Talk:Sokol

post-move

Back when the article about the Sokol movement was at the title Sokol, the hatnote was fairly consistently the most commonly identifiable link in the clickstreams:

clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv (over total incoming 2015):

• Sokol Sokol_(disambiguation) link 76 (~3.8% / ~33%)
• Sokol Mass_games link 33
• Sokol Sokół link 29
• ...
• total: 230

clickstream-enwiki-2022-05.tsv (2554):

• Sokol Sokol_(disambiguation) link 86 (~3.4% / ~20%)
• Sokol Sokół link 44
• Sokol Mass_games link 42
• ...
• total: 426

clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv (2738):

• Sokol Sokol_(disambiguation) link 115 (~4.2% / ~25.7%)
• Sokol Sokół link 50
• Sokol Mens_sana_in_corpore_sano link 48
• ...
• total: 448

clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv (5168):

• Sokol Sokol_(disambiguation) link 124 (~2.4% / ~12%)
• Sokol Main_Page other 99
• Sokol Sokół link 94
• ...
• total: 1034

That December was pretty odd, overall traffic doubled for some unclear reason, some search engine pattern broke?

I disambiguated it in early January '24, because of that and because the obvious sub-topic situation in the links.

Afterwards the stats look like this:

• Page views of just the base terms

Clickstreams (https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Sokol):

February total incoming traffic: 1463

clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:

February total identified outgoing: 699

• Sokol Sokol_movement link 488 (~33% / ~69.8%)
• Sokol Sokol_(surname) link 66 (~4.5% / ~9.5%)
• Sokol Sokół_movement link 28 (~2% / ~4%)
• Sokol Sokol_(given_name) link 27 (~2% / ~3.9%)
• Sokol Falcon link 17
• Sokol Sokół_(rapper) link 15
• Sokol Sokol_Eshelon link 14
• Sokol SS_Empire_Blanda link 13
• Sokol Polish_Falcons_of_America link 11
• Sokol Sokol_District link 10
• Sokol PZL_W-3_Sokół link 10

March total incoming traffic: 1786

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

March total identified outgoing: 545

• Sokol Sokol_movement link 380 (~21% / ~69.7%)
• Sokol Sokol_(surname) link 43 (~2.4% / ~7.9%)
• Sokol Sokol_(given_name) link 29
• Sokol Sokół_movement link 28
• Sokol Falcon link 24
• Sokol Sokol_space_suit link 11
• Sokol Sokol_Eshelon link 10
• Sokol Sokol_Aircraft_Plant link 10
• Sokol PZL_W-3_Sokół link 10

The clickstreams conflate the redirects, and page views can allow us to see more about that:

• first 10 redirects for the Sokol movement sub-topics
  • spillover (over the limit of 10)

So the monthly averages for the first quarter, from this list and from synonymous redirects used from various other articles, were around:

• 406 Czech
• 101 + 40 = 141 Polish
• 60 + 29 = 89 Slovenian
• 76 Yugoslavia
• 74 Russian
• 26 + 46 = 72 Ukrainian
• 50 Serbian
• 42 Muslim
• 33 United States
• 32 Croatian

In total 1015. So that's already a pretty healthy spread, though it is influenced by editor behavior (only two truly have good article coverage, but several subgroups have a lot of articles talking about them). --Joy (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In May, 1263 total incoming views, and 379 identified clickstreams to Sokol movement (~30%). The redirects situation was similar:

• 393 Czech
• 100 + 36 = 136 Polish
• 53 + 33 = 86 Slovenian
• 79 Yugoslavia
• 69 Russian
• 22 + 47 = 69 Ukrainian
• 55 Serbian
• 49 Croatian
• 32 Muslim
• 31 United States

In total 999. --Joy (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

There's been some discussion about this at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves, and some variation in interpreting these statistics, so I'll have to clarify the percentages in the posts above further. --Joy (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

So, for the last year or so, the page Sokol has had a link to the etymology, then to the historical movement, then a list of 11 sub-topics about the historical movement(s), and then the rest.

When we look at e.g. https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Sokol now, it shows for January 2025 that there were 188 identifiable clickstreams to the Sokol movement, out of 326 identifiable total, and out of 747 total views. That's ~58% of the identifiable clicks, and ~25% of total views. There are also 75 filtered clickstreams.

When I posted above that in February '24 we had Sokol Sokol_movement link 488 (~33% / ~69.8%), that means likewise that ~70% of the identifiable clicks went there, and ~33% of the total views.

Compared to today, we have fewer readers observed clicking through to the previously assumed primary topic. We can also check the other recent months to see if this is truly a trend.

To take the inverse view - last month, ~75% of the readers who saw this page did not proceed to visit the movement, and ~42% of the readers who clicked a link did not click one of the links to the movement, but something else.

Now, does our navigation impact this? Yes, but in the case where the top of the list is literally plastered with links to the movement, I don't think we're tilting the scale, it's genuinely hard to miss it.

