposing side (number 3) results to that Orion (constellation) reaches 60% of all clicks. So the less interested people are in the constellation, the less duplicates are created and the higher the percentage for Orion (constellation) is at the end. This clearly shows that duplicates while Orion Nebula is in opposition is a problem in addition to Orion Nebula in bundle with the constellation being a problem. Please reconsider this!

This means that Orion Nebula cannot be put in Opposition to Orion (constellation) while calculating the stats for whether PT1 is met. However, Bkonrad/older suggest this in their stats to confirm that Orion (constellation) has less the 50% of pageviews. Unfortunately you are indeed mistaken, including Orion Nebula on the opposing side does not result in 55%, but is the only way (in conjunction with using numbers that are not current, but reaching back to 2015) to reach a number below 50%, in the case of Bkonrad reaching 44%, confirming their claim that 50% are not reached. However, this is likely based on duplication, like in other cases you regard as 'neutral'. If you calculated the same stats with more recent numbers (last year) and most importantly removing Orion Nebula from the opposing side you reach 61% (Pageviews). This clearly shows their claim that it is below 50% is not backed by the numbers and the !votes by Bkonrad and Srnec should be counted as 'neutral', too.

A last example. If the 44% that likely include duplicates was not low enough to confirm that no majority is reached, Bkonrad could have included Orion's Belt on the opposing side, too, like here (pageviews), than Orion (constellation) reaches about 38% of pageviews. As in the hypothetical example above, you can add more and more subregions or subparts of Orion (constellation) on the opposing side against the constellation, which were likely seen by the same interested persons, creating duplication clicks and reach a lower and lower number of pageviews for Orion (constellation) if you want to.

I also disagree that Orion Pictures is the same case as Orion Nebula. 1) Orion Nebula is linked 9 times on the page of Orion (constellation) as a subregion, Orion Pictures once because of its related logo. (Orion mythology btw 2 times, at mythology and at see also).) 2) Orion Nebula is given to be a part of Orion's Sword, which is a feature of Orion (constellation), so clearly closely related. 3) If you watch a movie the current logo of Orion Pictures says 'Orion', not Orion Pictures or Orion Releases, LLC, so people might speak about the company as simply Orion.

So, finally I have to accept that you see the disambiguation page stats more positively than me and the rule of thumb can of course be very helpful. I might have gotten influenced by the sentence: 'Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include: WikiNav' (WP:DPT) I gave you 3 possible biases steering the stats. - Regarding the discussion as it happened, the inclusion of Orion Nebula on the opposing side to Orion (constellation) was seen more controversial (2 vs. 2) than inclusion as bundle (3 vs. 1). - If you correct for duplication problems 4 of the 8 !votes need to be seen as 'neutral' as they do not (Bkonrad and Srnec) or barely do (the other two you named) meet their claims about whether PT1 is met. This leaves us with a headcount, as you called it, of 2-2. The 2 DAB stat based !votes can simply not overrule the 2 opposing !votes to create a consensus instead of a tie.

So my core point is that Orion Nebula creates duplicates, no matter if bundled or put on the opposing side. In addition to PT1 being met at 61% of pageviews and a ratio of about 5:1 or larger for any other contender, the headcount reaches a tie for whether PT1 is met and the stats in the discussion for moving were generally seen less controversial by the participants in the discussion as it took place in practice.

Thanks again for your time. Please tell me, if something in this is still confusing or if I am mistaken. Stevinger (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, I mostly agree, but I still think you are misunderstanding what I meant:

I fully agree with your second paragraph and I do with your first paragraph, too, but only if we are talking about the same thing. Because for the examples that you gave which are clear, like SpongeBob SquarePants vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (character) vs. SpongeBob SquarePants (franchise) or Orion (constellation) vs. Orion (mythology), I fully agree. Being counted toward every article is not a bug, but a feature as these are the topics that compete sharing its title. This was neither the duplication that I meant, nor the one that I was describing from my point of view. What you write seems just to shift the problem one layer further.

Imagine hypothetically (!) you would decide the mythology article is important and long enough to put some of its content to several articles, e.g. Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) and the overview article Orion (mythology). Then imagine further we have again the case of primary topic, but only these 4 Orion (mythology) articles exist and Orion (constellation) as overview article, Orion Nebula, Orion's belt and Orion's Sword. Now imagine further only 2 people (for simplicity) read the articles. One person all 4 articles for Orion (constellation) and the other person all 4 articles for Orion (mythology). One would asume the outcome is 50% of people were interested in Orion (constellation), right? Since we don't want to measure "depth of interest" but "breadth of interest" every person should count ONCE, but instead the mythology interested person counts FOUR times against Orion (constellation) and the constellation interested person counts FOUR times, ONCE for Orion (constellation) and THREE times against Orion (constellation). So ONE count for Orion (constellation), SEVEN counts against it, resulting in 14.3% interest in Orion (constellation). You might argue, both persons counted 4 times, but if two further persons come in, one shortly clicking on Orion (constellation), one shortly clicking on Orion (mythology), the latter two people counted ONCE, the first two people counted FOUR times. This is the avenue for some viewers to count more than others!

So

A) We remove in this hypothetical example the related articles Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) from the PT1 stats because they are shortly described in Orion (constellation) or Orion (mythology) and then in more detail in these extended articles.

or

B) We remove the articles Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) because they lead to unwanted duplications, leading to an avenue for some viewers to count more than others.

or my favorite

C) We remove Orion's belt, Orion Nebula, Orion's Sword, Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) because they do not follow the rules in your first paragraph: 'when determining a primary topic along PT1, what matters isn't that the topic is popular in absolute terms—it's that it's more popular than other topics that share its title.' All of these mostly hypothetical articles do not share the title Orion (can be identified as solely Orion).

None of these 6 hypothetically extended articles would be understandable if they appear under 'Orion' only. Another example, imagine George Clooney gets a hypothetical scandalous tattoo on the leg. Neither Amal Clooney, nor George Clooney leg as articles should be able to compete as primary topic for 'George Clooney', no matter how popular they are, in my point of view, not even if they are more popular than the George Clooney article. This is an analog to Orion Cult (mythology) or Orion Nebula competing for 'Orion'.

So no matter whether Orion Nebula should be removed for reason A), B) or C) above, it should be removed to ensure that we represent reader's topics of interest most accurately. And not just the "depth of interest" (that the extended article was clicked on, too).

