Talk:Danna (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

It has been proposed in this section that Danna (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Danna. A bot will list this discussion on the 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

Danna (disambiguation) → Danna – The singer still known as "Danna Paola", despite her stage name change,[1] is hardly the primary topic. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit summary in the edits that caused this in March [2] so it's perfectly fine to just revert that.

Does the average English reader strongly associate this term with this topic? Seems doubtful, as well as influenced by WP:Recentism. (Support) --Joy (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. Danna Paola page views dwarf all the other uses listed at Danna (disambiguation), including Danna (name) and Danna (disambiguation), which are the only ones that are not PTMs. We have a very clear case of obvious primary redirect here. —В²C ☎ 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Born2cycle we have observed numerous cases where readers use people's given names and surnames to navigate to their biographies, cf. WT:D, these are not all mere partial title matches.

  On the more general topic of primary topics, even if it looks like we might have a primary topic by usage, we don't necessarily have one by long-term significance. The question of what is "Danna" isn't generally answered by the sum of reliable sources as "this one person also called Danna Paola". Short-circuiting unsuspecting readers there might astonish them. Fans who know who they're looking for probably won't be astonished to have to pick their favorite item out of a short list. --Joy (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because people search for topics by a part of the title doesn’t mean it’s not a PTM. Not sure what your point is.

  There is absolutely no requirement to meet both PT criteria to be the PT. Usage used to be the only criteria, then HS (historical significance) was added, but that’s to address unusual cases where there is an obvious primary topic by HS. It’s an irrelevant consideration in most cases, including this one. I’ve never heard of a case where one topic is clearly PT by usage as we have here, but rejected because it’s not PT by HS, and no other topic is either. ASTONISH is not policy. It’s useful in some marginal cases. Not here. To reject an overwhelming PT because of ASTONISH is laughable. —В²C ☎ 09:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that people called X Y are actually ambiguous for X and Y because they're naturally disambiguated through varied names - a Mychael Danna or a Danna Vale is normally referred to as Danna just as Danna Paola Rivera Munguía is, and looking for any of them by going to Danna is a valid reader navigation method. It's not like searching for North Carolina at "North".

  Technically, there is no requirement for either of the criteria to be met as this is merely a guideline, and we should interpret it by doing whatever is sensible in context, which varies a lot.

  If you haven't heard of such cases, may I again point your attention to WT:D, where I've documented a number of recent ones, like Charlotte, Julius, Severian, King Charles, Lord Cameron, ...

  I don't think wanting to avoid astonishing readers is a marginal consideration with primary topic navigation - when we navigate some readers wrong with the very first thing they see after a lookup of a term, this can easily result in them giving up on our navigation or indeed trying to find the information in the encyclopedia. Also, any such cases are often not measurable by us - our statistics record such page views as such, but if a person gives up, closes the tab, goes back to the search engine and comes back that way, we don't generally see that this happened because the browsers don't communicate that action to us.

  I'd appreciate it if you weren't using language as emotional as "laughable". --Joy (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m having a lot of trouble understanding what your points are.

  Yes, I know people called X Y can be ambiguous for X and Y. Duh. X And Y are still PTMs for title X Y. Still not seeing your point. My point, again: Danna Paola page views dwarf all other uses at Danna (disambiguation), PTM or not. This is the quintessential primary redirect.

  You think Charlotte, Julius, Severian, King Charles, and Lord Cameron are all examples of what kind of cases? Where there is a clear PT by usage but they’re not the PT because they’re not also PT by historical significance? Which use of each is the obvious PT by usage?

  I’m sorry, but the idea of rejecting an obvious PT due to ASTONISH makes me literally laugh. If I was evaluating an RM discussion I’d give zero weight to such an argument. Not based in policy. At all. —-В²C ☎ 14:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically you are saying that she is the primary topic because she renamed herself early this year and old page views for a common name are irrelevant. Well, let's move Charles away and redirect it to the king. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The contention that page view statistics are a critical deciding factor is just not supported by guideline or policy. For example, let's have a look at a few other views of these same statistics:

  • all-time mass views for all topics linked from Danna (disambiguation) - the topic with most views is actually the article about Geisha at 2361 per day, compared to Danna at 8 per day. That's a factor of 295! How much of that geisha traffic is really about 'danna'? We can't tell from this. We have to set up a topical redirect per MOS:DABREDIR first. Is it possible that this topic has comparable usage and long-term significance to the Mexican singer? Sure seems like it, because if the difference is 300x, even a niche part of that could still be larger than the entire singer traffic. But, again, we know we can't tell for sure, and we should not make our conclusions based on incomplete data.
  • all-time mass views for all topics linked from Danna (name) - the Mexican singer article at the full name got 664 / day, Danna García got 251, Mychael Danna got 158, Jeff Danna 55, Mike Danna 33, Danna Vale 6, Danna Mohamed 1. These combine to about 504 / day. The ratio of 664 : 504 is just 1.3x. So a bit over half the people looking for people named Danna look for the singer, a bit less than half look for other people. With a primary redirect in place, that ratio naturally tilts further in favor of the singer, so it could realistically be less than 1.3x. Why would we choose a primary topic based on that, and make navigation harder for up to one half the readers looking for this?

  About the other examples, yes, all of these have one topic that is quite significant by page views, but also a scattering of other topics that are not as individually significant by views, but are significant as a whole. Please follow the links I posted to learn more.

  I'm not impressed by the continued use of hyperbole in your argument. It detracts from idea of having a structured discussion as described by the WP:CONS policy. --Joy (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support no clear primary topic and Google returns the island article first though that's probably partly due to my location and it seems only 4 of the results are for Paola. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No rationale given other than "she's also often known by her full name". Well so what... WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT exists for a reason. There's no doubt she's often known by her mononym, and per B2C it's also clear her page views dwarf all the other uses. I do'nt see a long-term significance angle that would negate the primary topic by usage angle either. A very weak case has been made for this move, and it should be left as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is WP:RECENTISM at best. She changed her name in late 2023 [3] before the release of her newest album. The disambiguation page for "Danna" was moved in March 2024, but pageviews haven't varied since then. She is not popular in the English-speaking market, and searches haven't significantly increased to suggest that her views outweigh the general use of the term. The only weak arguments are those claiming that we should allow the March 2024 move in place with no evidence of being the primary topic. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a bit of a trick that search engines play on us. The moment someone introduced the primary topic, they learned to direct more "Danna" traffic to Danna Paola.

  At the same time, the volume of "Danna" lookups beforehand wasn't exactly huge. If we look at monthly page views for the most popular topics named Danna, and turn on logarithmic scale, we can see a slight change of trend for "Danna" traffic between November '23 and March '24. Still, nothing to write home about, as it was still smaller than the baseline of Danna traffic in e.g. 2017.

  My main takeaway there, however, is that the interest in the singer's article actually spiked at much higher levels four years ago, and then subsided, so it clearly comes and goes - these fleeting spikes inflate the statistics for the singer so it looks like much more of a popular topic than it generally is.

  Yes, it's the single most popular topic with the name, but nowhere near the level of relative prominence of e.g. a Madonna or an Adele (added to the comparison) where a status of primary topic by usage is much clearer (yet also not without controversy overall!).

  And on that note, we can also compare the volume and trend of hatnote clicks to those over there. The change of trend here looks like just a blip compared to what happens in those cases. --Joy (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]