 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Scientific Installation
editJULIA could also be... "Jicamarca Unattended Long-term Investigations of the Ionosphere and Atmosphere" REF = http://cedarweb.hao.ucar.edu/wiki/index.php/Instruments:jul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.26 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Requested move 18 March 2023
edit- 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 per request. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
– The given name is probably the first thing that comes to people's mind, but that's not the primary topic in an encyclopedia. There are competing articles about an Ancient Roman gens, a surname, a major programming language, several localities, as well as a large number of films and songs with the name. The lion's share of the clickthroughs from Julia also go to the dab page [1]. As for pageviews [2], the name article accounts for only a fraction of the total, with several individual articles surpassing it: the ancient gens (1.3x more), the 1977 film (2.8x), the programming language (6x) and the 2022 TV series (12x). – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note to closer: if this is successful, please don't move the effectively empty Talk:Julia, as the actual talk page of the given name article is Talk:Julia (given name) (it appears to have been stranded when the given name page got boldly moved ten years ago). – Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong Support per nom. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom. There are several articles that individually get multiple pageviews of the current article. Station1 (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, Festucalex and Station1. There are 47 entries listed upon the Julia (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the given name overwhelms all the other 46 entries combined. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's a bold claim. If you read the given name list and the associated statistics, there's a fair bit of indication that the given name usage overwhelms all the other 46 entries combined. One link is in my comment below. --Joy (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're the one who taught me :) not to focus on the graph of WikiNav clicks near the bottom, but the one at the top - of the 3300 incoming views, 679 go to the hatnote, which is ~20%, and furthermore it's #1 outgoing link. This is sufficient to indicate that full disambiguation might lead to better navigation outcomes. I am, however, concerned, that all of this would be burying the lede a bit, because mass views for Julia shows Roberts, Louis-Dreyfus, Stiles, Child, plus the significant long tail, overwhelmingly more popular topics by usage in general. In fact the alphabetical ordering of the current list is already doing that fact a disservice. --Joy (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get the "burying the lede" bit? But yeah, for a regular article, 20% clickthroughs for the hatnote would indicate an open-and-shut, no-RM-required, case for moving the dab to the primary title. But then that's not a regular article: name indexes like this function also like dab pages, so it's possible that the other 80% are readers looking for one or another person with the name, in which case this page is exactly where it needs to be. However, that seems unlikely: this is a given name, not a surname (so less likely to see it used mononymously), and a very common one too. I think it would be strange if there were a lot of readers who typed "Julia" in the search box expecting to ultimately find Julia Roberts or Julia Stiles. As usual, this scenario is not ruled out by the Wikinav data, but there is some indication in that direction by the overall small traffic for the only two people with the name to make it into the top 10 of outgoing clicks and so show up in the Wikinav graph: these are Julia of Corsica (23 clicks, mentioned in the lede) and Julia the Elder (22 clicks, not mentioned in the lede). Any other persons with the name will have attracted fewer than 23 clicks. – Uanfala (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
To "bury the lead" is to begin the article with background information or details of secondary importance to the readers, forcing them to read more deeply into an article than they should have to in order to discover the essential point(s).
Certainly there's a vaguely popular programming language called "Julia" and a TV series and whatnot, but does that mean that the average English reader should be navigated to such a list, when most occurences of that word in the real world will be people named Julia? --Joy (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't get the "burying the lede" bit? But yeah, for a regular article, 20% clickthroughs for the hatnote would indicate an open-and-shut, no-RM-required, case for moving the dab to the primary title. But then that's not a regular article: name indexes like this function also like dab pages, so it's possible that the other 80% are readers looking for one or another person with the name, in which case this page is exactly where it needs to be. However, that seems unlikely: this is a given name, not a surname (so less likely to see it used mononymously), and a very common one too. I think it would be strange if there were a lot of readers who typed "Julia" in the search box expecting to ultimately find Julia Roberts or Julia Stiles. As usual, this scenario is not ruled out by the Wikinav data, but there is some indication in that direction by the overall small traffic for the only two people with the name to make it into the top 10 of outgoing clicks and so show up in the Wikinav graph: these are Julia of Corsica (23 clicks, mentioned in the lede) and Julia the Elder (22 clicks, not mentioned in the lede). Any other persons with the name will have attracted fewer than 23 clicks. – Uanfala (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support though possibly primary by long-term significance it clearly isn't by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Per nom - given that disambiguation pages aren't a search index. There is no primary topic for articles simply called "Julia". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
post-move
edithttps://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Julia indicates that in April '23, there were 2.1k incoming views, and outgoing 415 for programming language, 289 given name, 225 '22 TV series, 129 '68 TV series, 113 '77 film, etc, up to 14 destinations with 10+ clickstreams.
https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/?platform=all-access&agent=user&source=wikilinks&start=2023-04-01&end=2023-04-30&sort=views&direction=1&view=list&target=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia (likewise April '23) shows programming language and '22 TV series at the top, but then the list substantially diverges from the other one.
One could probably make a graph to show the differences in correlation between page views and clickstream... anyone? --Joy (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
In May '23, there were 2.1k incoming, and outgoing 503 to programming language, 331 given name, 222 '22 TV series, 112 '77 film, 107 '68 TV series, etc, up to 19 destinations with 10+ clickstreams. I re-sorted the sections to match this better now. --Joy (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
In July '23, there were 2.3k incoming, outgoing 383 given name, 377 programming language, 234 '22 TV series, 224 '68 TV series, 130 unexplained sound, etc, up to 17 destinations. Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55#effects of WP:NAMELIST on navigation outcomes for anthroponymy entries is likely relevant here. --Joy (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)