Jump to content

Talk:Prince Albert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 5 August 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is clear consensus for the move, supported by convincing evidence that there is no topic overwhelmingly sought by readers. bd2412 T 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert (disambiguation)Prince Albert – There does not seem to be a dominant primary topic among all Prince Alberts. The top two figures, Albert, Prince Consort and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, get about equal interest on Wikipedia[1] and in Google searches, except for spikes[2] due on one side to Albert of Monaco's accession to the throne (2005), marriage (2011) and birth of his twins (2014), and on the other side to the recent Victoria (TV series) (2016 and 2017) highlighting her romance with Albert Prince consort. Regarding the second WP:PT criterion, I do not see Victoria's husband as historically more significant than the late Albert I or the current Albert II, both rulers of Monaco over quite long periods of time. — JFG talk 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note: If this move is approved, I would suggest giving top billing to the Prince Consort and Albert II of Monaco in the dab page, because they are the most-likely people sought by far. This is a similar case to New York City and New York (state) having top billing in New York. — JFG talk 06:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The search you made returns page after page of things named after Prince Albert in England (pubs, schools, roads, buildings, the Canadian island), or mentions of events happening around these things. That's irrelevant to the primary topic discussion between various people named Prince Albert. This is the reason I compared searches with "Monaco" to searches with "Victoria" (who would be mentioned in virtually any article talking about her husband). I stand by my analysis. Wikipedia page traffic confirms that those two princes carry about equal interest from readers. — JFG talk 07:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first step is to figure out which subjects a reader is likely to be searching for. This is why I checked the rankings on the first page of Google results. Sadly, the results in this case are overcrowded with subjects of purely local significance. I rejiggered the Google search below to give me more relevant results. Once you know which subjects to look for, the pageview tool allows for precise comparison. It looks to me like Google Trends, at least the way you have used it, measures approximately the same thing as the page view tool does. Whiff of greatness (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia readership stats teach us that the Prince Consort and Albert II of Monaco are the top two subjects that people want to read about, by far. Albert I of Monaco sees practically no demand. Accordingly, I have added a notice of this discussion to the articles about the top two princes. We must also beware of the redirect effect of Prince Albert which gives extra weight to the prince consort stats. People searching for the current ruler of Monaco by typing "Prince Albert" are redirected to a 19th-century figure and can arguably feel puzzled. — JFG talk 10:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The genital piecing article is also a player here, at least in terms of page views. However, I am dismissing this subject as unencyclopedic. If we are considering only two options, the second choice article can get a hatnote on the primary topic page, per WP:TWODABS. That beats sending readers to a page full of choices they are unlikely to be interested in. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cuchullain: If you support the move, surely you mean to write that "the prince consort is not more likely to be sought"? — JFG talk 19:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yes, thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain t/c 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser seems to be good for that kind of repetitive edit. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the move is approved, I'll fix the incoming links. Such tasks can be semi-automated with WP:AWB (for Windows) or WP:JWB (for all platforms). — JFG talk 13:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.