Btw, I would accept Orion Pictures as borderline case since it is shown with the logo 'Orion', but e.g. Mitsubishi Orion engine or Lockheed P-3 Orion seem very well suited under their respective names, not really sharing its title with Orion. If we do that we land at these Pageviews, again Orion (constellation) having about 60%. Stevinger (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point we're circling back around to the point I was trying to make when I brought up the "logical analytical framework" point a couple days ago. As a closer, it's not my role to create my own thresholds for which terms should or shouldn't be competing for a primary topic; instead, my role is to review the frameworks that participants in the discussion used, and to evaluate them against one another where they differ. To that end, when I'm evaluating an argument that was raised in a discussion I'm closing, I don't ask myself "is this exactly the framework I would use", I ask myself "is this a framework that could be reasonably justified." When I've talked above about e.g. evaluating the two types of duplicates, that factored into my closing decision insofar as it informed my comparative evaluation of the different pageview stats that were furnished in the discussion that actually took place; if an analytical framework on some data were to be uncontested, I'd check it for obvious errors before accepting it, but to impose my own analytical preferences onto the argument's logic would be supervoting.

To connect the above general statement to this specific case: I think all of the pageview analyses in the RM were at least reasonably justifiable, so I didn't see a need to throw any of them out entirely. However, there were also multiple analyses that disagreed with one another, so I was in the position to have to make a judgment as to which seemed sounder in comparative terms. I think my past comments have already covered my thinking on how I made that judgment, so I won't reiterate them, except to continue to stand by my opinion that treating Orion Nebula as a rival claimant to the primary topic felt like a stronger approach overall than treating it as a contributor to the constellation article's pageviews.

To further expand on my thinking here, I'd like to propose a counter-hypothetical to your hypothetical situation. Imagine the same pattern of pageviews you describe—one person reads the four astronomy-related Orion articles and another person reads the four mythology-related ones. The difference is, in my hypothetical, the person who read the four astronomy articles was only interested in Orion's belt and just read the other articles as a spinoff from that. Given that you and I only have access to the pageview data after the fact, we have no way of knowing whether the views for the four astronomy articles came from your hypothetical constellation-interested reader or my hypothetical belt-interested reader. Therefore, the fairest option is to treat a view for any article as a sign of interest in that specific article's subject, rather than trying to weave together disparate pageviews into a theoretical profile of a reader interested in some broader topic; we have no way of knowing if such a profile is accurate, so extrapolating beyond the direct facts of the data could cause us to work from faulty information. (The fact that our astronomy-interested reader gives us four pageviews "against" any given mythology topic is regrettable, I agree, but I don't think there's a way to correct for that without introducing larger problems to the methodology.)

Finally, let me switch from broader philosophical thoughts back to actionable, case-specific ones again. When I was bringing up my point about "reasonably justifiable" arguments, the takeaway I want to convey is: the granular details of my opinion on different types of title is of limited relevance to the goal you're trying to achieve here. What matters isn't whether or not I would personally consider "Orion Nebula" to be a plausible target for the "Orion" title, but whether I find it so implausible that the votes for it should be discarded wholesale. So the ball I would place back in your court is: regardless of whether I agree with it myself, I don't think the "Orion Nebula is a target" analysis was so fundamentally flawed as to make such discarding necessary. Do you view my stance on the matter as within the range of opinions a closer could reasonably hold, or as uncontroversially erroneous? ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 04:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. We might make progress. Unfortunately not as fast as I hoped. Thank you for describing how you decided and what you have to take into account. Of course I assume you carefully and in best manner decided, otherwise you would not still explain it to me. Nevertheless, this does not solve the discrepancy of our views.

Yes, I am sure your stance is uncontroversially erroneous. But before I start to explain it in yet another way and properly, I would appreciate a lot if you would answer few more questions specifically so I understand why we still do not agree, maybe I do not understand or I do not ask decent questions:

- If all the material within Orion Nebula would be within the Orion (constellation) article instead of separate it would support the constellation. Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics?

- In the hypothetical example Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) was created. Why should interested mythology readers count once in the current Orion (mythology) version, but 4 times once these three articles are taken out of the main article? (I think you called it we're effectively measuring "depth of interest" then).

I was taught that methodology that changes its result strongly after slight chances in the input parameters are usually not well defined ones.

But of course I should answer your counter-hypothetical: This paragraph you gave confused me. Whether a reader read the other articles as spinoff of Orion's belt or was there for the constellation seems to not matter (it is anyway all part of the constellation). If you participate in a penalty shootout (for example) it seems not to matter whether you play for the money, the cheering crowd or just like to kick a ball, maybe slightly for the success rate, but it seems to matter more if you are allowed to shoot 4 penalties every time the opposing team only gets one. Seems the same case. (Not sure what you meant with the mythology in brackets. But yes, with Orion Legends (mythology), Orion Cult (mythology), Orion in Culture (mythology) you could probably force Orion (mythology) to a disambiguation page itself, if you meant that. Another reason for me to doubt your suggested methodology that allows to split any primary topic up until it cannot be defended anymore as primary topic or if this is too complicated split up a competing topic, like in the hypothetical example Orion (mythology) to reach the same goal).

- Why should splitting up articles with the same texts afterwards, just forcing people to click several times to find everything, have an influence on how important or well secured a primary topic is? Stevinger (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a reader read the other articles as spinoff of Orion's belt or was there for the constellation seems to not matter (it is anyway all part of the constellation). The issue here is that this presupposes that the constellation is the primary topic, and that interest in topics that are geographical sub-components of it must flow from the component to the constellation. Given that the whole RM was about determining the primary topic for "Orion", I don't think we can necessarily rely on that assumption without consensus among the participants, and it was clear that—at least for the nebula—there was a meaningful contingent in the discussion that felt it was a valid contender for consideration.

Related to that, I think it also bears mention that not all subtopics are created equal. Sure, one could argue that Orion Nebula is a subtopic of the constellation, but the nebula is still a discrete, independently notable entity. By contrast, there are other subtopics that exist purely to provide more detail on one facet of a larger topic. As an example: New York City and History of the United States (1917–1945) are both subtopics of United States, but their relation to the United States as encyclopedia articles is clearly different. Merging the history article into the United States might introduce excess length and detail to the article, but merging New York City would add large amounts of material that's not even relevant to someone looking for the parent topic. I wanted to emphasize this because I feel like this is at the root of your confusion. Splitting out New York City from the United States is not splitting up an article purely to "force people to click several times to find everything" or to influence the pageviews of either article, and my read of the discussion was that people regarded Orion Nebula—as a subtopic—as closer to the New York City case than the History case.

