Talk:Montserrat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Montserrat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Caribbean: Montserrat Top‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Montserrat work group (assessed as Top-importance).

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Overseas Territories Top‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 25 July 2005, from Montserrat to Montserrat (island), see discussion.
Not moved, 16 September 2024, from Montserrat to Montserrat (British Overseas Territory), see discussion.

Possible error

I'll leave people more familiar with the island to deal with this, but the article states that Saint Anthony Parish is too dangerous to inhabit, yet the community of Garibaldi Hill - located within the parish at its northwest corner according to Google Maps - is listed as a safe zone location and appears to be inhabited. Question is whether Saint Anthony Parish still exists as a political entity or if Garibaldi Hill is governed by Saint Peter Parish. On a related note it seems some parts of Saint Peter, such as St. George's Hill, fall within the exclusion zone. 23skidoo (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 September 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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. After extensive discussion, no consensus has developed that the island territory "is not the primary topic for Montserrat". Experienced editors in support as well as opposition reasonably cite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Most agree this topic meets the criteria of that guideline. I note that this request has already been closed twice by experienced editors and reopened twice by request. Based on further comments by participants after the relisting comment, it is clear that further discussion will not result in consensus to move this article at this time. Station1 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Montserrat (British Overseas Territory) is not the primary topic of Montserrat. Montserrat (mountain) in Catalonia, Spain is also commonly searched and read. Actually, by searching "Montserrat" in Google you will likely find that most results on the first page of search results are on Montserrat (mountain) in Catalonia, Spain. John Smith Ri (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 10:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the top hit for my search was Montserrat (typeface), although I also had results for the BOT and the mountain. The BOT article seems to get considerably more page views, but otherwise there's a case to be made here. CMD (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page views at the presumed primary topic are affected by the >5k incoming links. WikiNav for last month indicates 46% (+ possibly another 5% filtered) of measurable incoming views came from other articles, ~30k/month. The combination of traffic that we know comes from search engines and the traffic we don't know the source of amounts to about the same volume. We know from other examples that search engines would also modify their behavior if we were to change our navigation, but we don't know the ratios until it happens, we don't really know the exact organic level of reader traffic interested in a presumed primary topic unless/until we make a change to navigation to be able to measure it better. --Joy (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. The territory is the primary topic. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I first thought of the human name, and then looked at the population of this island, this has strong Saba vibes, but I'll try to explicitly fight this bias :) and just look at the data.

WikiNav for Montserrat shows the hatnote, though not particularly high up (I'll follow up with historical clickstream data later). WikiNav for the disambiguation page shows a healthy spread of topics, though some of it does go back to the presumed primary topic. Mass views:

* All-time mass views for all topics linked from Montserrat (disambiguation)

* All-time mass views for all topics linked from Montserrat (given name)

* All-time mass views for all topics linked from Montserrat (surname)

So the island gets 2,287 views/day, mountain gets 308/day, the Christian pilgrimage site in Catalonia articles get 189/day for the abbey and 154/day for the concept, Montserrat Caballé 644/day, Montserrat Lombard 149/day, Montserrat Oliver 85/day etc. Without further looking into the long tail, that's 2,287 : 1,529 or 1.5 : 1 already. So that's in the suspicious territory, though still reasonably strong. If we were to proceed with the move, the island would still absolutely have to go to the top common section (MOS:DABCOMMON).

It would be good to have a more coherent argument on long-term significance - is the British territory something that the average English reader is strongly associating with this term? --Joy (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mountain and the Christian pilgrimage site in Catalonia is somehow the same place. Besides, it is unlikely that non-British English readers (especially non-native users of English) know such an isolated island and territory with only thousands of residents (there are much more people living around Montserrat mountain). John Smith Ri (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, British Montserrat is somehow named after Montserrat mountain. John Smith Ri (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found in the clickstream archive:

Snapshot of clickstreams from Montserrat to hatnote and other possibly ambiguous destinations

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 480
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 138
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 112
Montserrat Main_Page other 67
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 16
total: 24808 to 214 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 594
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 148
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 130
Montserrat Main_Page other 68
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 14
total: 26853 to 209 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 514
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 138
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 118
Montserrat Main_Page other 85
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 12
total: 24545 to 209 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 439
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 121
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 121
Montserrat Main_Page other 67
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 11
total: 24687 to 211 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 421
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 144
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 125
Montserrat Main_Page other 45
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 12
total: 27820 to 229 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 390
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 117
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 105
Montserrat Main_Page other 74
total: 24899 to 214 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 478
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 153
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 127
Montserrat Main_Page other 59
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 16
total: 29639 to 226 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 507
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 150
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 134
Montserrat Main_Page other 87
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 15
total: 27135 to 221 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 508
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 151
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 138
Montserrat Main_Page other 72
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 12
total: 31254 to 230 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 463
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 135
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 122
Montserrat Main_Page other 51
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 15
total: 25844 to 214 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 481
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 122
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 112
Montserrat Main_Page other 45
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 16
total: 27073 to 220 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-08.tsv:

