Talk:Bon Appétit (disambiguation)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Favonian in topic Requested move
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Bon Appétit (disambiguation) → Bon Appétit –. It should be the primary dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this be a multiple page move request? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It should. I've added a notice at Talk:Bon Appétit. - Station1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The magazine got more than 5 times the pageviews of all other uses combined last month. Station1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mightn't that be because it's at the base name? Powers T 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not with 5 times the views. Even if every single view of every other article went mistakenly to the magazine first, that would only mean that instead of a 5:1 ratio in favor of the magazine, there would be a 4:1 ratio. Station1 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily... the pageviews don't take into account that some (possibly a majority) of searchers are not looking for any of our articles but for a definition, or information about the phrase. Powers T 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- But WP is not a dictionary, so they won't find a definition here. There is a hatnote to Wiktionary, where there is information about the phrase, but because that's a different wiki, there's no conflict between article titles. Station1 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's not my point. The point is that because this article is at the base name, it receives pageviews for people who aren't even looking for the magazine. We can guesstimate how many were looking for other things for which we have articles, but we don't know how many additional people were looking for something that we don't have. Powers T 23:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I do see what you're saying now. That's a reasonable point. Unfortunately we can't get pageviews of the Wiktionary page. I don't think it's too likely that very large numbers of readers are looking for a definition of the phrase (they'd more likely go to Wiktionary in the first place; or click on the dab page - which gets relatively few views - once they get to the magazine by mistake), but you're right that it's unproveable. If we made the plain name the dab page, it's true that we could measure the pageviews of the WP articles over time more easily, but the proportion is so large that, along with Google evidence, I'm fairly comfortable that the magazine is the primary topic among WP articles, even if we discount the ratio for those searching in the wrong place. Station1 (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's not my point. The point is that because this article is at the base name, it receives pageviews for people who aren't even looking for the magazine. We can guesstimate how many were looking for other things for which we have articles, but we don't know how many additional people were looking for something that we don't have. Powers T 23:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- But WP is not a dictionary, so they won't find a definition here. There is a hatnote to Wiktionary, where there is information about the phrase, but because that's a different wiki, there's no conflict between article titles. Station1 (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not necessarily... the pageviews don't take into account that some (possibly a majority) of searchers are not looking for any of our articles but for a definition, or information about the phrase. Powers T 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not with 5 times the views. Even if every single view of every other article went mistakenly to the magazine first, that would only mean that instead of a 5:1 ratio in favor of the magazine, there would be a 4:1 ratio. Station1 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mightn't that be because it's at the base name? Powers T 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.