Talk:Ena

Character

They did not mention another character ya know blue and yellow 2A0D:3344:101:7B10:348F:7DAC:D539:C8DB (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! If you feel strongly that an article deserves to exist about a character, make it so. Making your first article is certainly daunting, but it is worth the effort! Mia yun Ruse (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

now that it has a game, it really should have an article. 64.83.140.155 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split people section into its own article?

I suggest we split the content in the Ena#People section into its own article titled Ena (name). There are a lot of articles about people with the given name/nickname, which is why I believe splitting the section would be appropriate. Let me know what you all think, let's build some consensus. 1isall (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAMELIST, this should be done to avoid having too long a list.

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Ena shows that readers are perusing this part of the list a lot - in April:

Ena ENA:_Dream_BBQ link 349
Ena Hatsune_Miku:_Colorful_Stage! link 42
Ena Ena_Sharples link 32
Ena Victoria_Eugenie_of_Battenberg link 30
Ena Bambi,_a_Life_in_the_Woods link 27
Ena Ena_von_Baer link 20
Ena Ena_Fujita link 20
Ena Ena_Begović link 16
Ena Ena_Shibahara link 11
Ena Ena_Sandra_Causevic link 11
Ena Ena_Kadic link 11
Ena Ena_Baga link 11
Ena Ena_Fitzgerald link 10

Of the total 954 identifiable clickstreams, that's actually the majority. Another 654 are filtered, and the total traffic was 3.7k that month.

So if we move all this to a separate list, this will just mean we'll hide these popular entries behind another click. I'm not sure the list is long enough to warrant that sort of a change. --Joy (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list is long enough for the split. In fact, there are surname pages with only two entries on their lists, yet they exist. 1isall (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split out of a larger list because of two entries? Where did that happen?

Anyway, one of the key points of the disambiguation guideline is efficiency. Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily. It's not clear how splitting out a separate list would aid that. --Joy (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we would just replace the entire section with the link to the list's new article. People will click it and find it there. Simple as that! 1isall (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy and see what people there think about this split. 1isall (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial question of navigation is whether it's better to categorize clearly at the cost of more clicks, or to aim to reduce the number of clicks a reader has to make. I tend to lean towards the latter, because it's possible readers will not properly grasp our labelling and categorization, and give up in favor of using a search engine. --Joy (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the verdict? To split or not to split? 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we should probably get more opinions to grow a bigger consensus. 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I was talking about other surname pages with two entries, not this one. 1isall (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this list of people and fictional characters with the name doesn't have only two entries. Sorry for the confusion again. 1isall (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]