Montserrat Montserrat_(disambiguation) link 434
Montserrat Santa_Maria_de_Montserrat_Abbey link 96
Montserrat Virgin_of_Montserrat link 93
Montserrat Main_Page other 70
Montserrat Montserrat_(mountain) other 13
total: 24728 to 217 identified destinations

So every month, about five hundred readers consistently click the hatnote. A couple of hundred a month check out the Christian eponym topics - these may or may not be happier with a more prominent link, we can't tell from these stats alone.

A dozen readers generate these 'other' clickstreams towards the mountain - there's no link, so they have to manually go to their destination. It's usually a worrying sign for bad navigation when there's enough of these that it shows up in the stats (and at that level there's a substantial chance the anonymization threshold of <10 is also hiding more of these).

I've included the similar kind of clickstreams towards the Main Page for comparison, with those readers we don't know if they went back to the start because of a problem in navigation or if they just wanted to go there to read the news or start fresh or whatever the reason there may be. --Joy (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Google Books Ngrams that can tell us which words most commonly appear next to 'Montserrat' in books. Looks like the usual suspects, with a recent spike probably coinciding with the 1990s disaster. Mentions of Caballe are visible during her lifetime, too. When I went deeper into the "of" and "and" variants, like this, it looks like a lot of the earlier spikes are old typos for stuff at list of rulers of Montferrat. Speaking of which, we have a distinguishing hatnote for that, too, and that gets some traffic, too.

Snapshot of clickstreams from Montserrat to Montferrat

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 70

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 222

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 198

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 224

clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 245

clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 211

clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 207

clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 220

clickstream-enwiki-2024-08.tsv:

Montserrat Montferrat link 202

--Joy (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hole in the stats at the start looks to be because the distinguishing hatnote was only added on December 22 last year, in this edit. While there's some credence to thinking some of these might be misclicks because of the prominent placement of hatnotes, this pattern still does seem to add to the suspicion that there's a substantial chunk of readers who may have issues with our navigation here. --Joy (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of experimenting with ngram search queries later, here's a graph that might be more relevant: the Marquis confusion is still visible, then we see a lot of mentions of the island as such, likewise for Virgin and Lady. This would lead me to say that Montserrat (island) (island of Montserrat) would be a better choice for disambiguation if we were to do that. There's a variety of mentions of just "Montserrat" that seem to generally mean the island being listed together with other nearby places, though the volume of these is still comparable to the volume of e.g. mentions of the monastery. The question is how to summarize this mass of references. It would be nice if we could know how much of this comes from mundane statistical references and how much from customary references which would lead the average reader to assume the word as such means the island. --Joy (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get a sense of what are some of the more complete phrases that include these interesting ambiguous groups, by including more words in the wildcard search queries.

For "of Montserrat and the *" there's:

Commissioners of ... and Presidencies of Montserrat and the Virgin Islands - looks like a reference to Royal Montserrat Police Service, which has existed since 1967, but the graphs actually largely flatten in the 1950s so this doesn't quite make sense
Marquis of Montserrat and the Grand Master ... - is this a reference to The Talisman (Scott novel) first published in 1825?
colonies of Montserrat and the British Virgin [Islands] - seemingly a large spike throughout the 1970s, but when I look for that, Google Books Ngrams says Search for "colonies of Montserrat and the British *" yielded only one result.
Government of Montserrat and the ... - seemingly a reference to the island but again when I try to search further for that last word I get Ngrams not found: Government of Montserrat and the *

For "Montserrat and *" there's:

Montserrat and Nevis to the southeast ... and searching further fails as above
Montserrat and Antigua in 1632 ... and searching further fails
Montserrat and St. Kitts and Nevis ... ditto
Montserrat and Virgin Islands Gazette ... ditto but this seems like a reference to The Antigua, Montserrat and Virgin Islands gazette, mentioned in The Leeward Islands Gazette as something that started in 1872

At this point I started to suspect that this method isn't great, because it seems to be zeroing in on rather specific works and the swings between historical periods are pretty wide. Another example was trying to search into industry in Montserrat is * which just ended with Search for "industry in Montserrat *" yielded only one result. and the last graph it showed flattened off after the 1960s, with a single tiny spike in 2005, and that's it.

