Talk:Occident (disambiguation)

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


This page has been listed for deletion. -Smack 05:52 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It should be put in wiktionary if it hasn't already.

i just changed it to a redirect to "western world" Bueller 007 14:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2015[edit]

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: moved. There is a consensus that Western world is the primary topic for the term "Occident". Jenks24 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OccidentOccident (disambiguation) – a technical move to revert a previous move that removed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Western world. AFAIK (maybe the discussion was deleted), that had no discussion or consensus (the PRIMARYTOPIC redirect being previously G6'd leaving a lack of redirect to the primarytopic - so this move involves reinstating that redirect Occident -> Western world) when there's a clear one and a discussion could have been had to remove it. This is a technical move that has been contested. A hatnote at the target PT is adequate. The reinstatement of the PT is based on the weak other uses - a stub film, a French 4 year movement, a 19th-century periodical, a former name of a CDP (1K residents), and a WP:DABMENTION song. Widefox; talk 02:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Care to reason? (the article stats are below). Widefox; talk 03:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although not a direct count of the use of the alternative name (potential use of a redirect to a primarytopic) the 90d article traffic is clear:
  • Occident: 6342
  1. Western world: 130905 * (ranked 872)
  2. All others combined: 26737
    1. Occident (film): 1022
    2. Maxwell, California: 933
    3. Occident (movement): 864
    4. The Occident and American Jewish Advocate: 321
    5. Have One on Me: 23597 ** (note also traffic peaked months ago, so taking a 30d rather than 90d would almost half this viewrate)

So on article popularity alone (rather that use of this term for the popular article), this is more popular than all others combined 83%:17% or roughly 5x more popular (caveat uncorrected: * less for arcane term vs commonname, ** more per the song being only a WP:DABMENTION entry). The proportion using this term for the popular article is unknown. Model a plausible estimate of lower bound of use of the dab Occident -> Western world on these assumptions: 1. discard the ** dabmention completely, 2. assume all article hits come through here (the upperbound for rivals to the primarytopic), then: 6342-1022-933-864-321:1022+933+864+321 = 3202:3140 or roughly 50%:50% as a lowerbound - so again more popular than all others combined (excluding **).

  • It's by far the most popular article, more popular than all others combined - a classic primarytopic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (even after assuming all traffic to the others goes through this dab) and has longevity (despite somewhat of an arcane term.) Widefox; talk 03:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Huh? Being the most popular article of a set doesn't make it primary topic for a term seldom used for that purpose. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Huh got evidence for "seldom used"? Obscure and primarytopic are not mutually exclusive per guideline - it's only relative to the other topics - the stats indicate (not prove) it is Dicklyon, overwhelmingly. A classic PT. WP stats indicate it, Google has 16,200,000 hits, top 35 are this usage, on page 4 is the periodical entry, so it is hardly that obscure, it restores our previous PT and it's overwhelmingly more what the reader wants which is what matters. There may be a simple use case - people hear of it, and look it up as is it is obscure! This is just a technical request to restore it compared to the weak others, it's that simple. Widefox; talk 20:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • User:Dicklyon the bar for a PT is only relative to the other topics, not absolute per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but as always with PTs a strong argument would be persuasive, care to reply? Widefox; talk 16:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The clear primary topic is Western world, to which Occident should redirect. In what possible universe do any of the other meanings come close to the significance of that one? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • How is the significance and popularity of Western world a determining factor in choosing whether there's a primarytopic for Occident. This continues to make no sense to me. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, did you see the stats above? Widefox; talk 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I did. Maybe I missed something that says something more than that Western world is an extremely more popular topic? If so, point it out. Dicklyon (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) OK, They aren't just pageview stats for "Western world" but an estimate of lower bound for clickthrough from here for "Occident". Apart from that the others are weak anyhow. Widefox; talk 20:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't really buy that as a lower bound. It doesn't account for people who come to the disambig page and see that none of the articles are what the care about; instead, you assume they all go to Western world. And a probably bigger effect is not counting the traffic incorrectly linked through the disambig page when the western world is what was intended; e.g. from articles like Orient, Oriental studies, Plato Tiburtinus, O'Gorman Columbian Manuscript, and Types of democracy; at least fix all those first, and then see what happens to the stats. Maybe you'll get to a credible approximation of a lower bound that way, though there will still be tons of confounding links from User pages and Talk pages and Wikipedia pages contributing unknown amounts of traffic. Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes correct Dick, it assumes a zero bounce rate (irrespective of desired article). That unknown negative is countered by the huge positive assumption that that all the other topics are only coming through the dab - the point being that they're relatively negligible.
That "bigger effect" of broken primary topic links is a symptom of why this former primary topic just needs reverting - there's very likely to be primary topic links through here. This is not a new primary topic, just a contested removal of one. Not a big deal, and I certainly wouldn't bother fixing links and waiting as I consider the links WP:NOTBROKEN, especially in those contexts. Widefox; talk 00:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No prob; I'll fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well...doing that is IMHO not desirable as the context of those has clear reason to use the matching "Occident", so per NOTBROKEN "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles", and changes nothing about the PT, just obscures it. Better to revert things that make it worse than work around them. That's especially so during discussion of the PT. This is just reverting something that had no/limited consensus. Widefox; talk 10:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, of all the topics known as "occident", the western world is by far and away the midst likely use. And Dicklyon, please don't fix redirects that sent broken. olderwiser 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Bkonrad can we get some more opinions, e.g. User:Graeme Bartlett can close if wanting to remain outside the discussion, else some more views like theirs are welcome as this really is just a contested technical undo. Widefox; talk 00:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment I am quite happy to reverse my 2012 move based on a consensus here. I am neutral on whether a dab or redirect is right. But I do agree the western word is the primary topic, and I don't want a definition type entry. So I am not strictly neutral here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. The reversal is a dab and a primary topic redirect. Not sure how we can have a primary topic without the redirect? For certain there's no DICTDEF article. Hoping to get this closed before Dick starts "fix"ing NOTBROKENs. Widefox; talk 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.