Talk:C17

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

On 6 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to C17 (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 6 May 2022[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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C17 → C17 (disambiguation) – C17 should redirect to Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, the primary topic. 93 percent of outgoing page views are for the American cargo aircraft. Schierbecker (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 08:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Disambiguation has been notified of this discussion. 何をしましたか？那晚安啦。 08:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Boeing C-17 Globemaster III gets 56,847 views but C17 (C standard revision) which is just "C17" gets 8,256[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know whether it's backed by any formal policy or not, but I get the impression that on WP it's more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page than to a specific article. In particular this seems to be true of most of the Cx names. That also seems to hold at least in some cases where one article linked from the disambiguation page dominates the outgoing traffic. For example see the traffic for C89. OTOH C99 has been given to a specific article. So on balance I'm opposed, but not strongly. If someone would clarify what the policies or best practices are for this kind of situation, that would be very helpful.RW Dutton (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. See: WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and requested moves at Talk:FS1 (disambiguation), Talk:A220 (disambiguation), Talk:F111 (disambiguation), Talk:F14 (disambiguation), Talk:T90 (disambiguation), Talk:T80 (disambiguation), Talk:F16 (disambiguation), Talk:A24, Talk:F16 (disambiguation), Talk:M16 (disambiguation), Talk:F35 (disambiguation). Schierbecker (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the plane being the primary topic by usage (and possibly long-term significance, given its long, continuous service history). The opposition so far relies entirely on "other stuff exists" and is thus uncompelling. The programming language can be hatnoted, and just because it's "more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page" doesn't mean it's correct to do so. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "C17" is not "C-17", which already redirects to the plane. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 31 May 2022 (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.