- In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first.
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Page view counts are often quoted in RM discussions as if they should end the discussion. It's not that simple. Not by a long shot. |
In requested move (RM) discussions, the question often arises as to whether there is a primary topic for a possible undisambiguated title, and if so, which of the two or more contenders that might be.
One of the two criteria for deciding this is A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. [1] One of the three tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)... given later on that page is Wikipedia article traffic statistics (external link as per that page).
| “ | ... there have been many, many comments in RM discussions over the years... that quote page stats as the main or even the only evidence... | ” |
So page stats are relevant, but they don't end the discussion, not by a long shot. The disambiguation guideline certainly doesn't indicate anything of the sort. But there have been many, many comments in RM discussions over the years that assume just the opposite, that quote page stats as the main or even the only evidence and insist end of story, often quite heatedly.
Perhaps it has been proposed that this should be the guideline. It seems surprising if not, considering the ferocious nature of the repeated appeals to it as a principle. But if so the proposal is lost in the archives somewhere, and obviously didn't get up. Perhaps it should be proposed a few times, so we can then list it at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. It seems to already have that sort of status (and usefulnesss... sorry).
Because, there are very good reasons that the guideline reads as it does. Another user put it better than I can: [2]
| “ | pageviews only indicate what readers found, not what they were searching for. | ” |
And that pretty much destroys the argument that page views are all that is relevant. Page views are at best one tool; It could even be argued that they have no relevance at all. Which is entirely consistent with what the guideline says. Page view statistics often help by suggesting what a word or phrase most often means in English, but they should never decide the issue. There is no valid argument to support the notion that they should.
And that this is still supported by consensus is demonstrated by the fact that there have been many, many move discussions where consensus has been not to blindly follow the page view count in deciding whether there was a primary topic and what it was. The experience of Wikipedians has been that page stats are not the whole story. Which again supports that the guideline is right on the money, and that those ignoring or misquoting it are not.
Examples below. Please feel free to add to the list.