Jump to content

Talk:Hamilton

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

Source of the name

[edit]

The introduction seems to assume that family is the source of every Hamilton name, which I don't believe is true (e.g. Hamilton New Zealand was named after Captain Fane Charles Hamilton, war hero of the 1860s - was he of the same family?). Winstonwolfe

Um.... why on earth is Alexander Hamilton not up here? Above unsigned post by 24.136.241.79.

I have nothing to do with this page, but I'm guessing because it only lists people whose first name is Hamilton.Winstonwolfe 03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]. Sorry to disappoint, But the family at the top of the page IS the source of every Hamilton name. Walter FitzGilbert of "Hambleton" was granted the lands of Cadzow, near Glasgow in the thirteenth century and gave his name to the area. He was the progenitor of the House of Hamilton. The Hamiltons grew in influence, and at a time when tenantry took on the names of their feudal superiors, and when intermarriage without your community was almost taboo, the family grew exponentially to become the fourth most common name in Scotland. Every township, every city, everybody with the name Hamilton has a descent from Walter FitzGilbert. When cited as being renowned that does not mean 'nice', certain Hamiltons became plantation owners in the Caribbean and their slaves latterly took their name also. Winstonwolfe's John Charles Fane Hamilton is very definitely a cousin of the Duke of the Day, William Alexander Louis Stephen Douglas-Hamilton, 12th Duke of Hamilton Brendandh 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding this valuable point to the article. Can you please cite the source of your information. You may want to review WP:RS and WP:CITE policies. Alan.ca 04:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you care for?

There is more...

However, if any more information is required, I would kindly suggest looking at the articles relating to the various Hamiltons, rather than the inappropriate addition of references to a disambiguation page where the only purpose is to disambiguate between articles. Brendandh 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, now include the best citation in the article and we don't have a problem. Alan.ca 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a very thorough answer to my question. Winstonwolfe 05:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations

[edit]
  1. ^ South Lanarkshire's web History
  2. ^ Hamilton Family DNA project
  3. ^ Surnames
  4. ^ Ib idem ref. 1

Are incomplete source citations. Please see WP:CITE. If someone can provide more details on these source citations I am willing to assist with including the information. Web references should include a URL and accessdate, see {{cite web}}. I have no idea what "Surnames" means. As for the "Family DNA project" where is it located, how were the facts published? What is Ibidem? Alan.ca 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ib idem is a Latin phrase meaning the same. - Kittybrewster 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I really do not know what your problem is.

  1. My name is Brendan Douglas-Hamilton. My Grandfather was the 14th Duke of Hamilton, his father was the last Duke to live in Hamilton Palace. I think that I should know a little about whether or not my direct ancestor Gilbert fitz William etc was the progenitor of the name Hamilton.
  2. My ancestor was given the lands of Cadzow, where Hamilton stands now in the 14th century, a gift of Robert the Bruce. This some 400 years before your state of Ontario came into existence.
  3. In 1445 or thereabouts the town of Cadzow changed it's name to Hamilton, in honour of its patron's accession to the Scottish peerage. Following the marriage of the 3rd Duchess of Hamilton to the Earl of Selkirk in 1656 the town of Hamilton added a heart to its arms in recognition of his Douglas ancestry.
  4. If you do not know that that Hamilton, Ontario is the largest by head of population 10 times that of Hamilton in Lanarkshire, you are simply not doing your research properly.

Furthermore as said previously, these are not things appropriate to be cited on a disambiguation page. Look at the articles themselves for any references you need. Brendandh 10:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia has policies for inclusion. The encyclopedia does not support Original Research and information included must be Verifiable. When I am tagging this information, I am not asserting that it is not true, but that source citations should be included for controversial statements. Are you saying that you have verifiable sources for the information and don't know how to include them or are you arguing that you are meeting these policies? Alan.ca 00:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It also has style manuals for how to disambiguate. I've included references in this disambiguation article for the sake of an easy life. If you had conducted proper research you would have found the information readily. Controversial statements......hmm. I have only stated what is common knowledge, amongst not only amongst academics, regarding the history of one of the more influential European families of the late Mediæval to Modern age.

