Talk:Bold

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. Consensus seems to be that a move is warranted at this time, and to track DAB views afterwards. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see the font face being notable over the concept of being bold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The long-term significance argument is pretty obvious; a word with no Flesch-Kincaid grade score and whose common etymology gives rise to these two sets of dictionary meanings is pretty obviously ambiguous to the average reader.
  By usage, we can look at the comparison of traffic to the terms, which indicates a clear possibility of ambiguity that isn't recognized well by our current navigation setup.
  From clickstreams, we know that current destination for bold gets ~2k views a month and this hatnote is on top, though not with a lot of traffic, and some of it actually comes back there which could also be in part due to other disambiguated terms. Meanwhile the other destination gets ~2.3k views a month.
  Another person noticed this issue in 2016 at
  MOS:DABCOMMON, and let's see how it affects reader navigation then. (Support) Worst case we can revert based on clearer usage data. (The ambiguity in meanings between namespaces is also indicative, though the choices of probably a handful of editors are not statistically relevant.) --Joy (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Removing a 9 year old protection seems like a good idea as we should only protect when necessary however DAB pages (or redirects if this isn't moved) tend to need less editing from new users and the title "Bold" is an obvious target for test edits and vandalism so if these happen I'd just reprotect the title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, let's cross that bridge when we actually get there, cf.

  WP:PREEMPTIVE. --Joy (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It occurred to me I didn't compare the clickstreams in the Emphasis hatnote with the views of the redirect "Bold". A look into the archive shows the former are:

  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:Emphasis_(typography) Bold_(disambiguation) link 51
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:Emphasis_(typography) Bold_(disambiguation) link 58
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:Emphasis_(typography) Bold_(disambiguation) link 59

  So the comparisons are:

  • August 51 / 335 = ~15%
  • September 58 / 346 = ~17%
  • October 59 / 323 = ~18%

  If this was <10% I'd say it was a good primary redirect (IOW if an order of magnitude more readers are happy where they came and never click the hatnote). Like this, it's a bit suspect, so we should give full disambiguation a shot and do the same measurement later to see what happened.

  The comparison above is not exact because of the presence of other incoming redirects and organic traffic coming to Bold (disambiguation) anyway, the former of which we can measure exactly so perhaps the ratios are more like this:

  • August 51 / (335 - 12 - 11) = ~16%
  • September 58 / (346 - 22 - 12) = ~18.5%
  • October 59 / (323 - 13 - 16) = ~20%

  The measurements of the organic traffic don't tell us much about the nature of those views, we just know that there were 98 views from search engines, 40 with empty referrers and 29 from other Wikimedia projects. --Joy (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]