Talk:Margie

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. Despite three relists, a persuasive consensus has yet to emerge. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Margie → Margie (given name)Margie (given name)
• Margie (disambiguation) → Margie

– Three-and-a-half years ago the same nomination (Talk:Margie#Requested move 30 August 2022, above) ended at "no consensus". Perhaps WP:Consensus can change. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 14:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support No obvious primary topic, and the name is just a list of names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Per WP:DPT, let's have a look at some standard stats.

WikiNav view of clickstreams at Margie says in December we could identify 12 clicks to the hatnote, and there were 34 filtered clickstreams. So ~26% of the clickstreams went to the proposed new target. That is not an indication for the move, because it might mean if we swap the lists, three quarters of readers would have to do the reverse.

Furthermore, there were 192 total views. So only ~6% of total readership reached for the hatnote. That is even less of an indication that we need to move things.

In turn, WikiNav view of clickstreams at Margie (disambiguation) doesn't render much of anything. So those 12 identifiable, and possibly more unidentifiable, clicks that went through - again went nowhere.

So that much is clear - there's no indication that most readers weren't served well with the current layout based on this.

Let's try to read the leaves from more general statistics: all-time mass views for all items linked from Margie and all-time mass views for all items linked from Margie (disambiguation). In the first list we can see:

Margie Hendrix with 257 views / day, Margie Moran with 125 / day, My Little Margie with 91 / day, Margie Hines at 79 / day and a substantial long tail.

In the second list we can see:

Margie (1946 film) at 17 / day, Margie (TV series) with 15 / day, Margie (song) 13 / day, and a much shorter long tail.

When the ratio of these is an order of magnitude in favor of the first list, I don't quite see a good argument for the claim that the second list should be prioritized more. Looking at these numbers I couldn't even single out a single entry to be added to the hatnote.

In general, I don't think the general encyclopedia should put an undue amount of focus on entertainment topics. This seems especially illogical when entertainment topics are not actually that popular and when they're all based on the same general concept of a human name.

We can also have a look at one other view of statistics: comparing the trends between the two lists through time. There's been two months when it looks like readers might have been clicking a lot on the hatnote - March 2019 and August 2024. Comparing the graphs with the top items in the second list, it looks like the latter incident was about the film, but it's not quite clear from the article. Instead, it looks to be about Margie Claus, which is a different film. I don't think our navigation could do much about a topic that has no article anyway.

Fundamentally, the question is - is there any chance that we surprise the average English reader by showing them the current list? It doesn't seem likely.

Usually when we ponder WP:PTOPIC, the question is do the readers strongly associate a term with a single topic. In this case we know that they do not, so even the vague criteria laid out over there are not directly applicable. We have to instead judge whether a group of topics is strongly associated with the term, enough so that it makes more sense to present disambiguation of that group before disambiguation of the term in general. It does seem like that is so. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is a clear primary topic. None of the other dab entries amount to much as far as recognition goes. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support: There is no primary topic here. Five-years of pageviews show that there are three other topics called "Margie" that have each consistently received more pageviews than the given name. The film is 80 years old, so its enduring interest from readers is not mere recentism. It was one of the top-grossing films of the year, and was the basis of the TV series. The song is more than 100 years old. Moreover, we have almost nothing special to say about the given name. I really don't understand the opposition to this. This isn't a primary topic grab – it's the opposite. It's just a suggestion to disambiguate a term that has several non-recent topics with exactly the same name that receive more pageviews than the current nominal primary topic does. It seems like a slam-dunk. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  We've observed in practice that indexes always receive less readership than topical articles. That doesn't mean they're bad, it's merely a byproduct of how search engines pre-filter most of our traffic. Comparing the page views between an index and a topical article is apples and oranges because of that. --Joy (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support while the name may be primary by long-term significance and if you look at views for people with the name it doesn't seem like there is a clear primary topic by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing to fix here. Readers typing in Margie are most likely looking for a person. The others immediately see a hatnote. This hasn't changed and, while respecting wp:ball, it's not fortune-telling to conclude that it won't change between now and the next predictable RM either. Andrewa (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 14:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think the name is probably primary considering almost everything is named after the given name.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus. BD2412 T 01:45, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)