Talk:Fall (disambiguation)

Wig

Another meaning is some kind of hairpiece, but I'm not clear on the distinction. Anyone know? Tualha (Talk) 00:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it's a partial wig that gives length and volume especially at the back of the head. I'm surprised that's not on this list, actually. m12 (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

OK forget I said that, I see it's there at the bottom m12 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Fallen (Evanescence album)

Someone needs to write there the Evanescence CD Fallen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.4.17 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (2007)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

---

• Fall (disambiguation) → Fall — Discuss the most common usage of fall, for example Autumn or falling over. Simply south (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. Autumn will be the most common meaning in links on Wikipedia, because it is a more likely topic of interest than falling. This way of doing things is better; we do need an {{otheruses}} on the top of Autumn, however. Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mango, especially now that {{otheruses}} is present --Lox (t,c) 23:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having worked on disambiguation here before, fall is widely linked for its autumn meaning and rarely for any other. The dablink at the top of Autumn (which used to be there; I don't know when it was removed) is sufficient for other cases. Dekimasuよ! 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mangojuice. older ≠ wiser 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - in its noun form, this is easily the most common usage. The only thing that comes close is The fall, and that's always preceded by "the". The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 1 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS additional clarification for closure per noms request: Its been open for discussion for 20 days, and even relisted, and still receiving mixed reviews. There is no definitive direction that this discussion is leaning. Not nearly enough policy discussions on comparison to the personal opinions being expressed on the matter. Tiggerjay (talk) Tiggerjay (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Fall (disambiguation) → Fall – So, apparently, this move request was already discussed once about eight years ago. The concerns raised in that discussion that resulted in "oppose" opinions were the large amount of incoming links towards Fall and a bit of emphasis on how the use of a hatnote directing the reader to the disambiguation page is significant enough. Well, these two statements do not present any rationale for Fall to redirect to Autumn per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. For one, the amount of incoming links to a title just shows that there are that many possible instances of bad links to Fall that need to be disambiguated. And for the other point, a hatnote does not provide any validation in itself that the current target of an ambiguous redirect is correct. With that being said, here's some rationale for this move. 1) As stated on the disambiguation page itself on the first line, Fall redirecting to Autumn can be seen as systemic bias since the connection of the words "fall" and "autumn" is United States-centric. 2) Since the word "Falling" is the present participle of "fall", the word "fall" inherently has strong connections to subjects by the name "falling". And 3) Per the current page view statistics, on average, for every 2 readers that look up Fall, 1 reader views Fall (disambiguation), meaning that it is possible that half of the readers who look up "fall" then go to "autumn" are not looking for "autumn". So ... I say it's time to move the disambiguation page to the base title so that readers can try to figure out what topic they are truly looking for when they search for "fall". Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Why don't you set up some special redirects from the disambiguation page to see where people are actually going? That kind of information can be very helpful in this kind of question. Dohn joe (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would agree that would be helpful in the event that there might be a different primary topic for this term, but I actually do not believe that there is one (thus the 2 to 1 ratio I provided above.) That, and I'm actually not sure how to accomplish that unless I create super-unlikely titles that no one would even think of typing in unless they went to the disambiguation page and clicked the link (such as hdychgcgvc get bgfh tsdfhhchhb mffhvcgdg redirecting to Free fall via a piped link on the disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it may be a bit difficult to truly find out where readers are going from the disambiguation page since some of the links at Fall (disambiguation) are also at Falling. Due to this, it could be rather difficult to determine who is going to a link on the disambiguation page as a result of reaching the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's actually pretty easy. For each link from the disambiguation page that you want to track, you create a piped link in the form of [[Free fall (redirect)|Free fall]]. That's it. It's a unique link that only exists on the Fall (disambiguation) page, so the resulting stats are trustworthy. The other special redirect you could do would be at the Autumn page, piping a redirect in the "Fall redirects here" hatnote. That would tell you how many people go from the Autumn page to this dab page. It also only exists on one page, so the stats are reliable. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of questions like this. Dohn joe (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Dohn joe: I may give that a try in the future for this example, depending on the result of this discussion (given that it would be a bit difficult to gather that information in the 7 day period that these discussions run), but I'd be a bit weary to do so since I could see the test redirects end up at WP:RFD before the test is over, causing problems with readers trying to get to their destination and becoming confused if the redirect gets tagged (since the RFD tag disables the redirect's "auto-redirect" function and essentially turns it into a soft direct while the tag is present.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I've never had an issue with these redirects going to RFD. Sometimes an editor will remove it or question it on the talkpage, but once they understand the purpose of the redirect, I've never had any pushback. As for the timing issue, you know that these discussions often go well past 7 days, and in any event, all we would really need is 3-4 days to get a good sense. Dohn joe (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support no primary topic. It can be the motion or the season, or the metaphorical use of the motion in politics. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for the time being. I'm less concerned about Steel1943's opinions that led to this motion, and more interested to see some real data collected per the comment above. Let's bother to consider changes when we have some supporting facts, if we get them. Evensteven (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Real data? The data, which I have already provided, is the proportion of readers who go to Fall (disambiguation) vs. Fall. The ratio is too high for the current target to be accurately considered the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT (1/2, which is too high for the current primary topic to have the primary topic designation; an acceptable ration for the current situation would be closer to 1/9–1/10). Going to any more depth in regards to specific alternate subject(s) would only be truly necessary if there is a different primary topic, which there is obviously not. Steel1943 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per:

1. Image search on "fall"[1] which, even from a .co.uk search, was really pretty
2. preference for a "namespace" to act as a redirect to a "namespace (disambiguation)"
3. hunch that people looking for other topics may search directly on terms such as "Falling", "Fall of man" and "Waterfall".

GregKaye 13:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Responses to each of these points:

1. Is "fall" actually representative of "autumn" in the UK? I was not able to find any proof that it is; the only proof that has been presented thus far is the search result query presented here, but this could be a case of "this word is so popular in another culture that we are going to adopt its usage", but search results alone on a search engine to not prove this point. Can any other proof be presented?
2. I actually do not understand the point trying to be made here. Is this point comparable to suggesting that "Foo" redirect to "Foo (disambiguation)"? If so, that goes against the guideline set in WP:DABNAME.
3. Possibly, but there is no proof that can accurately validate or invalidate that claim. In fact, in my opinion, that is not even relevant to the discussion at hand since we are trying to determine what the reader is looking for when they search specifically for the term "Fall". From my "Fall vs Fall (disambiguation)" information provided above, there are a considerable amount of readers who go "Fall (disambiguation)", an amount that is quite high (about half) compared to those who view "Fall".

--Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Steel1943 With reluctance I have withdrawn my oppose and this was done on the interpretation that the root meaning of the American English word for the season is that of falling - in this case of leaves. On this view the various "falling" type topics in the navigation list have a closer association to the word fall. On your points.

1. The American English use of the term is widely known and understood in the UK and it is also quite intuitive.
2. WP:DABNAME makes no sense and is in dispute at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#A disambiguation of disambiguation pages. The word "fall" is a singular noun and yet words like this have been erroneously used as titles of lists. This fails WP:AT "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." A title "Fall" may work for a concept dab but not for a navigational listing.
3. My last argument here was my weakest.