To take these principles and apply them to the direct questions you asked:

• Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics? Because it wasn't a coincidence that the articles were separated. The people who wrote the articles believed that the nebula and the constellation were each independently notable topics, and this view received enough support in the RM discussion as to not need to be thrown out entirely.
• Why should interested mythology readers count once in the current Orion (mythology) version, but 4 times once these three articles are taken out of the main article? Frankly, I think they wouldn't all count even if the split occurred. Obviously this would depend to an extent on the behavior of the hypothetical editor in our hypothetical situation, but I think it's highly likely that topics like "Orion legends" and "Orion in culture" would be seen as subtopics that align with the History case and thus not as fully distinct topics in their own right. In fact, unless there were SIZESPLIT concerns on Orion (mythology), I imagine the articles would get merged back in. (One possible indicator of subtopics that fall into this category is when we have to use descriptive titles to name their articles.)

In short: I get the impression that your argumentation is hinged on the idea that "Orion Nebula" is not a topic that could be a subject of independent encyclopedic interest. However, I don't think that premise is true, nor do I think it was widely supported in the RM. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's try to sort this out. Thank you for the answers. I have to disappoint you, I do think Orion Nebula is deserving the excyclopedic interest and people did very well how they worked out the current Orion Nebula and Orion (constellation) articles. I do think lots of things gets mixed up, but at the same time, I think you told me what I was interested in.

Your first paragraph has some conclusions I cannot follow. The counter-hyothetical situation, let's recapitulate: 'The difference is, in my hypothetical, the person who read the four astronomy articles was only interested in Orion's belt and just read the other articles as a spinoff from that. Given that you and I only have access to the pageview data after the fact, we have no way of knowing whether the views for the four astronomy articles came from your hypothetical constellation-interested reader or my hypothetical belt-interested reader.' If the 4 articles are read, I said it does not matter where you start. Basically the same thing you said in that latter sentence. In any type of stats, Orion Nebula against the constellation or any other way (bundled, ...) we discussed a person reading all 4 articles in different order counts the same way. Not more, not less. This does not depend on what is primary topic and interest can flow in both directions, nevertheless it counts the same way.

The "force people to click several times to find everything" sentence I wrote was just about my made up splitting of Orion (mythology), which you fortunately confirmed to probably not last long if done. You gave a very nice example with the History of the United States (1917–1945). Let's follow this a bit. I know you only said Orion Nebula is closer to New York City, but it is quite a bit off. So New York City is a quite good analog to Betelgeuse, the star of most interest in the constellation. Orion's belt would be comparable to maybe the Midwestern USA, Orion's Sword maybe the West Coast, then the Orion Nebula could be California, its substructure the Orion Trapezium Cluster could be the Bay Area and the stars in it again Citys there. So the Orion Nebula is a substructure of a substructure. Now I wonder whether you think California (to make ir more equal maybe United States' California) should count against United States of America in a United States primary topic discussion. California might include material that does not fit too well in the United States article, but on the other hand gives excess length and detail and is one of the United States. Orion Nebula is then even different from California, because except maybe its own history of the Nebula, the vast majority of material can be directly included in the Orion (constellation) article. It would make the paragraph about Orion Nebula much better as it mainly better introduces star-formation. This would especially work if you include the material of Orion molecular cloud complex into Orion (constellation), too, as it shows that the Orion Nebula is just the brightest one, there are Nebulas and star-formation all across the constellation, which make it a very valid topic for the constellation. You might argue that not everybody is interest in star-formation, then I would argue not everybody is interested in the United States history in the world war era. I am not arguing this material should be included into Orion (constellation), I just argue Orion Nebula is much closer to the History of the United States (1917-1945) article, then towards New York City. (Would you really make a difference whether the Orion Nebula is called 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42'??)

Regarding the 'Why should the coincidence that it was separated decide on which side it is in a statistics?' question, you technically did not answer my question. Because I did not ask, why it was separated, I asked why this should decide on which side of a statistics it is!

But back to the analog you brought up. It seems important that different people understand independently important as a phrase differently. California is a very well deserved independently notable article in the sense, that people just come to see this one and it is of strong importance. Nevertheless it is not a contender for the primary topic of 'United States', nor is it independent from the United States per se. I like that you bring up the difference between New York City and History of the United States (1917-1945). It helps to know you see the difference. But the difficulty seems that neither of them should be put in a statistics against the United States. They are well deserved articles and of individual interest, but they are still a part of the United States. Let's use another example. If we are at the 100 metres at the Olympics and the contenders are Orion (constellation) and Orion (mythology) or e.g. Orion (spacecraft), then Orion Nebula and Orion's belt, as an analog of the legs of Orion (constellation) can be of individual special interest, maybe the strongest legs someone has ever seen. However, the stronger these legs, the faster Orion (constellation) can compete. And the legs cannot and will not win the race, as the parental topic or in the analog the sprinter competes for the Gold Medal, not parts of the person individually. Or imagine in a very hypothetical example Europe decides to create the United States of Europe and someone wants a move United States --> United States of America. Then the United States, now sticking to this analog you brought up, could not compete against itself. Please take a look into these pageviews! United States has less than 50% without Europe anywhere seen. Subregions or structures should not be part of these stats.

I got worried when you wrote 'The case for including Orion Pictures is also analogous to Orion Nebula here.' You might have meant it very differently, but in the analog you gave, Orion Nebula is something like California. Orion Pictures is a company that only has the logo inspired by the constellation (most likely). The best analog I could think of was Liberia, as it has a flag inspired by the USA. You might need to call it United States' founded Liberia to make it more analog, but it is very different from California, not even close. And Orion Pictures is often just called 'Orion', in contrast to the Orion Nebula.

You write 'there was a meaningful contingent in the discussion that felt it (Orion Nebula) was a valid contender for consideration' and 'my read of the discussion was that people regarded Orion Nebula—as a subtopic—as closer to the New York City case than the History case' which might put the opinion of others instead of yours forward, but I am struggling to find this meaningful contingent. I can only find Bkonrad/older and Srnec. Not even Joy seems to comment on Orion Nebula. Please tell me if I missed it, so in total 2. However, 21.Andromedae said this is not correct, then Jruderman and Skynxnex speak about a majority regarding PT1, in contrast to Bkonrad/older and Srnec or directly give the bundled numbers as reference, so use the opposite counting of Orion Nebula than you suggest, counting as a bundle. And there is me. I personally think people were not considering this (the role of Orion Nebula) much at all, or do not necessarily know a lot about it, and they don't have to, also you as closer do not necessarily need to, but after being pointed to it, it being important in the context, it should be considered. 21.Andromedae explicitly answered to Bkonrad with Orion Nebula in the first sentence, so from this point onward it should have been considered. Srnec does not give any reasoning regarding it ... so in total 2 people supported the idea of Orion Nebula being a valid contender and 4 people either rejected it or used numbers that were connected to the opposite idea. Where do you see the contingent?

