Talk:Ghost train

message: merge this with Ghost train for crying out loud. DreamGuy 05:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The Lebanese civil war only started in 1975, so it's unlikely that the Lebanese rail network was lost during the civil war in the 1960's. The story seems a bit dodgy anyhow. References would be good.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.244.158 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beirut ghost tram 

message: :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 section. 
----
* :Ghost train (folklore) → 
* :Ghost train → 
– Clear primary topic of the title at this capitalization. Virtually all other terms on the disambiguation page are at Ghost Train. BD2412 T 20:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the dab page click results to be practically useless because they’re biased towards people who didn’t find the page they’re seeking, almost all via external browser. So a user Google’s for “ghost train” and the first WP hit they get is this page. They come here and either they’re satisfied or they hit the hatnote link to the dab page. So the click stats on the dab page are missing most of the users who found the folklore page they were seeking. I might be wrong but I doubt it. We’ll know six months after the move.  —- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I don't think I completely get the picture, . What sort of data should we look at in 6 months, and how are we going to determine usage then? – Uanfala (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just compare page views here to dab page views. Obviously if the dab page is getting anywhere near the hits the page at the base name is getting, this is not the primary topic. —В²C ☎ 04:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, but that's not going to happen. The overwhelming majority of an article's traffic comes from incoming links or external searches (not from readers searching on Wikipedia), so an article will always get at least an order of magnitude more traffic than the corresponding dab page. There's no useful data that you can extract from comparing the two (see WP:PPT).  You made a fair point earlier about readers who find what they're looking for without the aid of the dab page. I don't think there's a way to find out how many of them there are (though I don't expect the ratios for them to be very different from what we see from the clickstream). I don't think they are relevant here: these users have already found what they were looking for regardless of what primary topic decisions we've made. And as for your earlier point about using Google: the ordering of Google results doesn't necessarily correspond to preferences among Wikipedia readers, but if that data is going to be taken into account, then we need to bear in mind that Google personalises search results (see for example the same search you performed earlier but this time with a search engine that doesn't do that: : the first result is not the folklore article but the dab page); and if you don't explicitly specify Wikipedia in your search query you'd get different results (on both engines, what I see in first place is not the folklore article, but the 1941 film). – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With Google add &pws=0 to the search url to depersonalize. I get folklore on top with DDG results. My point stands. If we make a move in the wrong direction in terms of primary topic then we’ll see a significant jump in page views on the dab page. If we don’t see such a jump… no harm; no foul. —В²C ☎ 18:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You're suggesting that it's possible for a disambiguation page to start getting more views after no longer being at the primary title? How can that happen? – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everyone who used to get to it by searching for “ghost train” who wasn’t looking for the folklore article will still get to the dab page via the hatnote link. So maybe not more but not significantly fewer if so few are looking for the folklore use. But I expect a significant drop and no significant drop in views of the folklore page. If so, that will indicate  fewer are being needlessly sent to the dab page who should be sent directly to the page they’re seeking: the folklore page.  —В²C ☎ 09:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we can only expect the views for the dab page to go down, and to the extent that the future pageviews may allow interpretation, the reduction would be by about 20% (the proportion of visitors currently seeking the folklore article). Still, I don't understand why we should move the pages around and wait months, just so that we can get some indirect indication when we already possess the hard facts. – Uanfala (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We will also be able to compare dab page view counts to this folklore page view counts. As long as the latter dominates we’re not causing problems for significant numbers. Bigger fish… —В²C ☎ 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

text:   The terms are also useless because we don't know that any people are coming to "Ghost train" looking for non-matching titles like "Dark ride" or "Rear-inflow jet". Certainly "Death train (disambiguation)" doesn't belong in the calculation. BD2412 T 23:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I've notified WikiProject Disambiguation of this discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 April 2022 

message: I've seen Ghost Train in Hungary.
Please add that to geographical locations. Adryanesp1 (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't original research, so not really. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost Train