This doesn't sound like it would be a reliable proxy for average English reader interests today. --Joy (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, justified primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, although I'd generally give a country an edge in topics like this, Montserrat is a little too small of a "country" and the mountain and associated pilgrimmage so important in literature that perhaps there's no PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: more pageviews for the territory and what Joy said (I think :D). YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that I said oppose :) The problem with that graph is that it shows one big ticket item, but the rest is obscured, even if it's not necessarily ignorable. If you add in a few of these other topics to the same graph, like this, you can see that the advantage for the baseline island traffic goes down to ~41k out of ~75k, which means the island gets ~55% of views from the big ticket items. Subtract another ~1k for misnavigated viewers (see above), and minus the long tail traffic (for more minor topics), and it we're basically at one half of traffic.

If there's a risk that half the readers land at the right place, and half the readers want something else, doing the move might not be a bad idea.

If nothing else, after the move we could actually measure better what the intent is with readers who land at "Montserrat". --Joy (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I just realized that this pageviews search was just for last month. If we extend that to last year like this the ratio is ~60%. If we extend it to 2015 as far as it can go, there's two huge spikes for Caballe that slowly dissipated, and the overall ratio is ~58%. --Joy (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The page views (as Yorkshire indicates) show the island gets more than five times as many views as the mountain. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason of this may be that a lot of users looking for the mountain, people, etc. searched "Montserrat" but were directed to this page for the BOT. John Smith Ri (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that would be relevant if the page views were closer, but they're not. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are close. About half the observable reader interest is in the island, about half in other topics. The other half is scattered across a multitude of articles, but it's still there. --Joy (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean there are three halves? :) YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter sentence referred to the latter half from the sentence before it :D --Joy (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat @Jessintime so, can something be done to convince you to change your mind? :) --Joy (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy are you proposing some kind of trial period for a move? Is there a precendent for that? YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RM processes aren't defined in a way to formally support that, but we can form a consensus to simply do that, and RM closers relatively often make references to further alternatives being reconsidered separately, so I don't see that it would be a particular deviation from norms, it's just one way of how consensus can change.

Going back to the earlier example of a Caribbean island being moved away from presumed primary topic title, after that move I continued to follow up at Talk:Saba#Post-move and there wasn't much acrimony, as the numbers converged towards that island, listed first, receiving about a quarter of all traffic and about half of detected outgoing clickstreams. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support first proposal, oppose second We must consider how "Montserrat" had long-term significance whether it is mountain or British overseas territory. While the second proposal cannot be moved because it retained primary topic, the territory must be moved as "Montserrat (British overseas territory)" because the mountain had more significance than the overseas territory. 2404:8000:1037:587:D192:1709:AACA:B4DE (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction is not typically what happens because of the WP:MALPLACED guideline.

If there's a primary topic for the term "Montserrat", then that article is kept at that base title.

If no single topic is primary (to the extent described by the WP:PTOPIC guideline), and the term "Montserrat" is instead deemed generally ambiguous, then the disambiguation list should be at the base title. --Joy (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that if there's another natural way to name the article about the island, that could become the title, and "Montserrat" could be a primary redirect to it. This would be a compromise that preserves the status quo while allowing for more measurements on usage to be done.

I'm not sure Montserrat (British Overseas Territory) is a natural article name, though. Perhaps Montserrat Island? --Joy (talk) 10:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others, the island is the clear primary topic

Kowal2701 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. The island is clearly the primary topic. How many people live on the mountain? DonBeroni (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DonBeroni I think the main contention isn't that a lot of people live on the mountain, but that the island isn't the only topic of substantial reader interest or significance, given the Catalan location's centuries old Virgin Mary worship in the thousand-year-old monastery, and in turn numerous biographies of people named that way, at least one world-renowned.

But now that you mention it, there's actually some comparable general human settlement there, too - our article Monistrol de Montserrat says it was 3k people six years ago, and apparently in the more recent census three years ago it was over 8k.[1]

Likewise, it seems 7k people live in Montserrat, Valencia. In fact, 43k people live in Montserrat, Buenos Aires, too.

Fundamentally, it would be good if the claims of primary topic were better matched to WP:DPT, by explaining a positive case for the island. --Joy (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the island is the primary topic, backed up by the ratios quoted above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun which ratios in particular? I mentioned some ratios above, but they're not sufficient to declare primary topic per se.

I've done some poor man's research into how article readership traffic ratios behave and collated them at WT:D#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics. We've had numerous discussions where these kinds of ratios of traffic were not paired with a finding of primary topic.

The most striking finding in my mind is how these ratios are always based on current navigation layout and the current interpretation of our article layout by search engines, as opposed to actually being representative of neutral reader interest. --Joy (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your own figures, above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but my own figures above do not support a finding of WP:PTOPIC :) They don't even support a finding of primary topic by usage, let alone by long-term significance.

Let me try to make this even more plastic - if we make people read about A, and kinda ignore B, C, ..., they will probably do that, regardless of the actual value of reading about A or B or C etc.

