Talk:Foote

Requested move 3 May 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Foote → Foote (surname)
Foote (disambiguation) → Foote

– There are eight entries listed upon the Foote (disambiguation) page, with little indication that users who would type "Foote" are searching for individuals named "Foote" to a degree greater than the combined searches for the remaining seven entries. Even some users researching medical details pertaining to "Foot" may inadvertently type the "e" and wind up at the surname, rather than at the more helpful Foote (disambiguation) page which features a link to Foot (disambiguation). — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the clickstream stats in WikiNav:

Hatnote is the only thing that appears in the first graph, which is a sign of ambiguity, though it's only 13 identified clickstreams over a traffic of 169, which would be ~7.7%. 13 is also too close to the anonymization threshold (<10) to be reliable. Nothing appears in the second graph, which is a sign that there isn't a whole lot there, either. So this is quite inconclusive, because we can't tell if the navigation is good or bad with so little data. Let's try to read the leaves from more general stats:

All-time views of both pages

Looks like people only noticed that a hatnote was needed in 2021, but after that there's a steady volume of clicks. Before that, I see a single place in the US was linked in See also, after a bazillion people. I see three monthly spikes where there's a correlation between a rise in total traffic and a rise in disambiguation traffic, otherwise they don't seem to be very well correlated at all. Let's compare mass views of all those linked items:

Looks like Foote Field and Fort Foote get 7 views a day. At the same time, the interest in Shelby Foote is 624 a day, Georgia May 576, Eunice Newton 135 (a featured article), Adam 129, Horton 125, etc.

Does this mean we're putting up obstacles in front of people wanting to read about the Canadian stadium and the American wartime fortification, or are we actually not doing a good job navigating people who might want to read about the American novelist, British actress, American scientist and activist, Canadian hockey player, American playwright and screenwriter, ...? --Joy (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]