In short: I get the impression that your argumentation is hinged on the idea that being individual notable and important, automatically means a topic is totally independent of any relations it has to other topics and/or that even anything related is automatically a contender for primary topic if it is worthy and well supported as individually notable article of interest. (Your example History of the United States (1917–1945) is very good, it is individually notable, especially if people want details on that time, but does not exist in an empty space, so is not independent of everything, on the contrary.) As you wrote: 'I don't think that premise is true', nor was it widely supported in the RM. Stevinger (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the latest response, here's a point I particularly want to emphasize: primary topic determinations are, above anything else, about evaluating topics that have the same name. You ask, "Would you really make a difference whether the Orion Nebula is called 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42'"; my answer is, absolutely. If everyone agreed that the article should be called "M42", it's highly unlikely that the article would be in consideration for the primary title "Orion", because it wouldn't be a topic primarily known as Orion. This is also why I described Orion Pictures as analogous to Orion Nebula earlier; I'm not thinking at all about what either topic is as a real-world entity, I'm looking at them as words and titles, and they're both noun phrases in the form of "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]".

The above is one of the limitations of my previous United States analogy, admittedly; California (or New York City, etc) wouldn't count against the United States in a primary topic discussion because no one uses the term "United States" to refer to California specifically. I'll also admit that I don't have the kind of subject matter knowledge to be able to really comment on what material in the nebula's article could or couldn't be merged into the constellation article. My underlying point with the analogy was mainly to communicate, the status quo suggests that the nebula is (a) a discrete object called Orion (plus a descriptor) and (b) seems to be an object of academic study and interest in its own right. You characterize my argument as based on the idea that a topic is inherently a contender for the primary topic if it's supported as individually notable; I'd add the caveat that this only applies to same-named topics (as I discuss in the previous paragraph), but otherwise I think that's a fair description of what I think, and I would go as far as to say I believe that's the approach that most titling-focused editors treat as the default.

To address your point about the "meaningful contingent" argument: I deliberately stopped short of using language like "majority", because this is a category that I don't define entirely by numbers. Being one of the largest few factions to advance any single argument in the discussion, and providing a base of evidence that they argued supported their point, was sufficient for me to include that the group's views deserved detailed evaluation. (Regarding Joy, I should also note that—while he didn't mention Orion Nebula in his prose—it was included in the massviews analysis upon which he built his argument.) As for the conclusions I drew from my evaluation, I think I've already discussed them, so I'll avoid repeating myself there. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 03:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the explanations. I asked about 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation', 'Orion Nebula' or 'M42', because from my point of view this does not make a difference. But now I learned a lot about your point of view. Regarding the meaningful contingent. I will not focus now on this one. I just wanted to write that I found it a bit funny that you mentioned the massviews analysis of Joy. Not that I do not take it serious, but I assume you didn't mean that as major argument, when also Optimus Prime is mentioned, and Orion Nebula is between Sirius Black and Ascension. (Sirius Black btw is mentioned because his father is Orion, in case you care, I was too curious to not check).

So everything you do (you write) is checking for the form of "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]". I see now why Orion Pictures and Orion Nebula were in your same category. Your explanations are all very reasonable, but I think the case of Orion Nebula is not accordingly, specifically regarding 'a topic primarily known as Orion' and 'only applies to same-named topics', which can mean slightly different things in different context. Yes, Orion Nebula includes 'Orion' in its name, but let my try to explain what I mean:

The easy version of the difference between Orion Pictures and Orion Nebula is, that if you show a logo of Orion Pictures and the constellation of Orion printed out and explicitly point at the Nebula and say Orion in both cases, people will know what you mean in the first case, but not exactly in the second one.

Let's use the 100m Olympics analogy again. You are the organizer deciding who is allowed to start in there. In my opinion, starters need to (a) have the requirements/abilities to start and (b) need to have interest to win. In case of Orion Pictures, this company is also known as 'Orion' so fits point (a), and if being primary topic, could nicely use it. In case of Orion Nebula, it is neither known as 'Orion', is a subregion of Orion, so rather the legs of a sprinter, not being able to run alone. Even if you don't care about the subregion fact, in addition if winning Orion Nebula would still need to stay as the 'Orion Nebula' page, so no interest to win. All it can do is hinder Orion (mythology) or Orion (constellation) or others to win.

I think I found what I was looking for. I will send you the previous paragraphs anyway. Let's try it slightly different:

What does an article title need (so also a primary topic article title): Precision according to this page (WP:PRECISION). The page states 'On the other hand, Columbia would not be precise enough to unambiguously identify the Columbia River.' This is a very good analogy for Orion Nebula. The head of this proper name is Nebula. I do see two categories of your "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]" that should lead to different results:

(1) Orion Pictures is a borderline case for me. You might count it either way. However, it is regularly called 'Orion'. The Orion Pictures page is a good example. Already in the second sentence the article switches to calling it 'Orion' and does that in several occasions (while Orion Nebula keeps this wording across the full article). Thus it is closer to the individual contender case for me. Orion Pictures is mononymously known as Orion as you described it discussing Orion Clemens previously.

(2) Now it is getting important. I understood now, that California and New York City are for you fortunately not contenders based on the name. However, still some names remain in the analogy. Please see these page views, they follow the noun phrases "Orion [word describing the kind of entity]". Some have one additional word like 'United States Navy', some several 'United States Declaration of Independence', but are at least all similar. Interestingly these are still enough to push 'United States' below the 50%, without any other contenders! Orion Nebula is in several ways comparable to them. (A) No one would call United States Navy 'United States', no one calls Orion Nebula 'Orion', both are sometimes called the Navy or the Nebula (not mononymously known or primarily known as 'Orion'), (B) Writing Navy (United States) or Nebula (Orion) would not qualify for primary topic United States or Orion, (C) Writing United States (Navy) or Orion (Nebula) makes the identification ambiguous, at least in the latter case, while both United States Navy and Orion Nebula as proper names make the identification unique. In the case of Navy you could e.g. mean the blue color used for the United States (law enforcement, ...), in the case of Orion Nebula you could mean lots of Nebulas in Orion (see e.g. some at the Orion molecular cloud complex page). The horsehead nebula is famous, people probably also like the Witch Head Nebula, (D) finally United States Navy can be seen as descriptive or not, like Navy of the United States, depends what you think. But Orion Nebula was created like that. Please see Fig. 5 by this 19th century author of the Encyclopedia Britannica and the text below, 'A remarkable example is the great nebula in Orion, discovered by Huygens in 1656'. So it used to be 'Great Nebula in Orion'. (you wrote 'highly likely that topics like "Orion legends" and "Orion in culture" would be seen as subtopics that align with the History case and thus not as fully distinct topics in their own right.' and 'One possible indicator of subtopics that fall into this category is when we have to use descriptive titles to name their articles.')

