Talk:Luigi

Requested moves

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. 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. After nearly a month, there is no consensus to move the articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Cúchullain ^t/c 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi (disambiguation) → Luigi
Luigi → Luigi (character)

– I think the word "Luigi" isn't universal associated with the Nintendo character. Thoughts? --Relisted. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed the template)

Comment. Assuming you are also trying to move Luigi is to be moved to Luigi (Mario Bros.), which of the other "Luigi"s is as notable as the Nintendo character (WP:PTOPIC)? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support no primary topic exists for "Luigi", WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires a topic be more common than all other Luigi who have ever existed combined, not pick the most notable. But Prisencolinensinainciusol are you willing to clean up all the broken links? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for lack of a clear primary topic, but there are multiple fictional characters named "Luigi", so I would suggest moving to Luigi (Nintendo character). bd2412 T 15:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Luigi is the primary topic. I believe that the most common use of the word Luigi is for the Nintendo character. However if the move does go through, I feel that it should be moved to Luigi (Nintendo). If we feel the need to distinguish the Nintendo character from other Luigis we should a more specific name. I don't like Luigi (Mario Bros.) because Mario Bros is just one of the many series that he is in. JDDJS (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as much as it pains me to. Luigi (disambiguation) only links to two articles about entities named simply "Luigi", a less-than-one-paragraph article about the name and a very short article about an uninhabited frozen isletin the Arctic. The other links are either to lists of other fictional characters or partial title matches that might shouldn't be in the list at all. The Nintendo character does seem to be primary. To those such User:In ictu oculi and User:BD2412, I wonder what entity called "Luigi" you believe challenges its primacy. — AjaxSmack 01:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that the biggest challenge would be the given name, Luigi, of which this character is one example. The shortness of the article on the name does not undercut its longstanding importance as a topic. bd2412 T 01:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Luigi is simply Italian for Louis/Lewis. Anything else is a content fork of Louis (given name) article. — AjaxSmack
    - Then perhaps Louis (given name) is the primary topic of Luigi. Compare Johan, which is really just a variation of John, but is still a disambiguation page despite the existence of a famous character by that name. bd2412 T 03:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, as BD2412 if there were a primary topic of "Luigi" then perhaps Louis (given name) would be the primary topic of Luigi. But as so often, there is no primary topic, primary topics are the exception not the rule for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the specific fictional character absolutely does not have long-term primary topic status because it's just a common Italian given name. The first page of Google Books hits is instructive in this case - not a single hit for the character. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the first five pages of https://www.google.com/search?q=Luigi&tbm=bks&tbo=1 I only found one single reference to Super Mario on the fourth page, and I noticed two other fictional characters in the list. At https://www.google.com/search?q=Luigi&pws=0 the Super Mario character is clearly more popular, but on the first page, I got a bunch of YouTube videos, followed by link to a local photography shop called Luigi and a GitHub repository called that way. The related searches section started with 'games' but it also mentioned Luigi Pirandello and Luigi Boccherini. It's fairly clear the Nintendo character is very popular, but Wikipedia is nevertheless an encyclopedia, not an index of popular things on the Internet. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The fictional character is clearly the primary topic. Consensus has dictated similarly in current and past discussions regarding Mario, an obviously similar scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Articles on names are not nearly as important as articles on actual topics bearing those names. I also note that pageviews are absolutely phenomenally one-sided in this case. I know that pageviews aren't everything, but... holy cow. Red Slash 19:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the view stats make it clear what is primary here. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support or redirect "Luigi" to Louis (given name). There is a broader world of Luigis outside of video games. Also, the long-term significance of the video game character is questionable. (I may be taking a longer-term view of what 'long-term' means here than some people would.) Additionally, since this character is not the title character of the game, it will be far less widely known than the character named Mario. Basically, only the people who actually play the game would likely be aware of its use as a video game character name. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – viewstats can't possibly support the odd choice of primarytopic here; the page that this title links to will of course get more hits, and even if it's more popular it's not so important as to be primary. Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as Mario discussion, Gregkaye (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Luigi remains a relatively common name, to the extent that the character is very debatably not the primary topic. I'd even go so far as to argue the same for Mario, although that case is obviously weaker.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No evidence that this use is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (burden is on those who wish to change a title to show there is a good reason, like the current use is not the primary topic, per WP:TITLECHANGES). --В²C ☎ 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence? You didn't seem to notice the mention of evidence from Google web and book searches, as suggested by the guideline you just linked to? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. I had not noticed that. But, never-the-less, the WP:GOOGLE search results favor this use, and the Google Books results are skewed by hits for people with given/first name Luigi, but are not subject normally referred to as just Luigi. This topic is. So at best that's very weak evidence about this topic not being primary. For the rare user who is looking for some Luigi but can't remember the family/last name, the "other uses" link to the dab page is more than adequate. --В²C ☎ 23:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would be amenable to the mononymity (sp?) argument, but Google Books hits are still indicative, because when I search for e.g. "Madonna", I still get a lot of material about the singer - there is apparently nothing skewed in the "Luigi" book search, it looks like a simple lack of coverage. Which in turn goes to show that that topic is sorely lacking in the long-term significance department. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Even less a primary topic than Mario. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. To be primary topic the word must be generally associated with one particular item by the anonymous "universal reader". In the case of a forename there is generally a natural disambiguation with a surname, for a second stringer character on a video game (however popular) claims of primary topic are wide of the mark. FWIW Today's Ghits do not establish long-term significance, but can, very easily, confirm lack of long-term significance. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Luigi the Nintendo character does indeed to be the main usage. However, strongly suggest merging Luigi (name) and Luigi (disambiguation) - the differentiation between them is quite arbitrary, we can presume that users interested in a different Luigi don't need to be forced to make two clicks to other pages to see the list. (Or at least link to both pages from the hatnote at Luigi, but this page is short enough that why bother having it separate.) SnowFire (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As with the Mario proposal, no proof has been presented. The nominator themselves admits they merely "think" the character isn't the primary topic. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please read the rest of the discussion for the proof? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias and other reasons not to move