I'll leave you to sort out the referencing regarding the overgrown satellite in Canada. Regards Brendandh 01:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Coming here from WP:3O, I agree with Alan. The four references above are completely inadequate as they do not point to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be removed by anyone (WP:V). It's incumbent on those wanting to keep material to provide sources, not on those wanting to delete it, per WP:V. Accordingly, I'm removing the content until better inline citations for the specific facts are provided. Sandstein 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit my concern was to see some thought had been given to the assertion, not to demand detailed citation. I note the DNA source doesn't exactly support the one descent claim; "In order to answer the question whether there is mainly one, or there are many initiating Hamilton ancestors...". Which doesn't, of course, mean it is incorrect, but perhpas removing it in the mean time is the best idea. Winstonwolfe 08:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap citing

[edit]

Apologies for the above, am still getting to grips with wiki editing for the dyslexic and I really enjoyed the Biting, wonderful stuff! Anyhow point stands. The citations I've just re-entered shouldn't really be on a disambig page, but rather their respective articles. As said before--easy life.

HOWEVER, disambiguation articles should explain their point. There is no doubt that the name of Hamilton originates recordably from the family of Walter fitz Gilbert in south central Scotland in the 12c.

Whosoever that spread the name throughout the world has a connection (however tenuous) with the family of Hamilton. exempli gratia Vacuum cleaners being called Hoovers. Brendandh 01:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism tag

[edit]

I suggest that User:Alan.ca look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not before throwing accusations of it around. Brendandh 11:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

[edit]

This page exists purely so that people can find the article they want. It is not the place to make claims. It should not have references, because there should be nothing new to reference. Claims should be sorted out in the relevant article. If they are established there, then they can be referred to here. The article on Hamilton, South Lanarkshire does not say it is the original one, so until it does and is accepted by editors there, that claim should not be mentioned on this page. Conversely it does say it is the site of Hamilton Palace, so that can be included here and there is no need to reference here, as all that should be sorted out in the article.

I have also removed all the material commented out. That is for an article on the subject, not a disambiguation page. It can easily be retrieved from the history and used in the proper place.

Tyrenius 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tyrenius, I have not been able to resolve this issue on my own and what you have written makes sense. Should the page be moved to a name amended with (Disambiguation)? Alan.ca 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure. I've moved it to Hamilton (disambiguation) (lower case on the d). Hamilton is now a redirect to it, but can be reclaimed if anyone wants to in order to write an article with that title. To open the redirect page, click on Hamilton, it will take you to Hamilton (disambiguation), which will have a link to Hamilton near the top. Click on that link and you can then edit Hamilton. Tyrenius 03:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Unless there is some primary topic at the simple name, i.e., Hamilton, the disambiguation page should reside at the simple name. I will be moving it back momentarily. If there is a desire to write an article about Hamilton as a name, there is a precedent to name it something like Hamilton (name) (there are some articles named using onomastics as the parenthetical term, but that is so unfamiliar as to render the link useless, IMO). older ≠ wiser 03:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the problem on this page was that someone was using it as an article called Hamilton and that the material should be in an article with that name, which would be the primary article on the subject. Editors can make any views known below. Tyrenius 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support DAB Page named "Hamilton" After reading the statement above by older/wiser, user:Bkonrad, I am inclined to agree that we should not amend the name with (disambiguation). As the people writing about Hamilton (surname) could create an article with that name with the surname appended. It does seem likely that visitors looking for the various Hamilton cities would be frustrated by a hitting a surname article when they should be directed to this dab page. I know when I first searched for Hamilton, Ontario in Wikipedia I used Hamilton as the keyword as at the time I was unaware of the other international usage of the name. Alan.ca 08:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree The point is still as above. All places and people with the name Hamilton, have an historic connection with the family that originally used the name. Hamilton as an article should be about the origins of the name, its history and its use as a placename. A DAB link included at the top of the page to redirect to Hamilton (disambiguation) would be adequate to cover the various Hamiltonian possibilities. Brendandh 10:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI of User:Brendandh Note: "My name is Brendan Douglas-Hamilton. My Grandfather was the 14th Duke of Hamilton, his father was the last Duke to live in Hamilton Palace. I think that I should know a little about whether or not my direct ancestor Gilbert fitz William etc was the progenitor of the name Hamilton." Alan.ca 10:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In respect to your concerns about my conduct, this would not be the forum for that discussion. I posted a note on your talk page about WP:COI. Alan.ca 11:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would help, but you might like to check out Tate and Spectrum and any others similar for comparison.Tyrenius 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the question at hand is whether an article about Hamilton as a name should be the primary topic. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic describes a primary topic: When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.
I don't see that background information about the name Hamilton could ever be considered as the primary topic (that is, the intended target of links). older ≠ wiser 14:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. See William or John for other similar examples of name information handled apart from the disambiguation page. See, the thing is that disambiguation pages are not "articles", but are navigational aids. They should not contain article-like content, such as references or narrative descriptions more than one line long. If an encyclopedic article about Hamilton as a name can be made, that is well and good. But it should be separate from the disambiguation page and the assertion that the name content should be at Hamilton is dubious. older ≠ wiser 02:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need not get all negative about this. The Hamilton history stuff started as an aside which was not inappropriate (if accurate and referenced), but has expanded beyond that. The disambiguation page should be for disambiguation. But that is not to say the Hamilton family history material can't be made into an article. Yes, it could use some work (research, editing...), but it is worth an article - and I think what is important is that it gets out somewhere, regardless of page name - there is no need to die in a ditch to defend it going on to the disambiguation page. Winstonwolfe 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, let's be adult about this. Simply click on Hamilton (name) or Hamilton (family history) to start the article. Tyrenius 16:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If there was a well-sourced an authoritative article on the derivation of the name verifying that most uses had the claimed provenance I would certainly think it credible for there to be a request for it to take the name 'Hamilton' and have the existing page become a disambiguation page identified as such. However, in the absence of the same I can't see that there is much to discuss. Ben MacDui (Talk) 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Hamilton should only be for the name or family history if that is the pre-eminent subject which most users would expect to find on searching for Hamilton. It has been pointed out that this is not the case, an observation with which I concur. Tyrenius 00:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK

