:It looks like the article about the hierarchy of needs is far more common of a reader interest than the biography on the whole, but both the biography and it attract a similar amount of clicks from here. I don’t think there’s much navigation optimization we can do here. Moving from a short list to interconnected lead sections and hatnotes does not seem like much of an improvement to me, it just makes things a wee bit more complex. –[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:It looks like the article about the hierarchy of needs is far more common of a reader interest than the biography on the whole, but both the biography and it attract a similar amount of clicks from here. I don’t think there’s much navigation optimization we can do here. Moving from a short list to interconnected lead sections and hatnotes does not seem like much of an improvement to me, it just makes things a wee bit more complex. –[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Joy|Joy]]: I don’t think reader clicks matter here as I am not aware of any reliable sources calling the hierarchy of needs simply “Maslow”. If most people who were looking up “[[Marx]]” were actually intending to click on [[Marxian economics]], we would not set up a disambiguation page. ―<span style=”border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;”>[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Joy|Joy]]: I don’t think reader clicks matter here as I am not aware of any reliable sources calling the hierarchy of needs simply “Maslow”. If most people who were looking up “[[Marx]]” were actually intending to click on [[Marxian economics]], we would not set up a disambiguation page. ―<span style=”border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;”>[[User:Howardcorn33|<b>Howard</b>]] • [[User talk:Howardcorn33|🌽<sup>33</sup>]]</span> 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I don’t dislike that argument. I wondered if there’s some more insight to gain in book references, so I checked [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+Maslow%2CMaslow+*%2CMaslow+and+*%2C*+in+Maslow&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=0 Google Books Ngrams]. As expected, the graphs are correlated, so it’s hard to really pull apart different variables.
:::I’m especially conflicted because it feels like I’m arguing for giving more weight reader path optimization and less weight to natural disambiguation, whereas I’m usually the one to argue to the contrary of that 🙂
:::Ultimately, it’s probably fair to say that the readers who look up this term by and large will be reading about both topics in some amount. If we short-circuit this with a primary redirect, we might get a few more people to also read the biography, while some others may still just proceed to the psychological concept article while not being particularly distracted. I suppose that slight shift in the balance could be a desirable outcome, too. –[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
 |
||||||
|
||||||
Maslow → Maslow (disambiguation)Maslow (disambiguation) – and redirect Maslow to Abraham Maslow, who is commonly known by this single name in subjects such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Maslow’s hammer ―Howard • 🌽33 11:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 18:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:DPT, let’s have a look at some statistics:
- It looks like the article about the hierarchy of needs is far more common of a reader interest than the biography on the whole, but both the biography and it attract a similar amount of clicks from here. I don’t think there’s much navigation optimization we can do here. Moving from a short list to interconnected lead sections and hatnotes does not seem like much of an improvement to me, it just makes things a wee bit more complex. —Joy (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Joy: I don’t think reader clicks matter here as I am not aware of any reliable sources calling the hierarchy of needs simply “Maslow”. If most people who were looking up “Marx” were actually intending to click on Marxian economics, we would not set up a disambiguation page. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t dislike that argument. I wondered if there’s some more insight to gain in book references, so I checked Google Books Ngrams. As expected, the graphs are correlated, so it’s hard to really pull apart different variables.
- I’m especially conflicted because it feels like I’m arguing for giving more weight reader path optimization and less weight to natural disambiguation, whereas I’m usually the one to argue to the contrary of that 🙂
- Ultimately, it’s probably fair to say that the readers who look up this term by and large will be reading about both topics in some amount. If we short-circuit this with a primary redirect, we might get a few more people to also read the biography, while some others may still just proceed to the psychological concept article while not being particularly distracted. I suppose that slight shift in the balance could be a desirable outcome, too. —Joy (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Joy: I don’t think reader clicks matter here as I am not aware of any reliable sources calling the hierarchy of needs simply “Maslow”. If most people who were looking up “Marx” were actually intending to click on Marxian economics, we would not set up a disambiguation page. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