So 'Most prominent Nebula in the Orion constellation' in my first paragraph was a clumsy version of 'Great Nebula in Orion', this is why I did not see a difference to Orion Nebula or M42, that would change the outcome of the stats discussion.

I assume you would not count United States Senate or United States Navy in opposition to United States, despite your category of 'same-named topics' might apply in a way. And I hope you see why I think Orion Nebula is a direct analogy of this. Stevinger (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see where you're coming from with the United States Senate comparison—it's a reasonable argument and I do personally find it fairly compelling. That said, when closing a discussion, I have to go beyond my personal stances and take into account the opinions of all of the participants; and (I apologize if I come off as repeating myself on this point) there were multiple analyses that included "Orion Nebula" among the contenders for the primary title. While a closer does retain the right to discard plainly unsound arguments, it would be inappropriate to do so except in particularly clear-cut cases, and I don't think that regarding "Orion Nebula" as a contender for "Orion" alone is so egregious as to necessitate that step. The threshold isn't "do I think this is the best argument that could possibly be made," it's "do I think this is an argument that could be reasonably made at all."

(This is a possibly irrelevant tangent, but I also wanted to quickly mention that "Orion Nebula" remaining the preferred title for the nebula article wouldn't necessarily preclude it from being the primary topic for "Orion"—we could theoretically have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT situation. For example, Obama, Japan could potentially just be called "Obama", but instead that title redirects to Barack Obama, despite the fact that his article will almost certainly never be titled "Obama" alone. Again, probably minimal bearing on our main line of discussion, but I wanted to mention it for reference.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT: This is very interesting. I just saw it is the same thing with Einstein. However, there seem to be several levels of how much this fits. The highest for me is people like Madonna or maybe Shakira, known by a single name, that do not even need the redirect. The next one is as you write Obama or Einstein, for which people know the full name, still shorten it. However, in your example Obama is known as Barack or Obama. It would be more comparable to Orion Nebula, if you use his middle name Hussein, and the weird thing is that in the media Barack Obama was very likely more often called Hussein, than Orion Nebula was called Orion. Obama is usually not known as Hussein, Orion Nebula and United States Senate are not known as Orion or United States at all, this is rather using the wrong term. But thank you for the tangent. By the way, my favorite for Barack Obama is O'Bama, as he was called visiting Ireland, since he is also partly of Irish descent.)

I am happy you see my point with the United States Senate there. (Don't worry about repeating things, that happens, especially if fitting). You wrote: ' The threshold isn't "do I think this is the best argument that could possibly be made," it's "do I think this is an argument that could be reasonably made at all."' That is understandable, however, this time I would like to place the ball back in your court with a question:

You told me you would not be sure about whether the material of Orion Nebula can be copied into Orion (constellation), which is totally fine, so I would like to use the analogy of United States Senate and United States Navy for my question, with which you seem to feel more comfortable:

What is a situation/circumstance/case in which United States Senate and United States Navy are used in opposition of 'United States' as an argument that could be reasonably made at all ? You might have thought about a case, since you wrote the sentence like this. I thought about it and can't think of one. Even in the case Europe unites politically in every way as the 'United States of Europe' and challenges the United States title (having more inhabitants e.g.), using the two examples above at the beginning of the paragraph in opposition is not reasonable. I am asking, because if there is no 'argument that could be reasonably made at all' in this case, than in analogy "Orion Nebula" as a contender for "Orion" alone is so egregious as to necessitate the step to discard this argument. Stevinger (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree insofar as I can't see any reasonable argument for treating "United States Senate" as a contender for the primary title "United States"; I think the lasting gap in our opinions is just that I don't see that same principle as necessarily extending to the Orion Nebula. The distinction I see is that entities like nebulae tend to be given unique names that characterize them—for example, the Horsehead Nebula is named just for its appearance, not because it's part of any "Horsehead constellation" or anything. To my eye, this creates a sort of sense of identity around a nebula's name. By contrast, an entity like the United States Senate has a much more utilitarian name; the "United States" portion of the name exists purely to identify the body of which it's a sub-unit, rather than describing any of its traits. It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.

(I think one possible indicator toward which category a title falls in is to examine how naturally an entity could be referred to as just the underlying entity type without the descriptor. To explain what I mean: if someone having a conversation in the United States mentions "the Senate" or "the Navy" without further context, people will likely be able to intuit that the speaker is referring to the United States Senate or United States Navy specifically. The "United States" part of the name easily ceases to be a load-bearing identifying factor. But—while I'm not an astronomer myself and have to be somewhat speculating here—I'm skeptical that people talking about the Orion constellation would refer to the Orion Nebula (or any other nebula in the constellation) as simply "the Nebula." Which is to say, the name of the individual nebula remains core to its identification even in context.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a lasting gap in our view on the Orion Nebula, but fortunately we begin to use the same arguments for different sides of the coin, so I assume we converge somewhere. Also I am relieved you also do not see arguments for treating "United States Senate" as a contender for the primary title "United States".

I also agree with your analysis regarding the Horsehead Nebula. However, I disagree this means all Nebulae are named after some of there (spatial) traits, if you implied that. So you cannot conclude from a property of the Horsehead Nebula on all Nebulae. I am not an expert on Nebulae, but there are at least 3 types regarding the name finding:

1) Nebulae named after their spatial traits, like the Horsehead Nebula, or the Ring Nebula.

2) Nebulae named after people, sometimes the person that discovered it (or in the similar case of the Magellanic clouds named later after the expedition leader, while someone else discovered them. Now the Magellanic clouds are known as galaxies, so are not counted to the Nebulae anymore, but were originally only called "the Large Cloud" and "the Small Cloud"). A search engines says: 'Several nebulae are named after people who discovered or extensively studied them, including Barnard's Loop (named after E. E. Barnard), De Mairan's Nebula (Jean-Jacques d'Ortous de Mairan), Gum Nebula (Colin Stanley Gum), Hubble's Variable Nebula (Edwin Hubble), McNeil's Nebula (Jay McNeil), Minkowski 2-9 (Rudolph Minkowski), Pickering's Triangle (Edward Charles Pickering), and Shapley 1 (Harlow Shapley). Other examples include Fleming 1 (Williamina Fleming), Hind's Variable Nebula (John Russell Hind), Kleinmann–Low Nebula (Douglas Kleinmann and Frank J. Low), Pease 1 (Francis G. Pease), and Westbrook Nebula (William E. Westbrook).'

3) Few exceptional cases which are named after the constellations they are in. Search engine again: 'The Orion Nebula is the most famous nebula visible to the naked eye, appearing as a faint, misty patch below Orion's Belt in the winter sky. For Southern Hemisphere observers, the Carina Nebula is also visible.' The also called Great Carina Nebula mentioned here is another example of a Nebula named after its constellation Carina.

