Jump to content

User talk:Jenks24

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ohconfucius (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 13 April 2013 (→‎Brand New: adjournment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page! Here's a few notes that may be helpful to read before posting:

  • I will reply here and I probably won't ping you—unless you specifically request otherwise—so you may wish to watchlist this page.
  • If I've left you a message I will have watchlisted your page, so there's no need to leave me a {{talkback}} or ping me (but you can if you want).
  • I prefer to keep conversations on Wikipedia, but you can email me. If you do, you should definitely leave me a note about it; I rarely check my Wikipedia email account without first being prompted here.
  • If you do leave me a {{talkback}}, {{you've got mail}}, or similar, please remember to sign it so that it gets archived by the bot.
  • Click here to leave a message. Remember to sign your post using the four tildes (~~~~).

Akello Light

Hello, I have just re-posted a article on the artist, "Akello Light". Since I know the process already, I wanted to point out the areas that are now fix from the previous upload.

1.No nontrivial coverage in multiple sources I have added two more sources:

http://www.urb.com/2013/03/27/72-soul-fools-play-ep-download-limited-edition-vinyl-contest-inside/#more-86087

http://thefindmag.com/news/support-72-souls-she-likes-to-play-indiegogo-campaign/

2. MadmanBot Yes, this is one of my rough drafts. I did write this. http://wikibin.org/articles/akello-light.html You can even look back in the history of the former post and realize this.

Let me know if everything is proper or not, Have a great day

§Sirleak (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Not too sure why you're telling me this, but feel free to let me know if there's anything I can help with. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move of Air21 Express (2011–present)

Please see my comment on a current request at WP:RM/TR. You closed the previous move discussion in June 2012. Perhaps you have an idea for sorting this out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is now at Talk:Air21 Express (2011–present)#Proposed move to Air21 Express. If you believe this qualifies as a technical move, feel free to close it without further ado. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I do remember this RM and I'll look into it. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brand New

