Talk:Bao

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation 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.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move 13 February 2024[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 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: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bao → Bao (disambiguation) – The WP:PTOPIC for "bao" is Baozi, the Chinese-originated filled bun which is more commonly referred to as "bao" anyway – the "zi" (子) is a common suffix for nouns in the Chinese language. The Baozi article also serves as a WP:CONCEPTDAB for subtopics such as Cha siu bao and Gua bao. "Bao" should redirect to Baozi (or, alternatively, Baozi moved to Bao). feminist🚰 (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Bao indicates that in January '24, there were 852 views of the list, and the clickstream system in turn allowed us to identify outgoing traffic towards the 4 cuisine topics in total of 490. That's ~58%, and with the smallest one being 56, it's possible some more traffic is also under the anonymization threshold (at least in amounts comparable to the rest of the traffic). This isn't conclusive of a primary topic by usage, because we still risk inconveniencing up to ~42% of readers by this measurement. It's worth an experiment, though - move this to be a primary redirect, which would allow us to keep monitoring traffic more precisely. We would be able to compare the views of the redirect and views on the disambiguation page reachable through a hatnote, and the organic traffic wouldn't be squashed in. --Joy (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I wasn't aware of the previous discussion when I posted this comment. It's interesting that there was a discussion about this in another talk page just a few days before, and that there's an apparent disagreement about how are these homonyms related. This would points to a need to keep the disambiguation page, but rephrase or reorder things in some way to clarify. --Joy (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per consensus at Talk:Baozi#Requested move 8 January 2024. 162 etc. (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Baozi has 12,359 views but the film has 11,709[[1]] and some of the other foods and the surname has comparable views or long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Baozi does not serve as a broad-concept article for Gua bao, because a gua bao is not a type of baozi. In my experience, the English word bao more often refers to gua bao and similar foods with clam-shaped buns as opposed to baozi. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger this conflicts with the fact that gua bao is currently listed as one of the types of baozi in that article. Does this need to be removed or reorganized in some way? --Joy (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say gua bao should be removed from the list in the baozi article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mx. Granger and the prior discussion mentioned by 162 etc. Dank Jae 22:50, 15 February 2024 (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.