I'm willing to bet that if Luigi was not a name for white people, this move wouldn't have even been proposed. "Luigi" as a name is heavily overrepresented in Europe compared to other places (duh, as it's a name from Italy) - on a worldwide scale the character is far more notable. (Which article are people in India more likely to be looking for? Well, pageviews already have told us, but even so, it's not a difficult mental jump to realize that unless you're of Italian descent or have other connections to Italy, you're far more likely to know Luigi as a video game character than to know any actual person named Luigi.) I'm also just going to throw out the fact that nobody has provided actual evidence that the article on a name (not actual people, mind--a name) has educational significance rivaling the article on a globally recognizable and significant character. There are only two criteria listed for determining primary topic--usage and long-term significance. Neither criterion has prominence over the other; in any case, usage is an absolute blowout. This article receives an absurdly high usage percentage of people looking for "Luigi". And no case has been made for why a name could possibly have more long-term significance than the character. There's no case to move based on what's been presented here. Red Slash 17:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need someone to explain why a given name that has been attested to since the 15th century (at least) has long-term significance? And you don't see any obvious significance in a name used for (at least) 311 notable people for which we already have biographies here? I'm sorry, but this just doesn't seem like a serious argument. One could easily throw an accusation of bias your way just for failing to notice these trivially obvious facts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seriously, I need someone to explain that. What on earth is even remotely significant about a name? If all those people named Luigi were called Luca instead, what would be the difference? Why is a variant form of Louis significant at all? I assure you that boxer underwear has (almost certainly) been worn by many of the people making the most important decisions of the past fifty years, yet boxer still redirects to boxing because the underwear that those men wore does not automatically carry their same level of notability. Just because lots of important real people have borne the name "Luigi" does not mean that the name itself is especially noteworthy. Perhaps a case could be formed to the contrary, but I don't see it. Red Slash 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me put it this way - if it was significant enough for the creators of the "character notable on a worldwide scale" to use it, in addition to the hundreds of other people, many of whom are also notable on a worldwide scale, surely it's a stretch to say it was insignificant. The analogy with "boxer" is flawed because you're comparing a somewhat less common surname to an ancient sport. The term "long-term significance" is not supposed to be so hard to interpret, it's like WP:BLUE - if something's been around for hundreds or thousands of years, it's enduring. And as far as names go, it's certainly a notable name. Overall, you're the one advocating for the sheer notion of popularity - I don't see why you wouldn't also say that when a name is popular enough to be used by so many people, on different continents and in different historical eras, then it is indeed popular. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2014 (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.