[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced. I am going through the complete arse of sourcing such things from the National Gallery of Scotland]. An MS that I'd lent them and thought that I may not need back in the near future, written for William Hamilton, 11th Duke of Hamilton contains rather a load of stuff. I'm planning to come back here in the near future with a more authoritative Blah .Brendandh 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Hamilton

[edit]

Surely information about the name and its history should be in the Clan Hamilton article? OK so its "not really a clan" and all that, but really, we already have a page on the family, so lets use that for the origins of the family name, with citations etc. The Clan Hamilton article appears to rely heavily on some outdated sources, and could use the attention. cf. Douglas, Douglas (surname) and Clan Douglas. ::Supergolden:: 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People

[edit]

It is absurd that there is a direct link to the United States ten-dollar bill named after Alex Hamilton, yet no direct link to Alexander Hamilton. I think it's a disservice to the readers not to include his name on this page. (If there are a few other particularly notable people with that name, they should be on this page, as well.) Red Slash 09:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not absurd at all. Alexander Hamilton is covered in the page concerning individual Hamiltons at Hamilton (surname and title), and he is the main page for Alexander Hamilton, despite there being sixteen other noteworthy Alexander Hamiltons. Brendandh (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unusual where one individual (or sometimes a couple) is vastly more commonly referenced than any other individual to be listed separately on the dab page even though there is a separate page listing surname-holders. For example, see Washington or Lincoln or Jefferson or Roosevelt or Wilson or Chamberlain. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As stated prior, there is a page for people named Hamilton, and there are a lot of them, Hamilton being the 29th most common surname in Scotland alone.[2]. The American founding father, Alexander Hamilton is the main link for that page with a dablink to the others, where he also heads the list. Quite suitably represented I think. This page is primarily about topography, groups and businesses etc. with the name Hamilton. Clan Hamilton is not even on this page, and that is a far larger group of people than one 18thc proto American. Brendandh (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other persons knowns as Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Wilson, and Chamberlain (as well as many other similar surnames with one or two extremely well-known individuals where the individual is listed on the disambiguation page even though there is also a separate surname page. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Hamilton (American Revolution) Well perhaps we should have this fellow in here too, balance things up a bit for those trying to navigate Wikipedia that aren't based in the US! As per prior, this page is not for articles about people they have their own page, with successive links to further dab pages. Brendandh (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A goal for disambiguation is to help readers "quickly navigate to the article they seek". Of all the persons with the surname Hamilton, only one is extremely commonly referenced as simply "Hamilton". If you can provide evidence for other persons being frequently referenced by the surname alone, we can perhaps discuss including them on the disambiguation page. But there really is little reason to force readers seeking a commonly sought for page to dig into various sub-pages in order to find the article. older ≠ wiser 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who can be legitimately referred to as plain "Hamilton" is the Duke of Hamilton, as that is his name and designation as the premier peer of Scotland. Alexander Hamilton, however historically significant just does not have that right. Brendandh (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with having the "right" -- it is about how people actually use the term. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'm fine with your latest edit. older ≠ wiser 20:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord Lyon may have something to say about that! You do realise that your above assertion about "right" is iconoclastic, and runs hither from the basis of the culture of the Western world? (Your side of the North Atlantic not excluded!). Still.... Brendandh (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no idea what you mean. Wikipedia is in general not prescriptive in usage. If a disproportionately large number of people use the term "Hamilton" to refer to Alexander, we don't undertake to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. older ≠ wiser 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e No great wrong to be righted. Only that the only person entitled to be called 'Hamilton', and by that name only, is the Duke, and not Alexander H (who incidentally was a fourth cousin or somesuch of the Duke of his day) It's just a matter of form. Brendandh (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re. "most common"