If we were to move to have Sokol redirect to the movement, this would most likely cause almost one half of the readers looking up "Sokol" to have to click the hatnote, and might confuse some of the readers in the three quarters contingent. That's not a good default, either. To do this, there should be a coherent rationale, probably based on long-term significance and not just usage, which is moot. --Joy (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 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.

---

Sokol → Sokol (disambiguation)Sokol (disambiguation) – Undiscussed. Restore primary redirect to Sokol movement 162 etc. (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion from WP:RM/TR

• • From the talk page, it's not clear whether there is a primary topic. @Joy: perhaps you might want to comment. older ≠ wiser 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah, we've been stable for a year now without a primary topic, and nobody engaged at Talk:Sokol. I would say the time window for a technical reversal is gone after a few months of stability, no? So if one wants to make a redirect to the historical movement, that should not be done automatically, rather it merits further discussion in the talk pages. --Joy (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    According to the pageviews you posted at Talk:Sokol, about 70% of pageviews go to Sokol movement. That makes the no primary argument pretty indefensible. 162 etc. (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    No, they don't, you're not reading that right. Exactly why this needs to be discussed further. --Joy (talk) 09:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    Well, it can be reverted, then discussed. That's WP:BRD. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

    The dab has been stable for just over a year. This is not reverting a recent change. Seems a proper RM discussion might help to establish consensus whether there is a primary topic that should be moved over the dab. older ≠ wiser older ≠ wiser 23:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

    Sokol movement is pretty clearly the primary topic based on pageviews, so throughout this period that has been the primary topic, and nothing that happens on a talk page can affect this objective reality. —Alalch E. 23:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

    Ooh, edgy, claims of objective reality :D I'm sorry, but this is why we have discussion pages. The objective reality is also that the article about the Sokol movement encompasses a number of distinct topics that are also very clearly distinct in the page views, and there's a number of other views there that never proceed to the movement page despite it occupying a veritably huge chunk of the top of the list. Instead of trying to procedurally weave around having the discussion, just engage in it, per WP:CONS. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support - per 162's point in the RM/TR debate above, since 70% of the page views are for Sokol movement, I would support re-establishing that as the primary topic here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Notifying @162 etc., Joy, Alalch E., and Bkonrad:, who all contributed to the RM/TR discussion, of this RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Again, I don't see where are these 70% of the page views for Sokol movement. @Amakuru?

  • all-time mass views for all items linked from Sokol - can't be used because it doesn't combine pre-last year Sokol views into Sokol movement
  • last-year mass views - should be useful instead - shows:
    • Falcon 1,143 / day - not comparable as a whole, but does appear prominently in clickstreams here
    • PZL W-3 Sokół 196 / day
    • Sokol space suit 85 / day
    • Sokol International Racetrack 83 / day
    • Sokol movement 63 / day
    • FC Sokol Saratov 26 / day
    • Sokol Eshelon 23 / day
    • Sokół 1000 16 / day
    • Socol 15 / day
    • Sokol (train) 14 / day
    • Czech Sokol movement 12 / day
    • Sokol, Vologda Oblast 10 / day

  A number of historical and other topics named Sokol apparently get far more views than the proposed primary topic, plus the etymology. Let's check for any recent spikes there:

  • page views for top 10 items plus incoming redirects since January '24

  There seem to be no particularly weird spikes - the largest odd spike is indeed for the movement, so it inflates its numbers, rather than vice versa. The interest in the helicopter, the space suit and the race track do seem to be genuinely comparable to the interest in the sports movement. Plus the obvious long tail.

  So the page views are no justification for a move at all, rather, they point to a fairly clear lack of primary topic by usage. --Joy (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, and #2 and #4 items in the clickstreams are the surname and the given name. Their statistics are here:

  • last-year mass views for all items linked from surname
  • last-year mass views for all items linked from given name

  So there we see in addition, for example:

  • Marilyn Sokol 68 / day
  • Sasha Sokol 60 / day
  • David L. Sokol 46 / day
  • Matt Sokol 19 / day
  • Sokol Cikalleshi 67 / day
  • Sokol Kushta 18 / day

  That's quite significant interest as well, it means the average reader might well associate the term Sokol not just with the historical movement but also with human names. Let's check for any recent spikes:

  • page views for top 10 items incl. biographies, plus incoming redirects, since January '24

  Nothing particularly suspect - largest monthly spike for Marilyn, largest daily spike for sports movement still.

  So this further reinforces the idea that there's no primary topic. --Joy (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• There's a reasonable discussion to be had about the mononymous use of Sokol in reference to the movement being significant, which is what we see in the clickstreams. It's #1 but not overwhelming. Please scroll up to #post-move and see my last message that explains this.

In this case, I applied MOS:DABCOMMON in a very powerful manner to make sure there's no way any reasonable reader was missing the link to the sports movement.

In fact, it could be argued that these unusually prominent dozen links could be inflating the clickstreams for the movement.