So while 1) is named describing any of its traits, 2) and 3) are not named after traits, and only the few in number 3) are fully analogous to your description about "United States Senate": 'It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.'

(as written before, the Orion Nebula is often given as 'Great Nebula in Orion' in older sources, see e.g. Fig. 5 here. It originated from a descriptive name (Great Nebula in Orion) and the Great was dropped at some point, which seems very utilitarian to me.)

I think you are right on what you write about the "the Senate" or "the Navy" and to intuit that the speaker is referring to the United States Senate or United States Navy specifically. This can be wrong, I checked and currently in the news also the Senate of California or Texas could be meant, depending where the persons are, but you are right. So about 'just the underlying entity type without the descriptor' and whether the descriptor is 'a load-bearing identifying factor': The search engine again says: 'Yes, the Orion Nebula is often referred to simply as "the nebula" by astronomers and the public, especially in the context of the constellation Orion, because it is one of the most prominent and well-known nebulae in the night sky.' and 'Historical Significance: It's been observed for thousands of years and was one of the first nebulae to be studied in detail, contributing to our understanding of star formation.' So your speculation is unfortunately wrong, which might be hopefully totally alright for you. You might ask how this can be and why this one and not others and how it can be observed for thousands of years. Only a very few (less than 10?, I am not sure) of Nebulae can be seen by the unaided eye! The search engine again: 'No, the Orion Nebula (M42) is the only nebula visible to the naked eye in the constellation Orion.' and 'Why only the Orion Nebula? Brightness and Proximity: M42 is the closest and one of the brightest nebulae to Earth, making it visible even with the naked eye. Other Nebulae in the Area: While M42 is a "star factory," other nebulae in the region, such as the Horsehead Nebula and the Running Man Nebula (NGC 1977), are much fainter and require binoculars or a telescope to be seen.' So the Orion Nebula is again an exception, it is "the Nebula" of Orion, or at least was it until the telescope began to be in use. So the "Orion" in its name does not remain core to its identification even in context.

To sum up I am very happy if anybody can and wants to participate in debates, coming from all walks of life. And I am also fine when people write assumptions into their arguments, like the one where Orion Nebula should be situated. Sometimes they fit, sometimes not. But I joined the debate after 21.Andromedae wrote 'Orion Nebula itself is not known just as "Orion", so it does not count.'. True, it could have been a defiant reaction to a good argument, but this was not the case here. And I joined after someone wrote boldly as answer: 'Oppose per Older's evidence and the weakness of the response. ...', seemingly not understanding it or meaning something else. So, everybody should be able to participate, also with assumptions or speculations. But if things are wrong, the wrong assumption, should in my point of view also not be of disadvantage for any primary topic contender. In several occasions you wrote it is fair to put the page views of Orion Nebula in opposition to Orion (constellation). On the contrary, I have to say, that I think the constellation did not get a fair shot in the debate to prove its tentative primary topic title. Indeed Joy was right, that there are others, the long list provided that would need to be evaluated for PT1, but the vast majority of them has about 1% of page views of Orion Nebula and 1 or 2 might have 10%, so it will be hard to press Orion (constellation) below the 50% even including the valid ones, maybe the ones using Orion as nickname, as more or less Orion Pictures is doing it, maybe the Orion nicknamed engine (?) and others ... so from my point of view the constellation has reached the majority in PT1. PT2 was barely properly discussed, I agree with that, but again, the fact that Orion (constellation) is a top-importance constellation on the wiki scale, while Orion (mythology) is mid-importance was barely picked up, I don't think at all. I like greek mythology, too, but when people speak about a very strong (part) deity they are usually referring to Heracles, or rather his more well known Roman name Hercules. I don't remember anyone I know that has compared someone to the strength of Orion in my presence, not even on TV, admittedly I did not read the Odyssey, yet.

So I would appreciate a lot, if you would either move the page (probably not) or if you could change your result to 'no consensus' and adapt the sentence on PT1. Thank you again for your time.

Of course, I am happy to further discuss if you do not see the same result. I am very tired today, hoping my sentences are reasonable, but I did not want to let you wait longer. Stevinger (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the categories of name: I think the (2) case is much closer to the (1) case than the (3), in that nebulae named after a person are still being given a name that's designed to be unique and arbitrary (i.e., as opposed to flowing directly from a hierarchical naming scheme). The (3) case is more of a gray area, and I can certainly see the argument for considering it as analogous to the "United States Senate" case, but personally I would argue that the comparison still doesn't quite hold due to the lack of a one-to-one correspondence. The United States only has one senate (and only one navy, etc.), which I think is another part of why "the Senate" and "the Navy" can be assumed (in the context of a US-based conversation) to refer back to their equivalents. By contrast, Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula." The fact that this nebula in particular was named as the Orion Nebula is probably at least in part just from its historical circumstances (I'm guessing it was the first nebula in the Orion constellation to be discovered), but the fact that it's continued to be known as the Orion Nebula seems to suggest that it's a nebula with an especially prominent or emblematic connection to the constellation as a whole. (As a side note, I'd like to apologize if any of this is coming off like I'm moving the goalposts. A lot of this discussion has involved me trying to translate my intuitive gut understanding of the topics into words, and as the discussion travels down its various paths, I've been gradually becoming more able to identify and articulate the various features of my mental model. If I seem to be jumping to different argumentative tacks, it's just because the discussion has led me to discover a new salient analytical feature that I'd previously only understood at a subconscious level.)

As a quick tangent, could you clarify where you found the search result you quoted regarding whether the Orion Nebula is referred to as "the nebula"? I tried to look it up myself but wasn't able to track down the source. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the categories of name, it depends a lot what you are looking for. The (2) case is closer to (3) regarding it is not named after (spatial) traits of the nebula (which you emphasized to be of importance), but the (2) case is at the same time closer to (1) regarding the names are not from a hierarchical naming scheme as you write. I would argue in all of them the names are unique in a sense that there is no second nebula of the same name.

You will likely never reach a one-to-one correspondence as it is an analogy, but I am sure you are aware of it. "The Navy" case is more difficult so I will stick first to the "the Senate" case: To my best knowledge what you write is not true. If asking a search engine 'does every state have a senate' it tells me 'No, not every state has a senate, as Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature. All other 49 states have bicameral (two-chamber) legislatures that include a smaller upper house, known as the Senate, and a larger lower house, typically called the House of Representatives.' So there are at least 50 senates within the United States. In case you are not in Nebraska at the time, you could always mean the State Senate when saying "the Senate"! E.g. the "California State Senate" or the "Texas State Senate" (both currently changing their maps regarding seats, so not that farfetched), ... So the situation regarding "the Senate" or "the Nebula" is again very similar. Both "United States Senate" and "Orion Nebula" are the prominent ones likely meant, while there are dozens of Senates or Nebulae there. (Similar to the difference between the senate, the nebula and a senate, a nebula within their context).

