Talk:Echoes

Requested move

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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Echoes → Echoes (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT. I see nothing on this page to dissuade me from thinking that the clear primary topic of the term is the singular, Echo, which all of the pop culture topics intend to invoke. bd2412 T 22:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Copied and pasted per the editor's request: Support - and feel free to copy paste this support onto all similar moves. I think this is now a case for use of technical move rather than full RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support as per nom Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose this one. The dab page has about two dozen separate entries for things titled "Echoes". Someone typing in "echoes" is probably looking for one of them. It's thus more helpful to our readers to keep this as a separate dab page, per WP:PLURALPT. Dohn joe (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Dohn joe, i.e. per WP:PLURALPT (a new Wikilawyer shortcut to me) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A number of the entries are quite notable and are at least as likely to be the search target of "Echoes" as is echo. —  AjaxSmack  00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seriously? It's pretty obvious that the primary meaning of "echoes" is "reflections of sound". Those opposed to this move may be underestimating how often people search for topics by plurals; people often talk about the general topics as "echoes" and "bridges", not "bridge" and "echo". —innotata 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some people might search with the plural though I would fathom most would click on the "echo" before finishing typing the "-es" in this case. No matter, the issue is that most people typing "Echoes" are probably not looking for the echo article. Look at the pageview stats. In August, echo got 10,545 views. But, a mere two of the entries on the Echoes page, Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd with 6885 views and Echoes (Pink Floyd song) 7737 views together outpolled echo. With over a score of other articles listed on the Echoes dab page, echo is not the primary topic. —  AjaxSmack  00:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Determination of a primary topic does not rise and fall on page views alone; we must also consider the historical importance of the topics. Echoes have existed nearly since the beginning of time. They are used by many kinds of animal for various purposes. Their use has been recorded in human art and technology. In short, they are more important than any work attempting to invoke them in its name. bd2412 T 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Echoes are a pretty resonant concept in culture, think of antiquity. Anyway, as far as page views, that still is a bit higher for echo. As for the supposition that people click the dropdown options, you're assuming everyone views Wikipedia's interface the same way, and uses it the same way, as you do, which is a bad assumption. —innotata 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it were a simple "-s", it might be an easier case, but persons specifically typing in "-es" are more likely to be looking for one of the things named precisely "echoes" rather than the acoustic phenomena. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. And I don't think it should make a difference that this just happens to end with es; it's still just the plural of echo. kennethaw88 • talk 03:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The case that the singular is the primary topic of the plural does not stack up in this particular instance. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Requested move 26 July 2023