[edit]

Putting aside an extremely high page view for Alexander Hamilton and the related musical last July ([3]), probably due to the contemporary release of it on Disney+, an event which propelled it to the top 25 (starting at Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/June 28 to July 4, 2020, for the next six weeks), Lewis Hamilton has consistently similar pageviews to the above (last few months, he's even above them). I don't think there's any point in perpetuating WP:BIAS. The names can just be mentioned in the regular place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the above identified anomaly (it's a clear outlier and the causes for it have been noted), I've done some further look-up. Raw data has a total of 8.36 million pageviews for Alexander, 7.95 for Lewis, and 6.62 for the musical. Accounting for monthly variances in total page views, (based on [4]), over the studied period (July 2019 to April 2021, ignoring July-August 2020 for all three, as per above), Alexander accounted for 0.00538% of all page views on WP, Lewis for 0.00509%, and the musical for 0.00424%. In aggregate, this seems to support that for readers, neither term seems to be much more frequent than the other. A quick google search reveals more hits for Lewis ([5] - 190 million) than for Alexander ([6] - 150 million) or the musical ([7] - 61 million). I can't see how this could justify keeping only two clearly USA-centric terms in the top. My suggestion is to remove all three.
Additionally, I fail to see why a short clarification of the term ("a common English name and toponym" - these are the two most likely reasons a reader might be here, and the page has a lot of entries) is being objected to.
@Bkonrad: You've been here long enough to know about the "D" part of WP:BRD. I'd really appreciate if you gave your opinion on the matter, here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the clickstream data for March (showing how many times each link on the dab page was followed):

Data
Target Type Clicks
Hamilton_(musical) link 2197
Alexander_Hamilton link 2105
Lewis_Hamilton link 463
Hamilton_(2020_film) link 317
Hamilton,_Ontario link 317
Hamilton_(name) link 250
Hamilton,_South_Lanarkshire link 173
Hamilton,_New_Zealand link 166
William_Rowan_Hamilton link 146
Hamilton,_Bermuda link 77
Hamilton_Watch_Company link 68
Hamilton_(1998_film) link 38
Hamilton_(2006_film) link 37
Hamilton_(play) link 36
Duke_of_Hamilton link 34
Hamilton,_Victoria link 34
Clan_Hamilton link 29
Hamilton,_New_South_Wales link 27
Lord_Hamilton link 27
Humberstone_&_Hamilton link 25
Main_Page other 22
Hyphen-minus other 21
Hamilton:_In_the_Interest_of_the_Nation link 17
Hamilton_Harbour link 16
Hamiltonian_mechanics link 16
Hamilton,_Queensland link 16
Hamilton_Township,_Ontario link 15
Hamilton_Hill,_Western_Australia link 13
Hamilton_County link 12
Hamilton,_South_Australia link 12
Hamilton,_California link 10
Hamilton,_New_York link 10
Hamilton,_Ohio link 10
Hamilton,_Tasmania link 10
Recurring_Saturday_Night_Live_characters_and_sketches_introduced_2008–09 link 10