Requested move 30 July 2025

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: Moved. There is a numerical majority of around 6:3 in favour of moving, and it was also evidenced by those supporting that the given name is not the primary topic over other topics when considering the criteria, and indeed that there is no primary topic. There was some discussion about the interplay between this RM and the recent one at Talk:Luigi (character), which had resulted in the given name being primary, but I don't think the consensus there – on the given name question specifically – was especially strong and the consensus here that there is no overall primary seems to override that. — Amakuru (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi (disambiguation) → Luigi
Luigi → Luigi (given name)

– I have reviewed about the recent RM about the Nintendo character with the same name, and noticed some problems:

Yes, several figures from wikinav and simiar resources suggested the fictional character can't be considered as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I also noticed that: There's also no other pages which can be considered as the same. So at least here I think: There's no clue for any single page under the same name to be considered as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

So here I suggest a compromise solution: Make the disambiguation page to be the main title, and move the currect main page (a common Italian name) under the disambiguation title–if no single page can be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then this solution is a better balance between some famous fictional characters and a common given name, also along with other meanings listed. Awdqmb (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I know there's an ongoing RM about that fictional character page. But I don't think its result will affect these related pages. So I still launched this request anyway. Awdqmb (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to address these concerns take this to wp:Move review—blindlynx 13:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a WP:MR, but a new independent RM. The original RM was about the Nintendo character with the same name, but I'm talking about move the disambiguation page to the main title. Awdqmb (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i misunderstood—blindlynx 00:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, coz indeed: I launched this request due to the recent moves around that fictional character. I also added that: Despite the same page is having another RM, I don't think it will affect here though. Awdqmb (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the move into this layout was only about a month ago, and the clickstreams get generated a few days after the turn of the month, so we don't yet have the data to assess the move from that perspective.

We can have a look at the daily page views:

Last three months or so

From that we can observe that it took about two weeks for the daily pattern to settle into the current mode. This doesn't mean this is the final settling, because the character article isn't getting the same amount of views as it did beforehand, and its new views trend still seems to be slowly growing.

It always takes a little bit of time for traffic patterns to truly settle, and my previous experience shows three months is safe, so I'd wait with this discussion until we get at least 2 or 3 monthly data points. --Joy (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But infact my review was based on datas that before the major move. At least I didn't find any clue to prove if there was any related page can be fitted as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus become the main page.

And anyway, make the disambiguation page as the main is always not a bad idea. After all that's how disambiguation pages work on Wikipedia, isn't it? Awdqmb (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this reply earlier, sorry, maybe it needs to be addressed.

We don't actually know whether it's always a good idea to put disambiguation lists at the base title. There is no consensus whatsoever about this in general. More specifically, the most obvious example to the contrary is the related case of Talk:Mario, where you can observe how basically the exact same people have argued the reverse from this.

So it's not clear how there's a need for a better balance between some famous fictional characters and a common given name here, but not there, based on no new information or data.

Ultimately, this is all the standard conflict between popular (often entertainment) topics and the general encyclopedia. We see this sort of a dynamic play out all the time. I suppose that is because people comprehend navigation differently.

But if it's all based on just vibes, that's not actually a rational discussion that the WP:Consensus policy requires, so this is a problem. --Joy (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support There's no way in heck the given name is primary, it's just a list of names and doesn't expound on the name at all. While I continue to think the Mario character is primary, at the very least there's no primary topic between the character and... whatever else people believe also competes for the primary name. It certainly isn't the given name though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The very common Italian given name is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be proved via datas like WikiNav or Article Traffic Statistics I think. But at least I didn't found any clue to prove if the currect one is primary topic. At least the data before the recent RMs didn't prove this. Awdqmb (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be primary if it's not notable. Being "very common" does not make something notable, see WP:ITSPOPULAR. If the name can be proven as standalone notable then I will think otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are re-hashing the move discussion that was already had a month ago. This is not actually proper, and having to re-argue the exact same points all over again so soon afterwards is not really conducive to building consensus. --Joy (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I should emphasize my point again: My own review was based on datas that before the major move, which is the same during the previous discussions.

