This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Requested move 5 January 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
– No clear primary topic, the surname has 346 views but the County Roscommon one has 1,734, the Alberta one has 183, the Mississippi one has 85, the Kansas one has 13 and the crater has 8[
[1]]. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Support – if there is a primary topic (PT) then it's either
Boyle, County Roscommon or
Robert Boyle. I regularly fix links to
Boyle intended for the former. That's not enough to make it a PT, but it's more than enough to prevent anything else such as the surname being a PT for the term.
Certes (
talk)
23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
BTW the fact that you have to do those fixes is an indicator of editor behavior, not reader behavior. It's similar to the Bay, Somalia story - the people writing about a topic are thinking about it in a "in universe" manner and don't think much about general ambiguity. Also, imagine if it was a place in the US - there the conventional way of referencing toponyms would be e.g. "Boyle, State name" or "Boyle, XY" (state code); but nobody defaults to
Boyle, Ireland or Boyle, IE (country code) in case of this kind of a location. The fact that a relatively tiny group of Wikipedia editors aren't diligent enough to ponder all aspects of every link they create can't be determinative for organizing navigation of a relatively overwhelmingly larger group of readers. --
Joy (
talk)
13:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
But is the surname the primary topic? Yes if we take into account the usage of the surname in the context of people looking for the people with the name and its connection it may sway that way but when views show the town gets more views I don't think we can delare the surname as being primary, the best option is to have the DAB at the base name so that readers can choose the town or surname or one of the other uses. People are unlikely to expect to be taken straight to an individual by typing the surname alone so offering them the surname on the DAB seems the best choice. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The issue is that if you move the current list out of the way, the disambiguation guidelines as they are now don't support adding people to the main list, which means some of these like Robert would no longer be 1 click away but 2. --
Joy (
talk)
08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The disambiguation guidelines at
WP:NAMELIST seems correct. People aren't likely to expect to get to Robert by typing just "Boyle" into the search box, unless people like Abraham Lincoln are commonly known by their surname alone they should only be included on the surname article which is what readers and editors would expect. People searching for "Boyle" would be 1 click away from the town in Ireland and the surname article, yes people looking for Robert would need 2 clicks but as I noted people wouldn't expect to get straight to Robert unless they type his full name. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, yes, yes they are, because people are habitually referred to by their names ambiguously. Also, if this wasn't the case, there would also have been no reason for
Boyle's law to be listed at the other disambiguation. --
Joy (
talk)
16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
People are sometimes like
Raleigh but most aren't which is why it redirects to the NC city. Perhaps per
WP:NAMELIST we should put Robert on the DAB page as well as the surname? That way Robert would also be 1 click away. Would you be prepared to change to support (or at least not oppose) if this is done? Crouch, Swale (
talk)
17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No, because, like I said already in no uncertain terms, the entire traffic for the rest is already overshadowed by the traffic for the people, and making some sort of a rotten compromise would not actually be beneficial for our readers. --
Joy (
talk)
14:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Just in case it needs to be said explicitly, there is plenty of indication that the combined notability of the people is larger than the combined notability of all the remaining entries, but the alphabetically-sorted lists aren't being very helpful about demonstrating that quickly. You actually have to do the work to figure it out, which is a problem in itself. --
Joy (
talk)
09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Boyle tells us that in the month of October '23, there were 654 incoming views of Boyle, and we could identify 25 outgoing clicks to Robert Boyle, 25 to the proposed swap target, 15 to Robert Boyle (disambiguation), 14 to Danny, 11 to Charles. Because the anonymization threshold is 10, we don't know about the rest. 25 compared to 654 is <4%; if we proceed with this move, what reason do we have to believe that this will not deteriorate the state of navigation for the remaining >96% of readers?
The move would also lead to a removal of direct links to Robert, Danny, Charles and whatever other targets that we already know attract larger or comparable interest from readers compared to the entire non-anthroponymy group, because the disambiguation guideline doesn't allow for that at this time. This would definitely impede navigation in this thankfully measurable way. (Oppose)
Likewise, if we look at the page view statistics for all items as opposed to just the hatnote'd group, and we look at all-time statistics and not just the latest 20 days, we get
this list and
this list and
this list. In the former list we can see:
Susan Boyle 2,856 / day
Lara Flynn Boyle 2,548 / day
Danny Boyle 2,108 / day
Peter Boyle 2,018 / day
Frankie Boyle 826 / day
Robert Boyle 610 / day
Zoe Boyle 316 / day
...and so forth. In the latter two lists we can see:
Boyle's law 1,423 / day
Boyle Heights, Los Angeles 209 / day
Boyle, County Roscommon 84 / day
Boyle River (Ireland) 3 / day
Boyle River (New Zealand) 3 / day
The article on Boyle's law does not refer mononymously to the law, as just "Boyle", though it does refer mononymously to its eponym, Robert Boyle. The article on Boyle Heights doesn't seem to refer to the place mononymously as Boyle, though it does refer mononymously to its eponym, Andrew Boyle. There are vague mononymous references in the names of North Boyle Avenue and South Boyle Avenue, though those could also be references to Andrew Boyle, too.
So, we're left with the idea that we're not navigating well enough to a town in Ireland with a population of 3k, which is plausible, but with the ratios of 30 : 1 and similar just between individual items, let alone the overall statistics, it's actually borderline ridiculous. What we're actually not navigating well enough are probably some of these biographies, and there's a possibility that the reader is already not given a good enough impression of what "Boyle" typically means even now.
