Talk:Allison Williams (actress)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. See no general agreement to this proposal at this time. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Allison Williams (actress) → Allison Williams
• Allison Williams → Allison Williams (disambiguation)

– When I created the disambiguation page for Allison Williams in March of 2013 (prior to which point the name had pointed to

• Oppose a common name, being moderately more known than the others doesn't really justify this move. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Choosing a
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when there isn't an absolutely clear-cut one is a guaranteed way of accumulating bad links, which is unhelpful to readers and is damaging for the project. As an illustration, Tetrahedron is beyond doubt WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; but it still collects links which should be to Tetrahedron. Narky Blert (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom and 90% of pageviews which show her to be the primary topic. The concern about bad incoming links is valid, but I think is outweighed by getting the large majority of searchers directly to the article they want without having to go through a dab page. Station1 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The concern about bad incoming links is valid". I assume, then, that you will watchlist the page and fix them? Someone will have to. Narky Blert (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's such a relatively minor problem. First, an editor would have to link to Allison Williams without checking that it's the right article, then a reader would have to click on that link, and even when that happens once in a while, the only difference will be that the reader will have to click on a hatnote instead of a dab page. Considering that the reporter and contestant get 400 views per day combined, versus 4,000 for the actress, I think that far more people are adversely affected by the current setup. Station1 (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"First, an editor would have to link to Allison Williams without checking that it's the right article"

That happens 400-600 times every single day for DAB pages alone. See

WP:TDD#Today's highlights. Narky Blert (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Do we know what percentage of those are caused by dab pages taking up the title that should be occupied by the primary topic? For instance, I notice on the page you linked to that the dab page

Uber (company). Station1 (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"Do we know what percentage of those are caused by dab pages taking up the title that should be occupied by the primary topic?"

Why should the company be

WP:PRIMARYTOPICs" every day. And that's just from having suspicions about innocent-looking links in articles where an editor has linked to a DAB page, because if they didn't check one link they most likely didn't check any. I found one page today which was a threefer - one link to a DAB page, two other links in the same sentence to surname pages. I think my record may be a fivefer. Narky Blert (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have some time to spare, I suggest that you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Esplanade and sort out one or two of the pages where the link should be to Esplanade, Kolkata. There's only about a dozen or a hundred of them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said from the start, I acknowledge your concern about bad links is valid. But do you acknowledge that about 44 people per day landing on a dab page instead of the article they want is also a problem? Either way, some people are going to land on the wrong page and have to click on a hatnote or dab page entry. It's just that the larger number get to the right page the first time if primary topics are at their correct title. Station1 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have vacated the
  NAC and relisted this discussion. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per In ictu oculi and Narky Blert. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.