Talk:Bedingfield, Suffolk

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bedingfield → Bedingfield, Suffolk
• Bedingfield (disambiguation) → Bedingfield

– It seems unlikely that the two-sentence stub delineating the village (population 404) plus a list of three names under section header "Notable residents" is primary over Bedingfield (surname) which lists 14 names plus Henry Bedingfeld (disambiguation) with an additional six names. Also, the Bedingfeld dab page, which lists 19 names, can be probably merged into the Bedingfield (surname) page since, among those 19 names, only three are spelled "Bedingfeld", while the remaining 16 are spelled "Bedingfield". The form proposed in the nomination — Bedingfield, Suffolk — is based upon entries under Category:Villages in Suffolk. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. However, Bedingfeld is not a part of this nomination and should not be moved. I've done some cleanup to remove that article's WP:CFORK issues. 162 etc. (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this was probably created as a gazetteer entry first and nobody even checked later. all-time mass views plus biographies shows 4/day for the village, 998/day for Natasha, 548 for Daniel, 115 for Kate, etc. So we've had 3 extra clicks to get to those from their surname, which is just awful navigation for such readers. Getting this down to 2 clicks is an obvious improvement (Support). Agreed with 162 etc. on the variant, just keep them separate and linked for now, it seems to be distinct enough. --Joy (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BTW, a look into the meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive shows this article to be a complete dead end for navigation, as in the last 12 months we observed outgoing clickstreams only 4 times, and each of those times was to the hatnote. From there in turn, there was only one month we could observe outgoing clickstreams, and it was to the surname list. From there in turn, in two months we could measure clickstreams towards the Natasha Bedingfield article.

  Odds are we made readers lose interest by sending them on this kind of a pointless journey, and annoyed those few who bothered with it. --Joy (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although there's a case for the long-term significance of the village and the origin of the toponymic surname, users are best served by this change. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although it is only tangential to this nomination, my mention of the Henry Bedingfeld (disambiguation) page (Henry Bedingfield redirects to it), which is listed as the redirect "Henry Bedingfield (disambiguation)" in the alphabetical order on the Bedingfield (surname) page, noted that the dab page contains six names, but neglected to add that only two of those are "Henry Bedingfield", while the remaining four are "Henry Bedingfeld". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made the split for these articles. This is indeed unrelated to the RM. 162 etc. (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]