Talk:Angles

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

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angles which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

followup to move discussion[edit]

So I checked https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Angles after a few months:

In October '23, there were 2.9k views of Angles, which led to 1.5k identified outgoing views, of which 1.35k to the tribe (~46.5%), 125 to maths concept (~4.5%) and two other smaller destinations. --Joy (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the page views ([1]) and the clickstream archive:

November '23: incoming 2481

Angles_(tribe) link 1082 (~43.6%)
Angle link 136 (~5.5%)
Angles_(The_Strokes_album) link 19
Angles,_Alpes-de-Haute-Provence link 12
Angel other 12

December '23: incoming 2090

Angles_(tribe) link 914 (~43.7%)
Angle link 70 (~3.3%)
Angles_(The_Strokes_album) link 15
Angel other 15
Saxons other 11

--Joy (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: It seems fairly clear that this page move was a bad idea, and Angles really does refer predominantly to the tribe when people are searching in Wikipedia. We should probably just put things back to how they were. — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru I'm not sure that's correct, at least not yet. I'm doing the same kind of tracking of statistics in a number of other articles that we changed and I can't say with any certainty that this ~45% range is conclusive. --Joy (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: well it's not really 43% though is it... a decent chunk of readers hit this page and then don't navigate anywhere else. That means that none of the links were of any interest to them, and we don't need to consider those views from the primary topic perspective. (The dab page can't be considered a valid endpoint in its own right, it exists purely for navigation). So of people who actually followed links (1261), 1082 were for the tribe, which is around 86%. That seems primary to me. — Amakuru (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not necessarily true. There are readers who will just browse; those who will click the wiktionary links or a foreign language link, which are not recorded in the clickstreams, sadly; also people who just won't find what they were looking for. Each list is different of course, but I keep seeing a lot of variety in the interpretation of how our navigation actually works, so I'd prefer to gather a bit more data. --Joy (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that in the seven full months of statistics, our software thinks we got 27,017 views of the Angles list by real users. If we assume that only one in a thousand people will actually try to complain about something that's bugging them, and if discontent was a reasonably common sentiment among these readers, that still should have led to at least a couple of attempts by people to tell us "Hey assholes you made me jump through pointless hoops to get to the tribe". Instead, we have absolutely nothing to this effect AFAICT, not even trivial vandalism. There's also other examples like this out there. It's not that easy to conclude whether navigation is faulty. --Joy (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In January '24 it was 2.6k -> 1.09k => ~42%. --Joy (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]