I should have given you the questions, my bad. Please see if you can find what you are looking for: 'is orion nebula referred to as the nebula', 'naked eye nebula', 'nebulae named after people' (all google). Stevinger (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many senates within the United States, but there's only one senate of the United States, with authority pertaining to the whole country—which is what I was trying to get at re: the "one-to-one correspondence" and "hierarchical naming system vs. arbitrary name" points. The United States Senate is named as such because it is the senate whose domain is the United States, just as the Senate of Canada is the senate whose domain is Canada, etc. The name is standardized, such that you can work backwards from the name to understand the name and responsibilities of the entity it describes. Conversely, that can't be assumed precisely for any nebula. The name "Horsehead Nebula" only tells us how the nebula looks, "McNeil's Nebula" only tells us who discovered it, and so on; the naming system is arbitrary rather than systematic, with the result that the name of any given nebula can be read as a unique identifier in a way that doesn't apply to a body like a senate.

Regarding the search results, it would be more helpful to provide the underlying sources that you retrieved rather than just sharing the queries, since search engines often tailor their results based on the geolocation and browsing history of the user searching. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First I have to apologize if any of this is coming off like I'm trying to mock you or the previous comments, this is not how the following is meant. But I am unsure how to show you that I think you are mixing up things, so I will try to show you where the difficulties are by trying to show you the opposite side, by exchanging your sentences to the other side. This may intentionally include errors, but I hope you see where they are and what that means:

-------------

(Yours: 'The United States only has one senate (and only one navy, etc.), which I think is another part of why "the Senate" and "the Navy" can be assumed (in the context of a US-based conversation) to refer back to their equivalents. By contrast, Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula."') Orion only has one nebula, which I think is another part of why "the Nebula" can be assumed (in the context of Orion oriented conversations) to refer back to its equivalent. By contrast, the United States have many senates, only one of which is referred to as "the United States Senate".

There are many nubulae within Orion, but there's only one nebula of Orion. The Orion Nebula is named as such because it is the nebula whose constellation is Orion, just as the Carina Nebula is the nebula whose constellation is Carina, etc. The name is standardized, such that you can work backwards from the name to understand the name and responsibilities of the entity it describes. Conversely, that can't be assumed precisely for any senate. The name "Florida Senate" only tells us it is the senate of a flowery region, maybe connected to Easter, "Maryland Senate" only tells us it is named after a Mary (After Queen Henrietta Maria, wife of King Charles I of England), and so on; the naming system is arbitrary rather than systematic, with the result that the name of any given senate can be read as a unique identifier in a way that doesn't apply to a space body like a nebula.

--------------

So, the problem is that Senates aren't systematically named either. There are senates, State senates, senates of territories, unicameral legislatures, bicameral senates, a council that has similar duties, so you cannot easily work backwards or know exactly what the responsibilities are. Then there is the naming problem. You are just very well aware which region is a state in the USA and what area is meant. You can be equally aware what region in Orion is named in which way and then the names are not arbitrary, but are natural. Regarding the naming:

A) There are senates that are named after local traits. E.g. mountains (Montana), snow (Nevada), rivers (Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, ...), ...

B) There are senates that are named after people. E.g. Georgia (King George II), Louisiana (King Louis XIV), North Carolina (King Charles I and II), ...

C) There are senates that are named after local traits and people. Pennsylvania ('Penn's woods', after Admiral William Penn)

D) There are senates named after the United States of America (other countries): The United States Senate (e.g. Senate of Canada)

(List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States, List of United States state legislatures)

And the funny thing is, it seems not to matter. Because we were discussing whether the United States Senate can be counted in opposition of the United States as analogy of the Orion Nebula counted in opposition of Orion (constellation). You cannot conclude from other nebulae or other senates, how these two should be counted.

Regarding the search results. I checked out several pages the queries gave me. I could not find contrary material. If you tell me, what you are looking for I might be able to find it again. In the meantime I suggest e.g. the Wikipedia page of Orion Nebula that has 41 times "the nebula" and gives 'Older texts frequently refer to the Orion Nebula as the Great Nebula in Orion'. Also interesting is the result of asking a search engine the question " 'The Nebula' in Orion", which has the answer: ' "The Nebula" in Orion refers to the Orion Nebula (M42), one of the brightest and most studied deep-sky objects, visible as a fuzzy patch in Orion's "sword" below Orion's Belt. It is a stellar nursery located about 1,344 light-years away, where new stars are forming within a complex of gas and dust, illuminated by hot stars at its core known as the Trapezium Cluster. You can spot it with the naked eye under a dark sky, but binoculars or a telescope reveal more detail.'

So Orion Nebula is meeting your three criteria: 1) It's "a nebula belonging to Orion" rather than "a nebula called Orion", 2) It is referred to simply as "the Nebula", and 3) Orion has many nebulae, only one of which is referred to as "the Orion Nebula", as is the case for the senates in the United States. I hope these are the three strikes (please excuse the sports metaphor) that are needed to count Orion Nebula out (of the opposition to Orion (constellation)). Stevinger (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point by having your counterexample dig so heavily into the etymology of geographic names. Yes, all that "Maryland" literally means is that it's a land named after someone called Mary, but we both know—and almost anyone speaking about the Maryland Senate is going to know—that Maryland is the name of a US state, and the reason the Maryland Senate is called the Maryland Senate is because it's the senate whose area of authority is Maryland. This isn't the case for nebulae! The Orion Nebula is not any more a nebula of Orion than, say, the Horsehead Nebula is; it may be larger and more visible but, as you say yourself, it's just one of many nebulae that are equally part of the same constellation. Nor can you consistently work backwards, because the Horsehead Nebula isn't in a "Horsehead constellation". This lack of consistency in the naming structure is exactly the issue I've been highlighting.

As for being known as "the Nebula"—it's significant that I've been capitalizing the term in this usage, because I think it's crucial to distinguish "the Nebula" as a proper name from "the nebula" as a descriptor being used for elegant variation. (To illustrate this distinction by example, the article on the Beatles refers to them as "the band" 82 times, but that doesn't mean that "the band" is a term that refers specifically to the Beatles.) To make a case that the Orion Nebula is known as "the Nebula" as a proper name, I'd want to see not just a lack of explicit rebuttals but reliable sources (not Google overviews) employing that usage affirmatively.