Hi - thanks for being brave and wading through the mess at Talk:Brand New (disambiguation). Would you mind elaborating a bit on your process? In particular, why you think Noetica's analysis was worth anything? I thought I showed pretty clearly that his methods did not show anything, despite their volume. Just because he said that he refuted my debunking doesn't mean it's so. He's a smart cookie, and tenacious, but he never showed a statistically significant correlation among COCA hits, Rolling Stone cites, and pageviews, especially for bands with relatively low RS hits. And without that, his argument boiled down to "'Brand new' is a popular phrase; I've never heard of this band from Long Island; therefore most people must be looking for the phrase and not the band." Note, by the way, that I never said that all or a majority of the pageviews were intended for the band; all I showed is that it is statistically plausible, and that anyone wanting to move away from the status quo should have the burden of showing why a move is an improvement. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dohn. I'm really sorry to do this to you, but it's 2.30 AM where I am and I just don't have the time right now to give you the detailed response you deserve. I should be back on Wikipedia in ~18 hours and the first thing I do will be to give you a proper reply. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - I'm familiar with WP lag time. Take your time - I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Dohn joe (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that Noetica retired, so now he isn't around to help clean up all the links to disambiguation. Would have been nice if someone had noticed the issue back in the 2004-05 timeframe, as I'm sure bumping the band off of primary topic would have been a lot easier back then. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The band is #1 on the list, which would seem to be a prerequisite for primary topic based on usage. No other Brand New (disambiguation) item cracks the top ten. I can only conclude that either the long-term significance criteria neutralizes the usage criteria, for this title, or All pages with titles beginning with Brand New is included when determining usage. There is no primary topic for this title, because of the long-term significance and enduring notability and educational value of the marketing term "brand new," even though Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article on the topic, or "more likely than all the other topics combined" includes All pages with titles beginning with Brand New in the other topics list. It seems clear that this is a case where there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (the band) and one of primary long-term significance (marketing term), and consensus determines whether the band is the primary topic. Then there is the question of how high the bar is set on consensus. I think it's supposed to be significantly more than a simple majority of !votes. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was getting 1,400 views a day before the move, and now its getting 250 views a day. Unless you can show that the missing 1,150 readers a day are now happily going to another Wiki article, I think that can be fairly described as "driving readers away." I don't see how they could be going to an article on the generic term, since we don't have such an article. There is a song named "Brand New", as well as three albums with this name, but they get only 5-7 readers a day each. Kauffner (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's yet another subjective (and rather superficial, no offence) interpretation of the search result. You don't credit the average reader with any intelligence or determination, that they would stumble at the first hurdle and then say 'blow it'. It's equally if not more plausible that they used to search for and but found it wasn't what they were looking for. Now, they type in the search box (or google) and know straight away, that the band article isn't what they were after, obviating a 'wasted' page hit. Nothing would account for the large proportion of 'disappeared' clicks: readers don't just evaporate. The band article appears clearly as one of the possible alternatives in the undisambiguated page 'brand new', that the reader genuinely looking for the band article would click just once more, and 'presto'. The new page locations, instead of deterring readers, is actually helping them to find the article they are after with greater speed or otherwise wastes less of their time. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point was just that the move has caused readership to decline, which you are not really challenging. Why has it declined? If you google "Brand New", you'll see that the DAB has retained the google rank earned by article when it was at the "brand new" lemma. So readers click on this result expecting an article, but get a DAB instead. These readers have never seen a DAB before and have no idea what to do with one. So they back out and try something else. There are plenty of results about this band. Wiki is not the universe. If we don't give the readers what they want, they'll go to the next site on the list. Kauffner (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't react quickly to our moves. Give it some time, and Brand New (band) will float to the top of Google's results, I'm pretty confident of that. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying or agreeing with you at all that 'readership' has declined. You made the logical leap from 'clicks' to 'readers', and assumed that all those who landed on the band article wanted to be there, but I'm saying that does not necessarily equate. I'm more interested in overall optimisation – sending more readers to where they want to go in the fewest mouse-clicks, and that may mean some readers will get there with more and some with fewer clicks; it may also mean they will realise quicker what they are looking for isn't here and they will have to go look elsewhere. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As primary topic Brand New was getting about 1,400 daily views. This included some readers looking for something other than the band, who needed to click the hatnote to go to the dab. Post-move the number of views of the Brand New dab is about 900. To me this seems to indicate a ratio of about 500 views of "all the other topics combined" vs. 900 views of the band, a clear indication of primary topic based on usage. Consistent with this, in the first 4–5 days post move, Brand New (band) was getting ~900 views. Then on April 8, Dohn joe created Brand New (band)(redirect), a clear measure of clicks for the band on the dab page, and this gets ~700 daily views, leaving the band with a little over 200... seems that redirects aren't double-counted. The band is still getting about 900 daily views. 7 of 9 get there by search, then clicking the first item on the dab. 2 of 9 land there by internal links from other Wikipedia articles. No one's been driven away, they've just been rearranged. Arguably we have saved a click for readers who were not looking for the band, at the expense of forcing an extra click from readers who were searching for the band. Since the latter outnumbers the former, more readers "time is being wasted" now. But in the long term, more readers time will be saved, since the marketing term has greater long-term significance. Maybe someone will eventually serve these educationally-minded readers by actually writing an article on the topic. - Wbm1058 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oic. That would mean that the decline in readership was from 1,400 a day to 950 a day. That's a big change in the math, but I think the general point I was making is still valid. Kauffner (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, all one could say was that the number of clicks has declined. And although it is often generally assumed that the two are directly related/correlated, the ambiguity here means that relationship may not hold true, so i would not be fair to make any inference about 'readership'. By changing the names, and thus reducing that ambiguity, in the not too distant future, we will get a true picture of where those hits were intended. So WP:PRIMARYTOPIC itself does not always work to the best of the project. Disambiguated namespaces, however would allow proper data production and analysis, to the overall benefit to the project. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:34, 13 April 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett

You might wish to verify my paraphrasing of Jimbo's statement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jenks24&oldid=550100270"