Talk:Prince Albert

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

Anthroponymy

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles

Requested move 5 August 2017

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is clear consensus for the move, supported by convincing evidence that there is no topic overwhelmingly sought by readers. bd2412 T 14:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert (disambiguation) → Prince Albert – There does not seem to be a dominant primary topic among all Prince Alberts. The top two figures, Albert, Prince Consort and Albert II, Prince of Monaco, get about equal interest on Wikipedia[1] and in Google searches, except for spikes[2] due on one side to Albert of Monaco's accession to the throne (2005), marriage (2011) and birth of his twins (2014), and on the other side to the recent Victoria (TV series) (2016 and 2017) highlighting her romance with Albert Prince consort. Regarding the second WP:PT criterion, I do not see Victoria's husband as historically more significant than the late Albert I or the current Albert II, both rulers of Monaco over quite long periods of time. — JFG ^talk 21:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Followup note: If this move is approved, I would suggest giving top billing to the Prince Consort and Albert II of Monaco in the dab page, because they are the most-likely people sought by far. This is a similar case to New York City and New York (state) having top billing in New York. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Prince Albert in a can. — AjaxSmack 02:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Trends is an irregular way to gauge primary topic. The standard test is to google "Prince Albert" -wikipedia and review the first page of results. From England, I got eight results for local restaurants and bars and two for the ruler of Monaco. Whiff of greatness (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The search you made returns page after page of things named after Prince Albert in England (pubs, schools, roads, buildings, the Canadian island), or mentions of events happening around these things. That's irrelevant to the primary topic discussion between various people named Prince Albert. This is the reason I compared searches with "Monaco" to searches with "Victoria" (who would be mentioned in virtually any article talking about her husband). I stand by my analysis. Wikipedia page traffic confirms that those two princes carry about equal interest from readers. — JFG ^talk 07:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to figure out which subjects a reader is likely to be searching for. This is why I checked the rankings on the first page of Google results. Sadly, the results in this case are overcrowded with subjects of purely local significance. I rejiggered the Google search below to give me more relevant results. Once you know which subjects to look for, the pageview tool allows for precise comparison. It looks to me like Google Trends, at least the way you have used it, measures approximately the same thing as the page view tool does. Whiff of greatness (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia readership stats teach us that the Prince Consort and Albert II of Monaco are the top two subjects that people want to read about, by far. Albert I of Monaco sees practically no demand. Accordingly, I have added a notice of this discussion to the articles about the top two princes. We must also beware of the redirect effect of Prince Albert which gives extra weight to the prince consort stats. People searching for the current ruler of Monaco by typing "Prince Albert" are redirected to a 19th-century figure and can arguably feel puzzled. — JFG ^talk 10:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genital piecing article is also a player here, at least in terms of page views. However, I am dismissing this subject as unencyclopedic. If we are considering only two options, the second choice article can get a hatnote on the primary topic page, per WP:TWODABS. That beats sending readers to a page full of choices they are unlikely to be interested in. Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you google simply "Prince Albert", three Wikipedia articles pop up. Victoria's consort gets more page views than either of the others and dominates the gbook results. My main reason to oppose is my subjective sense that Victoria's consort is the encyclopedic subject here. He's the guy in the prints that made the British monarchy all about family values (at least until Diana came along). The structure of the disambiguation page is reader unfriendly. The top three entries are minor subjects. Whiff of greatness (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The page views analysis is totally convincing. The primary topic should be far and away more visited than any other page, or visited more often than all the other pages put together, but we are a very far from that. The two Alberts get virtually the same number of views. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The prince consort is [not] more likely to be sought than all other topics combined, especially when you look at more than just the two biggest topics. It receives a minority of page views even among 10 topics,[3] let alone all the King Alberts who were once princes and may thus be reasonably searched for under the name "Prince Albert".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cuchullain: If you support the move, surely you mean to write that "the prince consort is not more likely to be sought"? — JFG ^talk 19:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes, thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's clear there's no primary topic for Prince Albert. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because there are 342 incoming links to "Prince Albert". Do we even have a systemic method to retarget or fix those after a RM? I closed the Talk:Last Dance (Donna Summer song) RM a couple of days ago and manually fixed ~180 links, half of which from articles about Idols (TV series) and clones, and it wasn't fun. No such user (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser seems to be good for that kind of repetitive edit. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the move is approved, I'll fix the incoming links. Such tasks can be semi-automated with WP:AWB (for Windows) or WP:JWB (for all platforms). — JFG ^talk 13:32, 14 August 2017 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.