The musical received similarly high clicks in January 2019 (2747), so its current popularity may not be tied to a recent release on a streaming platform. Still, it's a relatively recent work, and there's a need to balance short-term reader needs with long-term notability considerations when deciding the layout of dab pages. I think it's acceptable for the first line to mention the most common uses of the term in English, though that's better done without introducing further links (to toponym or elsewhere) as these can distract from the primary navigational function of the page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That could be heavily affected by the fact the two links are at the top of the article. Results from outside this page (pageviews, google hits) show that Lewis and Alexander are relatively close (a difference of .4 million when results go up and down each month by 100s of thousands is not particularly significant). I had already restored the explanatory line, without the link, yesterday evening, but @Bkonrad: reverted without stating a reason and they haven't participated here despite me pinging them a couple of times or leaving a notice on their talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DABCOMMON: In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below. IMO, there's really no question that the musical and its namesake qualify. It appears Lewis would also fit the bill. There's a pretty steep drop-off after those three. older ≠ wiser 14:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for mentioning "Hamilton" is a surname and toponym, that really does absolutely nothing to help a reader find an ambiguous page. older ≠ wiser 14:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a small definition or clarification confirms to the reader they are on the right track, is a wee bit more informative than jumping in the listing right away, and it's not unprecedented, see for ex. School (disambiguation). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
School is the primary topic, so the description is appropriate there. It is less common (and not supported by WP:MOSDAB) to state more than "Term may refer to:" There are cases where the additional detail might be helpful, as when all the terms are derived from a common origin which does not itself have a separate article. That is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a Hamilton who hasn't commented before here, the opening of this article strikes me as very odd. Hamilton is a surname and a place name, clearly, and I can see why the musical might be mentioned near the top of the article. But to give some sort of precedence to Alexander and Lewis, when virtually anyone looking for their articles will include both their first name and surname, seems to me to be strange and unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Racing drivers are usually referred to by last name (Hamilton, Schumacher, Alonso, ...). See recent example here. Formal writing would also imply that subjects are referred to by their last name (so a history text where Alexander Hamilton is mentioned could refer to him by only his last name) [except of course here where referring to each by last name would be confusing]. Since these two are the most common usages, they're given at the top. Agree that the musical probably doesn't need mentioning independently of Alexander, but given it seems to attract significant page views, it might still be justified by a strict reading of the policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your example starts with the exact words "Lewis Hamilton..". So, not a great argument. Obviously, any article anywhere about any individual will tend to use the surname after the first use. If "a strict reading of the policies" gives absurd results, the policies need to be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This exact post is what I was referring to (though in this case it might more be because of context and assumed knowledge of the reader than concerns for clarity). I've removed the musical (it was already duplicated down below so that is also against policy...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought if there's any usage-based reason for having some entries singled out at the top, that would apply only to Alexander and the musical; the next most visited entry – for Lewis – gets 5x less usage and isn't separated by any natural breaks from the following half a dozen entries. Yes, the position of those two entries at the top likely has some effect on usage, but this is extremely unlikely to have made a significant impact here (it's not at all plausible that a majority of readers would, upon landing on a dab page, forget about what they were looking for and simply click on whatever link came first). – Uanfala (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is significant that all three pages get about the same amount of pageviews overall (with the two biographies getting slightly more), but that this page stands out as it seems to favour Alexander and the musical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are not relevant here. When ordering items on a dab page what matter are the needs of users of that dab page, not aggregate traffic for the target articles (the overwhelming majority of which has nothing to do with the dab page). – Uanfala (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews are certainly relevant for ordering by MOS:DABCOMMON. Page views give a pretty fair indication of what readers might be likely to be looking for, especially when a few have significantly more traffic than others. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews were useful when we didn't have the clickstream dataset, and even then only as an indirect pointer to what readers might be looking for. And as you can see from the data above, there's significant mismatch in this particular case. – Uanfala (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamilton&oldid=1243996836"