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Echoes → Echoes (disambiguation) – WP:PLURALPT again. fgnievinski (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Echoes shows that in June, most readers clicked on miniseries, Pink Floyd song, etc etc, and only at #6 the singular, which is at the very top of the page. There were only 10 identified clicks on the singular out of a total incoming traffic of 286, which is ~3.5%. Why do you think that this is an anomaly? I could see having no heading confusing some readers, a problem I've noticed in another discussion recently, but it's hard to quantify and fixing it may well involve just slightly different formatting and no move. Ultimately, the question would be why should we send >90% of those readers to click a hatnote instead. --Joy (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support obviously echoes means echoes. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose page view stats don't support this claim of WP:PLURALPT. The miniseries gets significantly more views than other articles and the Pink Floyd song and album both get more views than the acoustic phenomenon. WP:SMALLDETAILS is applicable here. older ≠ wiser 11:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as before. Everything that is named "Echoes" is intended to reference the plural form of "Echo". BD2412 T 14:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but Everything that is named "Echoes" is intended to reference the plural form of "Echo" seems a bizarre statement. That seems very much like saying everything that is named "Boston" is a reference to Boston, England. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Addendum, I mean, SMALLDETAILS easily applies here. Both pageviews and clickstream data indicate that readers who type in 'echoes' are FAR more likely to be looking for something named in the plural than the acoustic phenomena. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is obvious that everything named "Boston" is not intended to reference the rather obscure town in England, as most people naming something Boston now will be unaware of that town. On the contrary, however, everyone who names a movie or an album "Echoes" is specifically naming it after the acoustic phenomenon, and intending to make the viewer of that title think about that phenomenon. BD2412 T 15:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps so, but readers are decidedly not looking for the acoustic phenomenon. Why inconvenience readers by pointing them there where they will need to hop to the dab page to find what they are actually looking for. Isn't that ultimately the purpose of disambiguation pages? I mean if the stats were even a bit more balanced I could see a case, but I can't see how SMALLDETAILS doesn't provide greater benefit to majority of readers. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  The miniseries, released last year, is a paradigmatic case of WP:RECENTISM. In a few years it will be largely forgotten, as most media of its type are. However, "echoes" will still immediately refer to an acoustic phenomenon. BD2412 T 15:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  But they're not looking at just one recent item from last year, there's a spread of five other topics anyway (plus whatever is behind, with 9 clickstreams or less it doesn't render). The song is from 1971 (52 years ago), the album from 2001 (22 years ago), the antisemitic symbol is identified since 2014 (9 years ago), and the vocal trio was active 1960-65 (58-63 years ago). This reader behavior does not indicate a clear pattern of recentism. Maybe the most obvious plural meaning needs to be made more clear to the average reader, but maybe the overwhelming interest (needed for a primary redirect) is simply not there. --Joy (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I think WP:PLURALPT does apply here. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  The same guideline already says that sometimes a plural form will not match the singular. It would be good to see an actual spelled out argument why the dictionary singular meaning should override usage in navigation. Why is the average English reader best served by echoes redirecting to echo? Especially as it's just a start-class article. --Joy (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – PLURALPT isn't an automatic "let's redirect the plural to the singular". They give an example of there being a DAB at Android while Androids is a redirect, along with the example of Axe being a page while Axes is a dab (albeit to account for two different terms that share the same plural, so a slightly different situation). Echo still has to be the PRIMARYTOPIC for Echoes, and I've yet to see any evidence that it is; in fact, our readers do not seem to like going to Echo from the DAB, so this change just harms our readers. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• The generic meaning is primary by the 2nd criteria but not by the 1st. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was ALMOST going to go with @Bkonrad, but I thought I would use the tools available and take a look at the traffic from before the emergence of the Netflix series. What that shows is a lack of predominance and I do think that the spike related to the miniseries can be attributed to WP:RECENT. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Ceyockey, I don't understand. The evidence shows (and you seem to agree) that there is no predominance. That is, there are several pages other than the series from the time before the series article even existed that exceed or are comparable to that of the acoustic phenomenon. How does that justify making the acoustic phenomenon a primary topic redirect? older ≠ wiser 18:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

  I should have added that "Echoes" should redirect to "Echo" as the primary topic is indeed the physical (not necessarily auditory alone) topic. For the first 15 years of page view recording, the predominate topic among all the related was "Echo"; there was a crossover sometime in 2020 where the Pink Floyd album and song overtook the physical phenomenon (either an example of Recentism or a consequence of more people coming here for pop culture rather than science). I'm speculating that in the fullness of time that the phenomenon will overtake others and return to prominence again. What this suggests is that "Echoes" should redirect to "Echo" rather than to a dab page. I didn't take the time to explain my thinking. Sorry. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  I think perhaps we are looking at different data or perhaps interpreting it differently. The page views for both Echoes (Pink Floyd song) and Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd have very consistently been in the same range as Echo. Consider the page view data for only those three articles. The daily average for the song is 341, for Echo, 336, and for the album, 259. This range is fairly consistent for the entire period apart from brief spikes. Even if we look only at the period from 2015 to 2020, the daily average for Echo is 409, for the song, 328, and for the album, 270. Even for that period, Echo is by no means 'the predominate topic'. Even considering only those three articles and omitting all of the other articles, Echo is far less than 50% of the total. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The miniseries and Pink Floyd song each get significantly more pageviews than "echo", and especially when you consider that only a small fraction of readers looking for echo will search for it using its plural form, there seems to be no good reason to force a majority of people through Echo's hatnote on their way to the dab page. Station1 (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

followup to move discussion

I checked https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Echoes after a few months.

In October '23, there were 350 views, and 5 identifiable destinations that got 192 outgoing views, and none of them are the singular, which indicates the singular probably had fewer than about 3*9 = <27 outgoing views (3 being incoming empty, internal, search), and possibly a few other specific articles (which would be transient, as links to disambiguation pages are habitually corrected by editors). --Joy (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In retrospect, I edited the top entry here to be a bit more descriptive and prominent, let's see if that has any effect in the statistics. --Joy (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

In January '24, we could identify 13 clickstreams to the singular, yay. The miniseries and the song links still commanded an order of magnitude more identifiable traffic between them. --Joy (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)