Someone needs to present a coherent case for changing this based on usage and long-term significance. They need to explain why the movement would be overwhelmingly more significant or used compared to the helicopter, the space suit, the race track, the people with the name, etc. (Oppose) --Joy (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional explanations. I retract my comment made at RM/TM about an objective reality here in specific; while I'm of a view that the primary topic is something editors discover (i.e., discover the truth about), and not decide, what I thought was discovered was not correct. I'll try to come up with a !vote. —Alalch E. 08:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

So, we haven't had any particularly substantial discussion here since the 23rd of February, or in turn since last June. As there doesn't seem to be any actual interest, can someone uninvolved please close this? :/ --Joy (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. —Alalch E. 23:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. All the data above shows there to be no clear primary topic, and my search results back that up - on the first three pages slightly under half the results are related to the movement (but not all related to the main article about the movement) with a UK bookseller that doesn't have an article (I've not investigated whether they are notable) taking spots 1, 2, 4 and 7 on the first page. I've not attempted to depersonalise these results (which will likely explain the prominence of the bookseller) but the movement is the topic that should be boosted most by that as it's the only one I've searched for previously (after watching a YouTube video half about it about a fortnight ago). Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (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.

topical redirects for national/regional Sokol movements

@Revirvlkodlaku were you aware of the discussions above when you did this edit that removed the topical redirects?

The links were created after disambiguating links to Sokol - a lot of the incoming links were topical like that, and one of them (Polish) already has a standalone article, so it stands to reason that in the future when someone makes a link to Sokol but means a specific one, we want to encourage editors to disambiguate each link like that. Later when a specific article is written to replace a redirect, it gets reader traffic from those links instantly.

We also discussed the idea of a primary topic, and I did mention how the prominence of this list of links may contribute to their readership. This could be a bad thing (giving undue weight to that group of topics), or a good thing (getting readers to notice a significant group of topics). What do you think? --Joy (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Joy, I wasn't aware of the discussion—thanks for pointing it out! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@FromCzech the top part of was intentionally there. Can we put that back, per rationale above? It helps disambiguation to be topical.

Also, I don't know that all those sports clubs aren't actually referred to as just "Sokol". For example, if you look at the top of FC Sokol Saratov, it's fairly clear that the common name is just Sokol, and the rest is natural disambiguation. --Joy (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I've restored everything. Although we should be mindful of WP:PTM when adding dabpage entries, I find it plausible that any of these sports clubs could be referred to by the one-word expression "Sokol". 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the sports clubs removal, that was a bad idea. I find the redirects at the beginning unfortunate because they make the page longer before the reader gets to the more useful links, but if it was discussed, I respect that. There is no reason to revert my other changes, so I'm restoring them. I shortened the description of some items, clarified some links, adjusted the sorting of places, and removed items that shouldn't be there like unused red link. FromCzech (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the changes to the fortress names is that the choice of the article name there does not always represent a canonical name for them, rather it's just a style that happened to be picked when the article was written. They're not also called Sokol in a way that Sokol is a secondary name, rather it's no less primary to the other names. In addition, there's a manual of style section that advises against this sort of a change - MOS:DABREDIR. --Joy (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

These are just guesses, unsupported by sources. After a quick google search and look to the maps, the current article names of the fortresses are clearly primary names. And they were completely missing from the previous version of the page. FromCzech (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

No, they are not, I explicitly remember reading old journal articles that used these names. Your quick google search-fu must be weak. --Joy (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Google Maps and Bing Maps, which allow you to search by alternative names, do not work with these names. Nor do other modern sources that I was looking at, such as official BiH tourist portal, National Geographic, TripAdvisor. There is no point in having a deeper discussion and researching sources as this is not a RM. I have no doubt that they are alternative names, and that they appear in your old journal articles, but let's not overestimate their importance by which you put them on the same level as current names. FromCzech (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Btw, MOS:DABREDIR allows redirects in a certain format, but that doesn't mean the current form without redirects is wrong and against MOS. FromCzech (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you're arguing this when the manual of style says Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both: the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section. There is no reason to avoid being helpful like that here. The average English reader who comes across this list isn't going to understand why we're putting the other variant of the name first in this list. --Joy (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

... can also be helpful... This means that it is an option to do it in certain cases, not that it is always helpful and must be done that way. The old historical name is listed right after the current and most commonly used name, so there is no reason to believe that the average user will not find what they are looking for, or don't understand something. It's definitely better than the previous state, which didn't list the current names at all. FromCzech (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course that's an option, but it's also a good option here, because the claim that these Sokol names are not the most appropriate at the Sokol list is literally against the intent of that manual. Your idea to inform about the 'current' name first makes the list entries here confusing, and then the readers who click through learn the same thing anyway. This is exactly why we have the manual of style, so that these sorts of confusing list entries don't happen. --Joy (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I put Sokol at the beginning of the lines. But in none of them is Sokol a significant alternative name that would make redirection preferable, as it is written in MOS. FromCzech (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)