Talk:Canape (disambiguation)

On 27 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Canape to Canape (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 27 April 2024

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canape → Canape (disambiguation) – Pursuant to the disambiguation naming guideline, this page should only remain here if there is no primary topic. However, canapé (the food) is clearly the primary topic for both "canapé" and "canape" (91% of page views; see [1]). I therefore propose that this disambiguation page be moved to canape (disambiguation) and a redirect be created from canape to canapé. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although Canapé (disambiguation) is probably the better title. 162 etc. (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about that, but settled on Canape because WP:DABNAME prefers forms without diacritics (though the next principle after that says to follow the spelling of the majority in the disambiguation, so I'm fine with either). Sdrqaz (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Canape shows comparable interest in the furniture topic, which is listed 5th (so it's unlikely to be misclicks). I checked the archive, and it seems consistent:

Expand for an excerpt of clickstream stats for 'Canape'

clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 103
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 29
total: 132 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2022-05.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 75
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 36
total: 111 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 67
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 31
total: 98 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 54
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 28
total: 82 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 72
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 25
total: 97 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 50
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 20
total: 70 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 123
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 37
total: 160 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 93
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 37
total: 130 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 59
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 24
total: 83 to 2 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

Canape Canapé link 43
Canape Canapé_(furniture) link 23
total: 66 to 2 identified destinations

The food is clearly the most popular, but I'm not sure it makes sense to short-circuit when there's such an obvious second reader choice, we'd have to put the furniture into the hatnote anyway... --Joy (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing that Canapé isn't the primary topic, then a discussion for Canapé → Canapé (food) should be opened - this RM is probably not the place. 162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just describing what we can observe in the reader traffic. Let's go over the March WikiNav numbers specifically:

103 people visited "Canape"
There's two incoming redirects so we can attribute that using page views[2] to say that another 54 views came from Special:WhatLinksHere/Canapé (disambiguation), which is essentially the hatnote on top of the Canapé article
Clickstreams confirm that 53 of those 54 came from Canapé
We don't know much about where 49 empty-referrer views came from, while 11 came from other Wikimedia projects and 10 from search engines (but we don't know the exact search queries they used)
Once the readers were at Canape, our system recognized 43 outgoing clicks to the food article, 23 clicks to the furniture article, and we don't know what happened to the rest (maybe nothing, maybe anonymized).

There's many ways to interpret this.

Were most of those 53/54 clicks going for something other than the food (furniture and the long tail)? Probably.

Were some of them misclicks and they went right back? Maybe.

Is it possible the most of the readers who came directly to Canape (49+11+10=70) went for the food (43)? Possible.

Is 43/70 = ~61.4% of readers enough to declare a primary topic? We don't know. (I've tried to find this kind of a threshold from examples, cf. WT:D#on what statistics should look like for hatnotes, primary redirects, primary topics and this number is borderline.)

--Joy (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to exclude the pathway from the food to the disambiguation page? If people come to the disambiguation page from the food, I think it would indicate that they were looking for something else other than the food. It shouldn't be a surprise that those people would be (less) likely to click on the food again ... Sdrqaz (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. But then that brings up the obvious question: if WP:SMALLDETAILS applies and the diacritic mark is sufficient to distinguish, why are those readers landing there in the first place? Are search engines sending them to the wrong place perhaps?

One possible hint is the list of incoming redirects there, which includes Kanape and Canapes, which might plausibly have to be disambiguated if "Canape" is disambiguated. We can check their traffic, too, and see 17 views of the plural and 4 views of the K-form in the same month. We can't confirm if those 17+4 are part of the 53/54 who clicked on the hatnote, but it seems at least plausible. --Joy (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Clear primary redirect. The food is very often seen without the acute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.