Jump to content

Talk:Itaipu (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 16 December 2022

[edit]
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.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed, as the consensus here is clear that the main topic (aka "concept dab") for the word "Itaipu" is the dam. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Itaipu → Itaipu (disambiguation) – "Itaipu" should be a redirect targeted to the main topic, Itaipu Dam, which would receive a hatnote for other uses, {{redirect}}. A similar move has been made in the past, but the retargeting was not done, resulting in the move undone. fgnievinski (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Itaipu indicates that the case for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is very strong - based on that graph, it's even plausible that people who click the hatnote at Itaipu Dam are not well served by this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the Wikinav data can help here. It shows three facts: a) the link for the dam got 21 clicks last month; b) the other three entries each got less than 10 clicks (so their total could be anything between 0 and 27); and c) the dab itself got viewed 62 times in the same period. This is not incompatible with the absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&range=latest-20&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu shows 7642 : 182 : 16 : 14, that seems unlikely (36 : 1 in favor of the proposed primary topic redirect). Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the 19 people who clicked on the hatnote are among the 21 people who clicked to the dam. The hatnote has been formatted to hide the (disambiguation) marker and this could be contributing to trigger-happy misclicks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pageviews are largely irrelevant for deciding usage when we have direct sources for data on that (for all sorts of reasons, e.g. how many readers search for the dam by just typing "Itaipu" and not "Itaipu dam"?). The Wikinav data shows that 30% of the visitors of the dab page arrive there from the hatnote of the dam article, but even if we try to maximally allow for that, the figures wouldn't decisively point in either direction. – Uanfala (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but they're not irrelevant for deciding on primary topics in general, because they are an indicator of significance as well. Since the numbers are so slanted towards the dam, and since we already have Itaipú and Itapu pointing there, let's point this one as well, and then if we see the stats tilt differently in a few months time, it's easy enough to revert. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't noticed these two redirects. They could account for the traffic from the dam article to the dab page? That they target the dam appears to be simply the result of the incomplete reversal of the move from 2010. They should have the same target as Itaipu. As for the page views being indicative of long-term significance: yes, that is the case, though weakly so. It also needs to be taken into account that the dam is often referred to as the "Itaipu Dam" rather than just "Itaipu" (so the pageviews arithmetic will have to use some fraction of the total views). – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, Wbm1058 reverted the redirects back to the disambiguation page. I've since observed a very annoying characteristic of WikiNav in that redirects make it worse, so I'm changing my mind here, let's keep it fully disambiguated for at least two months more so we get a better picture in the current constellation. Oppose --Joy (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with Wikinav and am not sure what to make of that, but here's the pageviews analysis that I'm used to. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also created a redirect for the power plant on 24 December 2022, because a couple articles were targeting that. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pageviews amply demonstrate that the dam is the primary topic, as well as the traffic from similar redirects. No such user (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed above, the pageviews demonstrate ample nothing with respect to usage, and they can be useful only if you take the unusual stance that pageviews = long-term significance. – Uanfala (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand the relevance for this particular case. The dam is one of the largest in the world, has rather obvious long-term significance, particularly when compared with the alternatives listed on the dab page (a minor composition by Glass, a small neighborhood of Rio de Janeiro), and subsequently receives some 95% of total pageviews for all things Itaipu. Are you contesting that the dam is commonly known as "Itaipu"? That seems so obvious that I don't think it needs particular evidence. No such user (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're arguing for greater long-term significance, then that's fine (I'm not going to try to counter that, it's just that the pageviews are mostly irrelevant to it). My point was on the question if there is a primary topic with respect to usage: there's no data supporting the assumption that most of the people who search for "Itaipu" want the dam, and the data that there is (the fact that only a third of visitors to the dab page want the dam) strongly suggests otherwise. – Uanfala (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Brazil has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Paraguay has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joy [shallot] and per arguments raised by Uanfala. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The dam is the clear primary topic. I really can't understand the opposition. The pageviews results are overwhelming ([1]). Vpab15 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposition seems to be based on the notion that we don't have data to prove that visitors to dab page want the dam. I find that highly unlikely, based on common sense and sheer relative importance of the dam. With time, I've become suspicious of interpretations of those WikiNav results. Now that I looked deeper into it [2], outgoing pageviews are distributed 51:12:11 for the dam, the suburb and the composition, still heavily favoring the dam. No such user (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, your second and third sentences read as though you've grown suspicious of actual hard data that doesn't match your subjective expectations. And btw, the Wikinav data now shows the month of December, which has 1.5x more views for the dab and 2.5x more clicks for the dam compared to the November data we commented on above. This sudden upward change in interest in this relatively obscure dab page is almost certainly because of this RM, and is skewed towards editors participating in RMs rather than readers. – Uanfala (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was careful enough to specify that I'm suspicious of interpretation of those hard data. And I also think we're overthinking the whole damn thing, myself included; at worst, we are making a minor inconvenience for a hundred people a month worldwide. Just, I prefer to have it my way. :) No such user (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that 51 outgoing clicks to the dam out of the total of 91 lookups of Itaipu isn't really overwhelming, it's just 56%. Last month it was 21 out of 62, so 33.8%. In other words, even if we know which of the meanings of Itaipu is the most popular, there's still a clearly noticable long tail of readers who apparently did not want to read about the most popular meaning. When the ratio is more like 75-100%, and when the absolute numbers aren't so small, the argument for a primary redirect is much stronger. --Joy (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm content with the status quo but I'm not going to flat-out oppose this requested move. Just noting that this is also a disambiguation in Portuguese and if they don't see a need for a primary redirect, I'm inclined to go with the judgement of the natives (OK, Spanish does redirect which is why I'm noncomittal). While Spanish-speakers call it Itaipu Dam like we do, Portuguese-speakers call it Itaipu Hydroelectric Power Plant. There is also Itaipu Binacional, the binational company that operates the power plant, not to mention the body of water behind the dam. Right now they're all covered by the same article, but who's to say that will always be the case. For example we have separate articles about Hoover Dam and Lake Mead; the lesser-known dam by the same name in Ohio forms the Hoover Reservoir. Maintaining the status quo ensures that future readers looking for the power plant in the future won't be misdirected to the dam or the lake, and vice versa. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you say, the article for the dam covers the power plant and reservoir. That is why the argument for primary topic is so clear-cut. If the articles are split in the future, then the primary topic argument might be less clear. But that is WP:CRYSTALBALL, so it is not something we should be concerned about for the time being. Vpab15 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The "crystal ball" argument is irrelevant to this matter. Editors could expand the coverage of these topics even if nothing changes in the future, or if everything changes in the future. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "these topics"; they are subtopics of the same thing: a hydroelectric project that built a power plant supplied from the reservoir created by the dam. Depending on the level of prose and coverage, we may indeed decide to split the articles one day. But until that time, all of those things are collectively called Itaipu or Itaipu Dam, and have coverage in a single article of ours. You seem to be advocating that we preemptively create dab pages for all articles that may be eventually split, and that is just untenable, let alone reader-unfriendly. No such user (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (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.

followup to move

[edit]

In the last three months of clickstream archive (the underpinning of WikiNav), I could only find one month where the outgoing clickstreams for the hatnote crossed over the threshold of anonymization:

  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Itaipu_Dam Itaipu_(disambiguation) link 10

--Joy (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Itaipu_(disambiguation)&oldid=1190606073"