Plus, the previous discussion only decided: The Nintendo character wasn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC under the title. But there was no consensus of: If there's one page that can be defined as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So I'll insist my original word: I know there's a previous major change on related pages, but I don't think they'll affect this question. Awdqmb (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on your interpretation of the previous closure. --Joy (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you should admit that: There was indeed, not much discussions about the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of these related titles in previous discussions. We only rolled out that the fictional character is not, but that didn't suggest there was something else should be primary topic.

And here, I should emphasize this again: This RM is not a WP:MR of previous RM, but an independent new RM between the disambiguation page and a certain sub-page (under the same name). And just pre WP:DAB said: As discussed above, if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. In other words, where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. Awdqmb (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. You appear to be approaching this from the perspective that the previous discussion wasn't valid, but it was, and these aspects were discussed, and the conclusion was that it's fine to use the given name list as page at the base name, because that should navigate the most readers the most efficiently. This idea that an anthroponymy index is or is not a topic that can be primary, or is or is not a navigation mechanism itself - is inherently discussed the last time around even if not to your liking, and we shouldn't try to second-guess the previous consensus so soon and without new information, such as new statistics.

In fact, having this big discussion marker on top of Luigi is obfuscating the hatnote and inherently messing with the statistics, so this is all fairly improper. We're effectively interfering with our own experiments and screwing them up. --Joy (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I thought previous RM wasn't vaild, then I'll simply launch a WP:MR, or even tried to launch a request to reverse the previous RM. But no, at least I agreed that: The Nintendo character wasn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus agreed the consensus.

Plus, I don't think the overall consensus around previous RM is "an experiment". Yeah, I don't agree moves like Let's try to make the page like this for a while, if that's not good we'll change it back. Also, I don't think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be verified by "experiments". Don't you think "Suddenly, a topic become notable just because Wikipedia moved a page to main title" is simply rediclous? Awdqmb (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the discussion has devolved into quote cherry-picking and arguing obvious strawmen instead of coherent arguments, it needs to end. --Joy (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination Red Slash 17:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - much better setup just having it as a dab page, because the given name is not primary topic. cookiemonster755 ^(talk) 08:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 June, an RM found that Luigi (given name) was the primary topic for Luigi. Now this poorly attended RM is going to reverse it? This is just a failure of WP's processes, so I oppose. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? At least I didn't found that RM on all related pages. I'm afraid you may offer the link about that RM. Awdqmb (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you don't mean that RM about the Nintendo character? Actually the closing conclusion of that RM only confirmed that: The Nintendo character wasn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For the given name (as current setting now), actually the closest discussion about it was: Supporters presented the argument that Luigi is a common first name and has more long-time significance, while the character is not the primary topic.

But I'm afraid: Neither the conclusion nor the discussion itself confirmed the given name list was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Infact the data used during the RM also didn't suggest this. That RM was moved because the Nintendo character wasn't, not because the common Italian name list was. And this RM is to solve this problem.

Plus, I don't think the attention of RM should be reason of opposing an RM, isn't it? Of course, some of pages will have more attention due to their notability, and thus people will more active there. Just like you said: I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't working like this. Awdqmb (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the RM I'm referring to. Srnec (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the exact same one I referred above. And yes, I think I clearly explained about the differences between WP:CONSENSUS and just simple compromise decisions in the replies above.

And also according to WP:NWFCTM, that: We agree Luigi is a common Italian name, doesn't mean it should be WP:PTOPIC, so as the Nintendo characters related. Awdqmb (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, attention of RM is relevant. Read WP:Forum shopping. --Joy (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasons listed by nominator. There's no clear primary topic between the name and the incredibly-notable character. The safest bet is to have the disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just a reminder to any potential closers that September has started and we can wait a little bit for new clickstream data for August to be generated. I don't know that we can observe anything definitive from the page views data on the navigation elements alone [1]. --Joy (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The August .tsv data is available, here's the excerpt for Luigi (taking into account monthly page views, too, at 3524):