This is yet another in a long line of cases where we would allow this
WP:NAMELIST-inspired apparent nonsense to make navigation worse. I feel like these discussions are becoming repetitive, and we really need to fix the guidelines to try to curb further waste of volunteer time. --
Joy (
talk)
09:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The reason I rail about the name list guideline is because our boundaries between anthroponymy articles and various anthroponymy navigation aids are rather blurry, cf. recent discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. In this case it's pretty obvious that Boyle is an Irish name, so that concept as a primary topic would be pretty obvious, as that's the obvious pattern for the people, the town, the river, etc. But the way we organize articles right now means that we have to split things up by type, which then creates this artificial dilemma about what to put where. This is indicative of a suboptimally designed system. --
Joy (
talk)
14:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
BTW, from the clickstream archive, sorted list of most common identified outgoing clickstreams:
August '23: Boyle_(disambiguation) link 34, Robert_Boyle link 27, T._C._Boyle link 14, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 12, Danny_Boyle link 11
September '23: Boyle_(disambiguation) link 22, Robert_Boyle link 19, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 13, Charles_Boyle link 12, Boyle,_County_Roscommon link 11, Clan_Boyle link 10
November '23: Robert_Boyle link 19, Boyle_(disambiguation) link 15, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 12, Clan_Boyle link 12, Charles_Boyle link 12, Boyle's_law other 12, Danny_Boyle link 11, Boyle,_County_Roscommon link 11, O'Boyle link 10
December '23: Boyle Boyle_(disambiguation) link 30, Robert_Boyle link 14, Charles_Boyle link 12
While we don't see the entries <10 because of the anonymization threshold, the pattern is still pretty consistent - there's very little reason to believe that we ought to do much more to help readers navigate to the place over the people. Moving the town link from See also to the hatnote might help its numbers move up a tad. --
Joy (
talk)
14:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BD2412 So... we're supposed to be prejudiced against some surnames because they don't look like a very typically constructed surname? :) --
Joy (
talk)
09:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, if it wasn't clear already, I don't think we should be inferring or extrapolating anything when we can simply analyze the information pertinent to this specific term. --
Joy (
talk)
16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
post-move
After the recent move, we have two thirds of the month of February with new stats. The clickstreams for that month are now generated (also rendered at
https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Boyle), and we can see 416 incoming views, with the following identifiable outgoing clickstreams:
clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:Boyle Boyle_(surname) link 65 (~15.6%)
clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:Boyle Boyle's_law link 29 (~7%)
clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:Boyle Boyle,_County_Roscommon link 15 (~3.6%)
clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:Boyle Robert_Boyle other 12
clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:Boyle Clan_Boyle link 11
So, we see a spike in traffic to Boyle's law (last time it was seen in clickstreams was November - 12 "other"), which is probably good. The couple more clickstreams to the Irish town aren't so pronounced (likewise last time in November it was 11 also via "link"). Everything else is still about people, and we clearly introduced an extra click, and having to type in Robert's name in the search box ("other"). Let's see what happens next month. So far it does sound like a fair bit of a regression. --
Joy (
talk)
13:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
These results raise a wider question. If no person is a primary topic, the surname itself is of little interest but the total views for people listed on the surname page outnumber the total for other topics, does that entitle the surname to the base name? My instinct is "no", but we might want to discuss the matter in a more general forum.
Certes (
talk)
14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The problem is the one we discussed in that RFC that died out - we compartmentalize navigation too much, which leads to these kinds of questions. Don't get me wrong, the question is completely logical in our current little cinematic universe :) but we shouldn't be forced to think of navigation like this. --
Joy (
talk)
15:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There was one more view to the Irish town, yet it was both close to the anonymization threshold, and behind the seemingly random traffic towards to a famous
Doyle, which is another Irish name. --
Joy (
talk)
14:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It will be interesting to see the clickstream data for
Boyle (surname) when available. I suspect that most readers who reached that page, either via dab
Boyle or otherwise, were looking for a particular person called Boyle rather than the surname itself. The January data for Boyle in
WikiNav's Comparison Over Time → Outgoing Pageviews suggests that
Robert Boyle may be popular enough to be worth listing more prominently with a direct link in
Boyle.
Certes (
talk)
20:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Certes the threshold of doing another click and recursion into another list appears to be substantial for a whole lot of readers.
Since the January RM, we've lost most of that direct traffic to Robert, T.C., Charles, Danny, ... and even those previous numbers weren't necesarily great because that list is also sorted alphabetically and requires more reader effort to parse to get to the popular stuff.
In the meantime, we've had more examples of this phenomenon, most recently the one described at
Talk:Luka, where we see readers navigating to a biography 5 times more after it was linked directly from the first list. --
Joy (
talk)
10:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In April, with 333 incoming views, clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv showed:
Boyle Boyle_(surname) other 132 (~40% / ~70%)
Boyle Boyle's_law other 34
Boyle Arthur_Conan_Doyle other 13
Boyle Boyle,_County_Roscommon other 11
total: 190 to 4 identified destinations
In May, with 299 incoming views, clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv showed:
Yes, Robert Boyle is now very buried and may deserve a more prominent link. Readers may have heard of Boyle's law or similar and be unsure of the given name. The name list eventually guides them to the right person, but the journey could be smoother.
Certes (
talk)
11:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply