Talk:Hum

Requested move 26 March 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I note this reverses the previous move 18:28, 5 October 2006‎ Yoda1893 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (17 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (moved Hum (disambiguation) to Hum: There is more than one important article). Andrewa (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum → Hum (disambiguation) – I'd have thought the primary topic for the term "Hum" is Humming. None of the other usages seem very significant in comparison. Suggest making Hum a redirect to Humming. — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, clear primary topic. Red Slash 21:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The primary topic does seem to be clear. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Previous talk page contents

Contents of the now overwritten talk page for Hum (disambiguation), which like the page histories was lost in the above move. Andrewa (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not very happy with this page, which doesn't fit Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I wanted to refactor the hum page, but it seems they both need to be done at the same time. JohnWhitlock 23:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done with refactor. Next time I'll use {{disambig-cleanup}} rather than start a discussion page. JohnWhitlock 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

full disambiguation again

I've moved the disambiguation page back into this title ("Hum") after I saw that the views of the term "Hum" seem to match views of the disambiguation page at https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Hum%7CHum_(disambiguation)%7CHumming

This seems to invalidate the claim of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Either way, now that it's moved, we can later go back and compare https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-year&pages=Hum%7CHum_(disambiguation)%7CHumming%7CHum_(sound) and see how many people visit the first link on this page instead.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: please see above. Primary topic determinations from five years ago, even then unsupported by actual evidence, can well change. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Fine, I don't really care that much. And I guess "hum" ultimately refers to a sound, such as a mains hum, which isn't necessarily covered by humming. So OK. I've moved it back to the base name. But if anybody else objects then we can move it back yet again and start a formal RM. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I later also checked a few other topics in the stats and the picture is even more stark:

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of that persuades me. "Hum" is a basic part of the language. The long term importance of humming outweighs anything and everything else. Call it the apple principle. --Khajidha (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers are literally overwhelming - regardless of this change, the basic topic gets 5 views a day, and everything else gets 1500-2000 views a day. Keeping the basic topic on top is polite, as is keeping the link to the dictionary on top. To quote WP:PT, "a topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" - you should present an argument for that, not that it's merely a basic part of the language, especially given that there's several articles about several different kinds of hum sounds that *aren't* covered by humming. (In case of the two apples, the pageviews ratio seems to be more like 13k vs 4k which is way more comparable than this.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These days we have WikiNav to show outgoing clicks, and https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Hum currently indicates over a half goes to a band, a bit over 10% to humming, then slightly less in turn to a film, then a place, then The one, and a region, before it tapers off into "human". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In October '23, WikiNav showed 730 views of Hum, from which 506 outgoing clickstreams could be identified to 6 destinations: 257 to the band (~35%), 84 to the film (~11.5%), 57 to humming (~8%), 52 to medieval country (~7%), 33 to Croatian village (~4.5%), 23 to noise phenomenon (~3%). A look into the clickstream archive shows the same pattern in the two months before, with human and mains hum also sometimes being visible (and otherwise there's a long tail). --Joy (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In January '24 we had 894 incoming views, and 616 identifiable outgoing clickstreams, of which 378 to the band (~42%), 74 to humming (~8%), 72 to film (~8%), 35 to medieval country (~4%), 24 to noise phenomenon (~2.5%), 22 to village (~2.5%), 11 to human (~1%). --Joy (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]