If we then find that they have in fact been reading a lot about B, C, ..., that means we can't make strong claims about A being primary. --Joy (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. This discussion was closed twice, but has been reopened because concerns were raised that there may not be a shared understanding of what constitutes a primary topic. Contributors to this discussion are encouraged to explain how their perspectives accord with WP:PTOPIC. Dekimasuよ! 10:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ratio of 1.5:1 in pageviews might not quite meet the 2:1 primary topic recommendation, but using common sense, a country/ is more significant than a mountain/pilgrimage destination, or an individual. There is also a 7:2 ratio of oppose:support responses... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about countries, but the obvious retort to that is how clearly is Montserrat a proper country when it's referred to as a territory. It's not clear at which level do we choose to short-circuit to places.

I went to have a look at how our navigation is set up for other British dependent territories. First thing I noticed was how we disambiguate Cayman even if it's the name of the Cayman Islands, and WikiNav for Cayman shows a spread of reader interests. Similarly, looking at the list of all other territories, there's Falkland, Faroe, Cocos, Mariana, Wallis which do not short-circuit to the respective territories. Here's the page views for those island articles and the page views for their respective disambiguation pages. Montserrat's disambiguation seems to be getting a lot of traffic in comparison.

Likewise, perhaps more obviously ambiguous Cook, Man, Ascension, Turks. Here's the page views for those islands and the page views for their disambiguation pages. Montserrat's one doesn't stand out the same way in this comparison, with obvious seasonal patterns at Ascension.

JFTR there's also the islands with various 'saint' prefixes, and in that group there's also no lack of variety, with Barthélemy and Barts, Martin, Maarten.

With regard to 7:2, WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Joy (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how this was relisted given the strong opposition to the move and the fact that the nominator's only supposed evidence is Google search results. What appears to be happening is that one editor (Joy) has muddied the waters by commenting more than 20 times with long screeds. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:42, 23 September 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.

Previous discussion

@Joy: A 2005 discussion about the article title was archived on 8 August 2023. I noticed that you were still hoping for more discussion on the matter, so pointing this out, in case you missed it. I've added an {{Old moves}} template at the top of this page. Those who forget past discussions are condemned to repeat them ;) – wbm1058 (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058 thanks for the note! I didn't see that before. Granted, it's a discussion from about two decades ago, and it's hardly well structured - indeed I seem to see a lot of violations of the civility policy there. So I'm not sure if you're trying to say that this was an example of how we have consensus and shouldn't discuss this further? Or just that we know from experience that this discussion will be a particularly contentious one? --Joy (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted that the 2005 discussion was somewhat more extreme in the other direction - they wanted to make the mountain article primary topic, which I would see no reason to support based on the current level of information. --Joy (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the RM process wasn't so refined back in 2005. Just thinking you could review the opinions of other editors; maybe some points were raised back then that weren't discussed more recently.

From my perspective, there are over 3,500 links to this, so moving this off the primary topic and forcing disambiguation will create a huge amount of work. What I usually look for to decide the need for this is links to the base title which are intended for the mountain in Spain or some other target. You might find these introduced by Spanish editors who are unaware the island exists. I'm not finding any obvious mislinks, so am satisfied with the status quo. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the cost of the change. I still wouldn't treat this as a showstopper because if it would help readers, per WP:RF, that would be more important than helping editors.

Thankfully even there a lot of the links should be artificially created, through templates - there seems to be a fair few obvious ones.

With regard to edited information referring to the island, the main thing to figure out is whether that corresponds to real-world information about the island which in turn would be larger than that of the rest of these topics, and in turn the real-world reader interest - or if there's a meaningful discrepancy between these ratios.

Let's have a poor man's comparison of link counts for a start, for the topics mentioned before:

(171+116+275+814+51+30+284+296 = 2037)

We can see that there's a significant discrepancy between the reader interest in page views and editor interest in links. Where we saw page views at roughly 60 : 40 = ~1.5, these links to these top items amount to only 5602 : 2037 = ~2.75.

Individually the discrepancy is even larger: for example, the ratio of page views between Caballe and the island article is 2286 : 643 = ~3.5, but of links 5602 : 814 = ~6.9, while with the Buenos Aires place it's 2286 : 19 = ~120, and 5602 : 296 = ~19.

So, some things get relatively more readership, some relatively more links, these two variables aren't correlated well. That's why I wouldn't prioritize concerns about editors having to fix links.

Let's also note for the record the data for the most common typo:

https://linkcount.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&page=Montferrat 473
all time page views 71 / day
2286 : 71 = ~32, 5602 : ~12

Just to match the units, the ~220 clicks/month for that hatnote mentioned before - would be ~7/day.

Also, just in case it flew under the radar - some amount of existing readership and existing links going to the base title and in turn the island article - could just be wrong. This might also help explain the relatively high amounts of clicks on hatnotes. --Joy (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]