Talk:Guenoa

Requested move 3 January 2021

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: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

---

• Guenoa → Guenoa people
• Guenoa (disambiguation) → Guenoa

– Mostly a question between an ethnic group and a language, with no fundamental reasons to see one as the primary topic over the other. The pageviews – with a split of 60% vs. 40% [1] [2] – are also indicative of an absence of a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic in a WP:TWODABS situation (where the language article is a subtopic of the one on the people who speak it). The present setup removes a step for the majority of readers searching for this topic, and the language can be found via the hatnote as simply as a disambiguation page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly WP:TWODABS with an absence of a primary topic! I don't think getting 60% of the traffic fits with most people's understanding of being highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought by readers. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but in my experience with the RM process indicates that most do believe that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, my experience has been different: the view that automatically recognises a primary topic in a two-dab situation whenever one of the articles gets more views than the other, even by a small margin like here, is a minority one, and its adherents have not so far managed to change the existing guidelines. – Uanfala (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The guideline and the consensus behind it are clear that an article is primary topic in page views when it's far more likely than all other topics combined to be the one sought. What's more open for interpretation is what exact proportion passes the threshold. 60% usually passes in a TWODABS situation, but we shall see what the local consensus turns out to be here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. A 60% topic is much more likely than [the only other 40% topic] to be sought. Consider an election or sporting match. If one participant is favored 60% to 40% over the other, are they merely likely to win? Or are they much more likely to win? It’s the latter, of course! And per Cuchullain: why send everyone thru a dab page? Now the majority is taken directly to the page they seek. The minority is one click away, just like with a dab page. Nobody would benefit from this proposed move, and the majority would be worse off. —В²C ☎ 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guenoa is the primary topic. Güenoa language is the only other use. Guenoa (disambiguation) can be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Nomination of Guenoa (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guenoa (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guenoa (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging contributors to above RM: @Uanfala:, @Ortizesp:, @Cuchullain:, @Born2cycle:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)