Talk:Joga (disambiguation)

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 13 January 2024[edit]

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 19 February 2024. The result of the move review was Endorsed.

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 Joga be renamed and moved to Joga (disambiguation).

result:
Moved. See sufficient consensus below to rename this dab page and to redirect the old title to Jóga. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Joga → Joga (disambiguation) – Move to make an "R from title without diacritics" primary redirect to Jóga. The only other topics at the dabpage are a barely-notable village and two PTMs. Jóga gets the quasi-totality of the pageviews.[1] 162 etc. (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't partial title matches, they're people with that surname. The latter has an article that already uses it mononymously, it uses just the surname Joga to refer to the person, just like some of our average readers would - it's legitimate ambiguity. OTOH the song wasn't really that popular worldwide, according to the article. Does the average English reader associate the term "Joga" so strongly with a single 1997 song that it's worth short-circuiting this? https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Joga shows 97 views in October '23 and identifies 38 outgoing clickstreams to the song, which is just ~39%. If we look at the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive information, there's:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Joga Jóga link 39

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Jóga Joga link 13

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Joga Jóga link 41

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Jóga Joga link 10

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Joga Jóga link 38

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:Joga Jóga link 47

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:Joga Jóga link 38

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:Jóga Joga link 16

So there's also people who actually click the hatnote to go the other way, meaning there's a possibility some are going back and forth trying to find something else.

We can try to compare those to monthly page view stats. Interestingly the number for October is different in pageviews compared to wikinav. Anyway the optimistic ratios, excluding the possibility of folks going back and forth, would be:

August 39 / 145 = ~27%
September 41 / 138 = ~28%
October 38 / 143 = ~27%
November 47 / 123 = ~38%
December 38 / 97 = ~39%

If we have it as the first link in a very short list, and we consistently don't get most readers to click that, it doesn't sound like a primary topic by usage. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Joga shows that there were 38 outgoing pageviews from Joga in December, and 100% of them went to Jóga. Seems pretty clear to me. 162 etc. (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@162 etc. 100% of the identifiable outgoing clickstreams went there. Please read the fine print on WikiNav or the description at meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream - there's a bunch of anonymization going on that removes data from graphs. --Joy (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Seems fine, and we usually wouldn't include people with the surname too much in our consideration unless it's a strongly associated surname such as Obama or Trump... — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every surname is habitually associated by readers with the people that have it, mononymously or not. But more importantly, if we're making this strong association distinction for surnames, why is the name of the song more strongly associated with the term? --Joy (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating for January statistics - https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Joga shows 180 total incoming views, and we could identify 49 going to the proposed primary topic, which is ~27%. So we're still in the situation where three quarters of readers are effectively telling us they're either not interested in that article or they can't find it on top of a list of four items. --Joy (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RM was ongoing for most of January, and therefore the pageviews data for this month cannot be considered typical. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as August through October, so it doesn't sound like we're deviating from a pattern. --Joy (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pattern remains that Jóga is the only article seeing any significant traffic from the disambiguation page. 162 etc. (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's stretching the definition of the word "significant". For example, if a quarter or a third of our readers recognized Winston Churchill as the primary topic for the term "Churchill", would that be significant enough? --Joy (talk) 09:07, 17 February 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.