Talk:Baldwin (name)

Anthroponymy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 4 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Baldwin. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 4 November 2023

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 14:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin (name) → Baldwin
Baldwin → Baldwin (disambiguation)

– There doesn't seem to be much controversy in the article history here, but as I happened to come here from reading another RM, and it's such a generally well-known English term, I'm erring on the side of caution and initiating this process here.

It seems to me that "Baldwin" is generally most recognized as a human name by the average English reader, and https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Baldwin shows that a huge amount of traffic to Baldwin immediately goes to the separate anthroponymy list. Doing this move would swap things around, so that people looking for Baldwin topics unrelated to human names would have to do the extra click on the hatnote instead, while most readers get to the list they're looking for immediately.

It's interesting how there's a lot of filtered traffic, indicating a substantial long tail, but still, nothing in the comparison of mass views of one set of topics and the mass views of the other set of topics makes me think that we should give more priority to e.g. 18 people a month who are looking for the locomotive works compared to hundreds of notable Baldwins who command orders of magnitude larger reader interest. --Joy (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the name has 811 but the hamlet in New York has 1,055, the place in Florida has 744, the apple has 615, the place in Michigan has 610, the place in Georgia has 422, the place in Pennsylvania has 396 and some other titles like like Baldwin Locomotive Works has 4,063[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale I posted that mass views link above, with a larger sample, and compared it to the other mass views that shows significantly largers numbers for people, which explains what the readers are looking for in WikiNav. Can you please review that? --Joy (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical people are far more likely to be looking for the name or someone with the name than the other topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the WikiNav link? It shows us not just a crude overall traffic reaching all of these topics, but the specific traffic pattern of what happens when someone visits specifically this page. It says that in September, 674 people saw the article Baldwin, of which 377 was identifiable (~56%), and then there were 320 visits to Baldwin (name) (~85% of identifiable, ~47.5% of total), 20 to Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (~5% of identifiable, ~3% of total), 18 to Baldwin Locomotive Works and 11 to Baldwin Piano Company, while the rest was <10 each. There's not a lot of history there, but there is a "comparison over time" section which shows the same patterns in August. --Joy (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, no PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp there is no primary indeed. The change changes how the navigation aids work not to claim a single primary topic, but to make the larger contingent of readers click less. --Joy (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not primary topic. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrKeefeJohn again, there is no argument here to replace a list with a primary topic, but with another list, likewise a navigational aid. The amount of non-navigation content in the anthroponymy list is barely referenced and negligible. --Joy (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2023 (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.

Baldwin? Alec? Stephen? others? The most famous one is especially Alec?

Alec "Smartalec" Baldwin Winnebaggo (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]