Talk:Boyle

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 multiple pages be renamed and moved. result: ed. put'er there 01:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply ] Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

• Boyle (disambiguation) → Boyle
• Boyle → Boyle (surname)

– No clear primary topic, the surname has 346 views but the County Roscommon one has 1,734, the Alberta one has 183, the Mississippi one has 85, the Kansas one has 13 and the crater has 8[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – if there is a primary topic (PT) then it's either Boyle, County Roscommon or Robert Boyle. I regularly fix links to Boyle intended for the former. That's not enough to make it a PT, but it's more than enough to prevent anything else such as the surname being a PT for the term. Certes (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW the fact that you have to do those fixes is an indicator of editor behavior, not reader behavior. It's similar to the Bay, Somalia story - the people writing about a topic are thinking about it in a "in universe" manner and don't think much about general ambiguity. Also, imagine if it was a place in the US - there the conventional way of referencing toponyms would be e.g. "Boyle, State name" or "Boyle, XY" (state code); but nobody defaults to

  Boyle, Ireland or Boyle, IE (country code) in case of this kind of a location. The fact that a relatively tiny group of Wikipedia editors aren't diligent enough to ponder all aspects of every link they create can't be determinative for organizing navigation of a relatively overwhelmingly larger group of readers. --Joy (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But is the surname the primary topic? Yes if we take into account the usage of the surname in the context of people looking for the people with the name and its connection it may sway that way but when views show the town gets more views I don't think we can delare the surname as being primary, the best option is to have the DAB at the base name so that readers can choose the town or surname or one of the other uses. People are unlikely to expect to be taken straight to an individual by typing the surname alone so offering them the surname on the DAB seems the best choice. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that if you move the current list out of the way, the disambiguation guidelines as they are now don't support adding people to the main list, which means some of these like Robert would no longer be 1 click away but 2. --Joy (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The disambiguation guidelines at

  WP:NAMELIST seems correct. People aren't likely to expect to get to Robert by typing just "Boyle" into the search box, unless people like Abraham Lincoln are commonly known by their surname alone they should only be included on the surname article which is what readers and editors would expect. People searching for "Boyle" would be 1 click away from the town in Ireland and the surname article, yes people looking for Robert would need 2 clicks but as I noted people wouldn't expect to get straight to Robert unless they type his full name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Actually, yes, yes they are, because people are habitually referred to by their names ambiguously. Also, if this wasn't the case, there would also have been no reason for Boyle's law to be listed at the other disambiguation. --Joy (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  People are sometimes like

  WP:NAMELIST we should put Robert on the DAB page as well as the surname? That way Robert would also be 1 click away. Would you be prepared to change to support (or at least not oppose) if this is done? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, because, like I said already in no uncertain terms, the entire traffic for the rest is already overshadowed by the traffic for the people, and making some sort of a rotten compromise would not actually be beneficial for our readers. --Joy (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW the status of the Raleigh redirect isn't quite as serene as you might believe, it has been a topic of discussions at Talk:Raleigh (disambiguation) and Talk:Raleigh, North Carolina twice already. --Joy (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USPLACE requiring the state even if primary though a number of people indicated the DAB should be moved to the base name. My point is that while people with the surname should be considered for primary topic they rarely are so. That said the DAB RM was nearly 10 years ago and like Talk:Ford#Requested move 26 August 2018 (not moved) and Talk:Ford#Requested move 25 August 2021 (moved) there could easily be a change of consensus for Raleigh. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support per nomination and Certes. There are 15 entries listed upon the Boyle (disambiguation) page [plus two entries under the Boyle River dab page], with no indication that the list of people surnamed "Boyle" is primary over the combined notability of all the remaining entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just in case it needs to be said explicitly, there is plenty of indication that the combined notability of the people is larger than the combined notability of all the remaining entries, but the alphabetically-sorted lists aren't being very helpful about demonstrating that quickly. You actually have to do the work to figure it out, which is a problem in itself. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Boyle tells us that in the month of October '23, there were 654 incoming views of Boyle, and we could identify 25 outgoing clicks to Robert Boyle, 25 to the proposed swap target, 15 to Robert Boyle (disambiguation), 14 to Danny, 11 to Charles. Because the anonymization threshold is 10, we don't know about the rest. 25 compared to 654 is <4%; if we proceed with this move, what reason do we have to believe that this will not deteriorate the state of navigation for the remaining >96% of readers?