Identifiable clicks to the character (hatnote) 540 (15.3%)
Identifiable clicks to other linked topics 829 (23.5%)
Identifiable clicks to the generic hatnote 93 (2.64%)
Identifiable clicks to unlinked items 15 (0.43%)
Filtered (anonymized) clicks 105 (2.98%)
Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 1,942 (55.1%)

clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv data

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive:

other-search Luigi external 1404
other-empty Luigi external 1196
other-internal Luigi external 208
other-external Luigi external 122
Luigi_(character) Luigi link 119
other-other Luigi external 111
Luigi_(disambiguation) Luigi link 64
Mario Luigi other 48
Main_Page Luigi other 43
Louis_(given_name) Luigi link 26
Lugii Luigi link 20
Ludwig_(given_name) Luigi link 19
Luigi_Mangione Luigi other 17
Mario_(name) Luigi other 11
Luis Luigi link 11
total: 3419 from 15 identified sources

Luigi Luigi_(character) link 540
Luigi Luigi_Mangione link 299
Luigi Ludwig_(given_name) link 128
Luigi Luigi_(disambiguation) link 93
Luigi Louis_(given_name) link 51
Luigi Luigi_Chiatti link 47
Luigi List_of_Cars_characters link 35
Luigi Chlodwig link 34
Luigi Lewis_(given_name) link 30
Luigi List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_characters link 29
Luigi Luigi_Manocchio link 20
Luigi Luigi_Lucheni link 20
Luigi Ludovico link 18
Luigi Aloysius link 18
Luigi List_of_Kick_Buttowski:_Suburban_Daredevil_episodes link 17
Luigi Levi_(given_name) link 16
Luigi Italian_name link 16
Luigi Mario other 15
Luigi Luigina link 15
Luigi Luigi_Giuliano link 15
Luigi Luigino link 11
Luigi Luis link 10
total: 1477 to 22 identified destinations

I made a summarizing pie chart to the left.

It's mildly interesting that the one identifiable unlinked topic is "Mario". Nevertheless, the overall interest in the character from the Mario franchise and that related topic combined does not even come close to being the majority of clicks from this page.

This is a fairly clear indicator of actual reader usage. It seems likely that we've confirmed that there's no single primary topic. Not only that, but it also seems likely that the level of interest in the previously presumed primary topic is only a significant minority.

There's little to indicate that we need to make a change as proposed, which would cause the largest identifiable contingent of readers to have to have an extra scan and click to get to the interesting entries in the given name list.

I've mentioned before how this discussion is quite possibly interefering with this data, too. We need to gather more data without having this move discussion banner on top. For that to happen, we need to end this discussion, and not start a new one for a few months. Please, let's do that.

(Oppose) --Joy (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then if it's proved that no significant page can be considered as WP:PTOPIC, we should move main title to the disambiguation page according to WP:NOPRIMARY.

And no, hence the chaos about name changes of Twitter, I don't think we should simply pause the discussion and wait until months later – coz I'm afraid the result will not change dramatically just during these months, which this RM may become another WP:SNOWBALL. Awdqmb (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And further more: If you think the changes about this WP:DAB may end in more clicks, then simply changed the disambiguation page.

Like: "Luigi is a common Italian name, but also likely refers to…" "Luigi may also refers to:…", and then add those more notable person into People section below. Yes, I think that's the guideline suggest us to do. Which unfortunately, I also don't think this given name should be an exception pre WP:IAN. Awdqmb (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this anthroponymy index practically functions as a disambiguation page. Why do you think it does not?

There is no exception involved - if we know that the bulk of the links that readers click are right here on this index, then making these readers click another time to get to a name index is useless, it's contrary to the spirit and letter of the disambiguation guideline.

If we know that we offered readers the first link to the Nintendo character, and they used it ~15% of the time, and we offered them the second link to the disambiguation page and they used it ~3% of the time, and we offered them all the other links to biographies and they used them ~24% of the time, what benefit would we gain if we made that latter group click one more time? --Joy (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me. We can also further analyze those 3% that clicked the second hatnote by looking at the clickstreams over there. Here they are (taking into account monthly page views, too, at 379):

Identifiable clicks (back) to the name index 64 (16.9%)
Identifiable clicks to other linked topics 71 (18.7%)
Identifiable clicks to unlinked items 20 (5.28%)
Filtered (anonymized) clicks 49 (12.9%)
Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 175 (46.2%)

clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv data

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive:

Luigi_(character) Luigi_(disambiguation) link 147
Luigi Luigi_(disambiguation) link 93
other-empty Luigi_(disambiguation) external 57
other-internal Luigi_(disambiguation) external 20
other-search Luigi_(disambiguation) external 13
total: 330 from 5 identified sources

