Talk:Kiddle (search engine)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 1 February 2019 by reviewer Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs).

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Google Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Google To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here.
Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale
Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback
Maintain : This WikiProject
Merge : Google mobile services into List of Google products
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs
Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products
Other :
- Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...)
- create:
- Help the Google article for a good article status
- Improve the Outline of Google
- Get more members using :
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}}
- Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color

This page was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.

Request to move page to Kiddle

The current page kiddle has far fewer views and relevance. ^[1] --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, for some reason the link you posted is for the Cat page. Here are the correct links:

AlexBern73 (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes that is what I meant. do you approve? --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, yes. You can move the page along with the talk page, and higher editors can always roll it back if they find it inappropriate. Should not be a problem though, as that surname page hardly gets any hits --AlexBern73 (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I can't move it. --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cat. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "Dog" ignored (help)

Oppose Kiddle should point to the disambiguation. The search engine is hardly primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddle originally pointed to the disambiguation, but Aaron Justin Giebel renamed it to Kiddle (surname) and made it a set index. So what is it that you want now? Restore the disambiguation and make the Kiddle (surname) just its own small set of names? That would be fine too. You can just move the content to the right spot. What I'm opposing is making the search engine primary topic. It clearly isn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, however, it's still not fully clear how it is decided, in such cases, what a primary topic is. Judging by the number of hits to the two pages, for instance, clearly shows that the search engine page is way more requested and read than the surname page. AlexBern73 (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pageviews show that this is more important to users than the other article. --Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." and "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." The website is not substantially greater notability than the others. I would recommend having Kiddle as the disambiguation page instead of a set index unless you're going to split out the surname page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My article has educaional value. Kiddle (surname) is a mere set of links To random wikipedia articles, with no educational value.Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, the fishing weir kiddles and Liddle Kiddles have significant value as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you that. But kiddle is more notable. Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlexBern73  what do you think about this? Looks like the decision is up to AngusWOOF. 
Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, I think the huge difference in page views speaks volumes about the search engine notability. Google shows all 10 results for the Kiddle search engine when you search "Kiddle" - which speaks in favor of Kiddle's notability. On the Google's first page of results there's not even a single result about the fishing weir kiddles, Liddle Kiddles, or anyone with a surname Kiddle, which means the number of links to Kiddle search engine is substantially higher than any links to other Kiddle topics. Higher number of links shows higher people's interest - when they search for Kiddle, they want the search engine, not the other Kiddle topics (except for some rare cases). Kiddle is also used at primary schools around the world which speaks volumes about its educational value. I can post numerous link for schools websites linking Kiddle for their students - thousands of links, and hundreds of articles and blog posts. One will find hard time matching even a small fraction of these articles and links for the fishing weir Kiddles or Liddle Kiddles, or anyone with last name Kiddle. So, I don't agree with AngusWOOF's statement that "The website (Kiddle) is not substantially greater notability than the others" - his statement, while respected, is based on subjective opinion, while the facts, statistics, and numbers say otherwise. AngusWOOF might not have known much about the search engine, and have little interest in it, but other people do, especially kids and educators in schools. AngusWOOF is a respected editor with huge number of edits, so I suppose Kiddle will stay on this page as per his decision, unless any other power editors intervene. AlexBern73 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things to note is that there is FUTON bias towards sources on the net, so listing how many Google hits isn't helping establish primary topic unless done carefully. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. It's like insisting The Rock (wrestler) is primary topic because he's been in the most Google searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean by FUTON bias. And I have no problem with the Kiddle search article staying as a non-primary page, I just want valued editor decisions (like yours) supported by sources, facts and numbers, rather than just words. For instance, you said that “The search engine is not a substantially greater notability than the others”, yet I went through all the points listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I could not find any single one where the other Kiddle topics could beat the search engine. Wikipedia link numbers, page view numbers, the quality and number of external reputable sources and articles all speak in favor of the search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBern73 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I stand corrected. The Liddle Kiddles article has more Wikipedia links to it than the Kiddle search engine article. So, yes, in one point of WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY the Kiddle search engine appears less notable. Though, the pageview numbers for the Kiddle search engine article is about tenfold of the Liddle Kiddles'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBern73 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want to formalize this move request proposal? See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Right now it's not getting much visibility, and other editors might have wider opinions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might do that, thanks for the tip. AlexBern73 (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you do, AlexBern Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Cat. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "Dog" ignored (help)

[1]