In any case: this discussion could probably keep going indefinitely, but I still believe that—whether one agrees with it or not—it's at least within the range of reasonable interpretations that the Orion Nebula could be included among the topics that are in contention for the "Orion" primary topic. I haven't moved any closer to believing that argument would need to be thrown away wholesale. Accordingly, if what you're looking for is to have my read of the discussion's consensus reanalyzed, I think it would be more productive at this stage to take the question to WP:Move review than to continue debating here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took here and there few minutes to understand why I misunderstood you, and you misunderstood me. It took me quite a few moments to understand, hope you take the few minutes to read it. Indeed I focussed a lot on etymology, because I assumed you meant that, since all other aspects seemed clear, but contrary this was not the case. I spent the time, because I am not just convinced, but sure, that the Orion Nebula as entity is properly defined and there is no wiggle room to find different reasonable interpretations about what it is. I will try to keep it short and productive, but a lot of things were misunderstood.

Let's start with "the Nebula". I am well aware what a elegant variation is and my mistake was to mention the 41 times "the nebula" at all. They were meant as contrast to 'the Great Nebula in Orion', given this way in the Orion Nebula article. This 'the Great Nebula in Orion' means 'Orion Nebula' is called both 'the Great Nebula' and 'the Great Nebula in Orion' among interested persons. But you wanted proper sources, which is difficult. As for United States Senate people do not document that they call it 'The Senate', only for United States Navy at least the song 'in the Navy' exists. For Orion Nebula the first source is NASA, a funny coincidence, some are scientists from Maryland (The Great Nebula in Orion or Orion Nebula). A second source is a video from the Hubble Site. At about 1:24 min Massimo Robberto uses "the Nebula" first time mentioning it. Since you might see this differently, please also see about 4:46 min. The narrator says referring to the Orion Nebula as scientific target as "in the star factory of Orion's Nebula". This is more clear, it is the Nebula of Orion. He did not say 'in this Nebula of Orion' or in 'Orion's Orion Nebula'. These videos are scripted and read afterwards and of quality, so checked. As you see Great Nebula (in Orion), Orion Nebula, the Nebula, and Orion's Nebula are used interchangeably --- but in the end it does not matter in my point of view. Why: Because of your example History of the United States (1917–1945). This part of the History is clearly not a contender, still it is neither known as 'the History', nor as 'the United States', nor as 'the (1917-1945)'. So your criterion, that is met by the Orion Nebula is in my point of view demanding too much.

Regarding the inconsistency of Orion Nebula vs. US Senate. Indeed I missed your point. You are right, that the Orion Nebula is not any more a nebula of Orion than, say, the Horsehead Nebula is, but you are wrong about the inconsistent structure. Let me try to explain. The Orion Nebula is a part of a star-forming region, but it does not span the full Orion constellation region, so not like the United States Senate 'whose domain is the United States'. The corresponding feature of the Orion constellation is the Orion Molecular cloud complex or Orion complex. While the United States Senate is making laws for the domain United States, the Orion complex is forming stars for the domain Orion constellation. Like the United States has State Senates, the Orion constellation has star-forming regions or Nebulae for sub-regions. The sub-regions (I might get it a bit wrong) for the Orion complex towards the Orion Nebula are: Orion complex -- Orion A molecular cloud -- Orion Nebula -- Orion Nebula Cluster -- Huygens region -- Trapezium or Orion Trapezium Cluster (from larger to smaller). Non of these is primarily called 'Orion', you see it nicely at Trapezium also being called Orion Trapezium Cluster, it just tells you the context that it belongs to Orion, only the Orion molecular cloud complex is on the level of United States Senate, being responsible for star formation all across the constellation. The Orion Nebula is just a star-forming sub-region spanning the Orion Nebula, the Horsehead Nebula is a much smaller star-forming region spanning the Horsehead Nebula. You can try to ask a search engine for the coordinates of the Horsehead Nebula as a region, even my request to tell me the 'coordinates of the Horsehead' was enough to get the astronomical coordinates (as people are regularly interested in them). So there is roughly a direct analogy of the following:

A) War of 1812 -- History of the United States (1917–1945) -- History of the United States -- United States (documenting history of a country)

B) Horsehead Nebula -- Orion Nebula -- Orion molecular cloud complex -- Orion (constellation) (star formation in a constellation)

C) Chicago City Council -- California State Senate -- United States Senate -- United States (making laws for a country)

So star formation is the feature of the constellation and the sub-regions are pretty structured, maybe not regarding etymology, why I assumed origininally you meant that. So 'the Orion Nebula' implies people know it is about star formation in a sub-region of Orion. You might argue this is unique because the name Orion Nebula was kept and the star formation is not part of the name, but in this case I would like to refer you to e.g. United States Navy in World War II as article, especially the name. It implies we are talking about the history of the United States Navy, while not part of the name (people know that, like astronomy interested people know about the star formation aspect) and includes the United States Navy, it is further not 'the United States', nor 'the United States Navy', nor 'the World War II' and should in my and hopefully in your opinion not be a contender for any of these primary topics as it is part of its history. -- So yes there is structure, and yes, I do think you shifted in this case and the explanations in the previous paragraph the goalposts too far, which is totally fine, no need to apologize, however, it should only be further applied if correct, which it seems not to be, at least here. By the way, you were fully right about the fact, that Orion Nebula is not on a comparable level as the United States Senate with its full country domain, in this case the analogy does not work.

So, what remains of your criteria is the original one about the United States Senate: 'It's "a senate belonging to the United States" rather than "a senate called the United States," and I think that's a vital distinction in gauging whether a topic could be validly referred to by its descriptor.' I was wondering why you emphasized the 'called United States', but then I realized there are articles like the USS United States. These ships (not unique) belonged to the United States at one point and were called 'the United States'. For the Orion Nebula this is not true. It also belongs to the Orion constellation, but is not called Orion at all. If you have any contrary evidence, anything that supports a reasonable different interpretation of this star forming region within Orion, belonging to it, please bring it forward. Stevinger (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it seems reasonable that Orion has more commonly 'Orion' in front of sub-regions, since such regions are named top-down as brighter regions are found first, while e.g. cities are named when still small, so bottom-up. Stevinger (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ModernDayTrilobite I would appreciate if you could tell me, whether you will take the 5 minutes to read the provided information. Of course you can do whatever you want. I am asking because the ' I'd want to see' part and the final paragraph made it unclear for me whether you would want to take a look at it or not and the guidelines told me to clarify it with you. Stevinger (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned in my previous comment in the thread, I think this conversation has passed the point where us directly discussing it with each other is likely to lead to useful results. We've both spent hours of our time reading and responding to each other's points, have collectively written over 118 kilobytes of text in this thread, and I don't believe we're any closer to convincing each other than we were two months ago when this conversation began. If you remain interested in contesting this closure, I stand by my recommendation to file a formal move review. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]