Luigi_(disambiguation) Luigi link 64
Luigi_(disambiguation) Luigi_Mangione other 20
Luigi_(disambiguation) Luigi_(character) link 16
Luigi_(disambiguation) Weegee_(disambiguation) link 14
Luigi_(disambiguation) Luigi_Island link 14
Luigi_(disambiguation) List_of_Luigi_video_games link 14
Luigi_(disambiguation) List_of_Cars_characters link 13
total: 155 to 7 identified destinations

In this case the unlinked item (indicated by "other" in the third column) is Mangione. And the biggest contingent is people going (back) to the name index. So it seems more likely than not that a lot of people are looking for a biography anyway. --Joy (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there's no clear PRIMARY between the name and video game character.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

post-move

Here's a bit of a statistics update. The navigation layout changed on September 19, so none of this is going to be particularly clear, but still.

Daily from Sep 1 until today

There's a downwards trend, but there's also one since Jul 1.

Monthly page views

So ~~3009~~ 3412 incoming views.

September '25

Identifiable clicks to the name (missing, then common link #1) 185 (5.42%)
Identifiable clicks to the character (hatnote, then common link #2) 488 (14.3%)
Identifiable clicks to other linked topics 625 (18.3%)
Filtered (anonymized) clicks 215 (6.30%)
Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 1,899 (55.7%)

(The old unlinked items category is not really possible to deduce given the page move.)

clickstream-enwiki-2025-09.tsv data

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive:

other-empty Luigi external 1022
other-search Luigi external 962
Luigi_(character) Luigi link 257
other-internal Luigi external 214
other-external Luigi external 103
Main_Page Luigi other 74
Mario Luigi other 63
Luigi_Mangione Luigi other 25
Louis_(given_name) Luigi other 22
Ludwig_(given_name) Luigi other 18
Luis Luigi other 12
Italian_name Luigi link 12
Lugii Luigi link 10
total: 2794 from 13 identified sources

Luigi Luigi_(character) link 488
Luigi Luigi_Mangione link 307
Luigi Luigi_(given_name) link 185
Luigi Ludwig_(given_name) other 77
Luigi Louis_(given_name) other 31
Luigi List_of_Cars_characters link 29
Luigi Lewis_(given_name) other 27
Luigi Luigi_Chiatti other 26
Luigi Chlodwig other 20
Luigi Luigi_Lucheni other 19
Luigi Luigina other 17
Luigi List_of_Luigi_video_games link 15
Luigi List_of_recurring_The_Simpsons_characters link 12
Luigi Eugene_Louis_Faccuito link 12
Luigi Aloysius other 12
Luigi AloĂsio other 11
Luigi Italian_name other 10
total: 1298 to 17 identified destinations

Joy (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]

October '25

Identifiable clicks to the name (missing, then common link #1) 339 (12.8%)
Identifiable clicks to the character (hatnote, then common link #2) 632 (23.8%)
Identifiable clicks to other linked topics 366 (13.8%)
Filtered (anonymized) clicks 206 (7.75%)
Views that can't be presumed to correspond to any clicks 1,115 (41.9%)

After the change, we have a full month, so we can see:

I turned on redirects in pageviews, correction per FAQ, Special:WhatLinksHere/Luigi has some. So September it wasn't 3009 but rather 3412 (I'm correcting the tally above). In October the difference is 2451 vs 2658.

Analogous pie chart to the right. --Joy (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's try to asses what we've actually accomplished if we compare the October graph to the August graph.

The total traffic went from 3947 to 2658, which is a reduction by ~32%. The two big incoming traffic categories in August were:

other-search Luigi external 1404
other-empty Luigi external 1196

While in August they were:

other-empty Luigi external 1069
other-search Luigi external 551

It's curious that this ratio flipped from 54% : 46% to 34% : 65%.

Sounds like the search engines decided to send us less traffic here. This means any comparisons we try to make are moot, really.

But, if we do entertain the possibility that the average reader is still sort of the same, we could say that:

the prominent character link had an increase of its identifiable clickstreams from ~15% to ~23%
we eliminated ~2% of generic hatnote clicks
the other clicks went from ~27% to ~34%

If the end result is that about 7% of the pattern shifted, while about 32% of the incoming traffic went away... this all sounds like bikeshed painting. :) --Joy (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]