The move would also lead to a removal of direct links to Robert, Danny, Charles and whatever other targets that we already know attract larger or comparable interest from readers compared to the entire non-anthroponymy group, because the disambiguation guideline doesn't allow for that at this time. This would definitely impede navigation in this thankfully measurable way. (Oppose)

Likewise, if we look at the page view statistics for all items as opposed to just the hatnote'd group, and we look at all-time statistics and not just the latest 20 days, we get this list and this list and this list. In the former list we can see:

• Susan Boyle 2,856 / day
• Lara Flynn Boyle 2,548 / day
• Danny Boyle 2,108 / day
• Peter Boyle 2,018 / day
• Frankie Boyle 826 / day
• Robert Boyle 610 / day
• Zoe Boyle 316 / day

...and so forth. In the latter two lists we can see:

• Boyle's law 1,423 / day
• Boyle Heights, Los Angeles 209 / day
• Boyle, County Roscommon 84 / day
• Boyle River (Ireland) 3 / day
• Boyle River (New Zealand) 3 / day

The article on Boyle's law does not refer mononymously to the law, as just "Boyle", though it does refer mononymously to its eponym, Robert Boyle. The article on Boyle Heights doesn't seem to refer to the place mononymously as Boyle, though it does refer mononymously to its eponym, Andrew Boyle. There are vague mononymous references in the names of North Boyle Avenue and South Boyle Avenue, though those could also be references to Andrew Boyle, too.

So, we're left with the idea that we're not navigating well enough to a town in Ireland with a population of 3k, which is plausible, but with the ratios of 30 : 1 and similar just between individual items, let alone the overall statistics, it's actually borderline ridiculous. What we're actually not navigating well enough are probably some of these biographies, and there's a possibility that the reader is already not given a good enough impression of what "Boyle" typically means even now.

This is yet another in a long line of cases where we would allow this

WP:NAMELIST-inspired apparent nonsense to make navigation worse. I feel like these discussions are becoming repetitive, and we really need to fix the guidelines to try to curb further waste of volunteer time. --Joy (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I rail about the name list guideline is because our boundaries between anthroponymy articles and various anthroponymy navigation aids are rather blurry, cf. recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Request for comment. In this case it's pretty obvious that Boyle is an Irish name, so that concept as a primary topic would be pretty obvious, as that's the obvious pattern for the people, the town, the river, etc. But the way we organize articles right now means that we have to split things up by type, which then creates this artificial dilemma about what to put where. This is indicative of a suboptimally designed system. --Joy (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, from the clickstream archive, sorted list of most common identified outgoing clickstreams:

• August '23: Boyle_(disambiguation) link 34, Robert_Boyle link 27, T._C._Boyle link 14, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 12, Danny_Boyle link 11
• September '23: Boyle_(disambiguation) link 22, Robert_Boyle link 19, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 13, Charles_Boyle link 12, Boyle,_County_Roscommon link 11, Clan_Boyle link 10
• November '23: Robert_Boyle link 19, Boyle_(disambiguation) link 15, Robert_Boyle_(disambiguation) link 12, Clan_Boyle link 12, Charles_Boyle link 12, Boyle's_law other 12, Danny_Boyle link 11, Boyle,_County_Roscommon link 11, O'Boyle link 10
• December '23: Boyle Boyle_(disambiguation) link 30, Robert_Boyle link 14, Charles_Boyle link 12

While we don't see the entries <10 because of the anonymization threshold, the pattern is still pretty consistent - there's very little reason to believe that we ought to do much more to help readers navigate to the place over the people. Moving the town link from See also to the hatnote might help its numbers move up a tad. --Joy (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The name is the clear primary topic by long-term significance. In fact, I might even say that Robert Boyle should be a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning support. There are surnames that are clearly primarily surnames by their construction, like Anderson or Jameson (both dabs anyway) or O'Connor or Lubański, but this is not so clearly one of them. BD2412 T 15:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 So... we're supposed to be prejudiced against some surnames because they don't look like a very typically constructed surname? :) --Joy (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joy: Well, let's extrapolate from this. Should we treat all atypically constructed surnames primarily as surnames? For example, Mercury is a surname; Bok is a surname; Caron is a surname; etc. BD2412 T 14:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if it wasn't clear already, I don't think we should be inferring or extrapolating anything when we can simply analyze the information pertinent to this specific term. --Joy (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. No primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]