It would still be better for Fall to act as a redirect to the navigation page. GregKaye 06:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• support so that readers are clear in terms of the topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Calidum 14:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Fighting "systemic bias" is a dumb reason to argue a topic isn't a primary topic for the term. Carrying out this move would inconvenience a great number of North American readers looking for the season. We're here of course to benefit readers and not to right great wrongs. Calidum 14:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree that "systemic bias" isn't a reason to debate a primary topic. If it was not, White Castle (restaurant) would be at White Castle, but it is not; that move request was not successful, primarily due to systemic bias concerns. This encyclopedia is for all English readers, not just for readers in one specific geographic region. Steel1943 (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fighting systemic bias is generally a reasonable thing to do, but here there is no bias. All there is is a predisposition for some English speakers to use the word "fall" to refer to the autumn season. It seems to me that the reasonable response is to weigh that into the mix when considering what a primary topic might be. I'm American, but not a promoter of Americanism. But universality is not a prerequisite for a primary topic to be primary. Primariness is. And that depends on due weight, not exclusivity, either for or against. So let's not have some anti-American crusade here either. We don't need any more crusades! Evensteven (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. No primary topic. Fall meaning Autumn is an Americanism and is not universal. There are many other meanings that are just as important worldwide. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nom makes a compelling argument I'd be willing to consider about proportion of people going to the disambig page, but it doesn't appear to be actually true? More to the point "half" is potentially just fine to have a primary topic, it certainly doesn't need to be 90% or anything. Anyway: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fall 1455 redirect hits, http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Fall_(disambiguation) 670 disambig hits. That's less than half already IF we assume that every single hit on Fall (disambiguation) is from Fall... which is clearly impossible. Surely some people went there directly or got there by other means. SnowFire (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• The "1/2" ration that I provided is an average of the trend, not the total amount of the views in the past period of days. Per the trend, it is actually difficult to prove otherwise that readers are trying to specifically go to Autumn when they look up "Fall". Also, given that fact that the hatnote on the top of Autumn exists leading readers to the disambiguation page, even if the reader did not look up "Fall" to reach Autumn (or any other page that has a link to Fall (disambiguation) (for that matter), the fact that they then went to the disambiguation page just goes to show that the reader was not satisfied with finding "Autumn" as the primary meaning of "Fall" when they arrived at "Autumn". But, either way the classification of the ratio falls, whether it's a claim that it is 1/2 or 3/7 (which is more in lines with your "total amount" claim), the difference is still too low to designate a primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Users, including me, sometimes randomly click hatnotes out of curiosity (or are bots who click any 'ol link). If a user goes directly to "Autumn" without going via Fall then clicks on the disambig page, I'd call that more of a curiosity click. It should be pretty rare regardless.
• In general, I'd consider 1/2 the default dividing line for a primary topic. If >50% of uses are for a single meaning, that's the primary topic; if not, use a disambig page. So... 3/7 vs. 1/2 is actually kind of relevant here, it means I'd lean keep Autumn as the primary topic by default, and even if it WAS one half exactly, that just means it's debatable. (There are totally legitimate cases of ~30-40% page counts being the primary topic due to originalness / historical relevance / etc.) "Fighting systemic bias" is not a compelling argument here, it could just as easily be turned on its head - what's wrong with enlightening British readers to a different meaning of Fall? Anyway, there's a large number of readers who by default would search for the season under "Fall", and most of the alternative meanings are a bit of a stretch - someone interested in the Fall of Adam/Man hopefully knows to add that, or would at least attempt The Fall. And "fall" in the verb sense isn't a very interesting encyclopedic topic, that's more "gravity" or Falling (accident). So not seeing a strong argument to go AGAINST what readers seem to prefer. If at most 3/7 of readers want the disambig page, that means Fall-the-season IS the primary topic. SnowFire (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, per SnowFire, and secondly, because the premise the request is built on, that only Americans refer to the season after summer as "fall", is incorrect. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's from just one Canadian newspaper, the Toronto Star, from just one day, September 1. Here's the Vancouver Sun, same day:[9], [10]. Edmonton Journal, same day: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The Globe and Mail, same day: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that is proof that it is used in the continents of the Americas. I'm still trying to find out if it is used elsewhere, such as in the UK, Australia, or India (examples other English-speaking countries not in the Americas.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Certainly not used in the UK except when referring to North America. We always call the season autumn. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment it doesn't really matter if Americans call the season "fall" or not, since Americans also encounter the motion and also call it "fall", and political falls are also quite common in the USofA. So the season isn't the primary topic within the US either. (the place where the phrase "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up" originated as a meme) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, I can't see anything other than Autumn being primary topic for this term. The four seasons are pretty fundamental. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed they are. And in most places the season is called Autumn! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Most places" is not the point. The US contains half the English speakers in the world. And it's the "half" part that makes this a tricky thing to balance. Evensteven (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Half the native English speakers maybe. Half the total English speakers? I think not. If Wikipedia based all its policies on the fact that there are more native English speakers in the US than anywhere else and American English therefore takes precedence then WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN would not exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, half the total speakers, and most of them native speakers at that. There are estimated to be about 750 million speakers worldwide. The current population of the US is about 320 million. Most speak English. "Half" is a rough characterization, but isn't that close enough for our purposes? And obviously, WP policies are not based on that fact exclusively. There are, after all, the other half who deserve consideration too. And why is there so often an attitude that half is enough to make any decision? Is that democratic? Perhaps, but it's foolishness also. Look at how US politics is stuck in that mire. Let's not do the same thing here. We should aim at better resolutions even when there is a "half-sy" usage split. But it can't happen when there's an attitude that one half must fight the other half. The resolution is not going to come from counting speakers (that's an impasse). It comes from compromise and accommodation, something everyone is going to have to do if we want a resolution at all. It's time democratic notions took a lesson from those facts. Evensteven (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure where you got your figures from, given our article estimates a minimum of 1,360,000 million English speakers worldwide! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why would falling down not be the primary topic? That is the most common usage in American English, and the most likely thing that "fall" means in American English. And it is something that happens all year round, to Americans. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as with Spring (also a disambiguation page). bd2412 T 14:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The primary encylopedic topic would be Autumn, but dictionary meanings of common words should not be ignored, and also, Americans should all know or rapidly become aware that "Autumn" is a far more precise term even within America and that "fall" is a very ambiguous search term. Anyone going straight to fall can be assumed to be either not wanting "Autumn" or in need of the education provided by the disambiguation page. For non-North-Americans, there is no PrimaryTopic associate with "fall", in many international places, its association with Autumn is unheard of. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, your argument that someone who types on fall looking for the season is in need of some sort of education is bullshit. Calidum 04:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"need" was poor word choice. Someone going to "Fall" thinking that it can only mean one thing, and not knowing that the rest of the world uses a more precise term, would benefit from the dab page more than by having their misapprehension reinforced. More specifically, this applies to an editor who links to fall. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is possibly the most patronizing line of reasoning I've seen in an RM. "We should send readers and editors somewhere they don't want to go because it's better for them." I'm sure it's not your intent, but who are we to decide what our readers "should" know? Our job is to facilitate our readers and editors, not hinder them. If most editors linking to Fall intend Autumn, it is better for the encyclopedia that we make that easier, not harder. Please reconsider your stance. Dohn joe (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that but don't know how to avoid it. The thing that I think that needs to be consciously avoid is "Confirmation bias". The dominant group here, being North Americans, and people familiar with North America, can justifiably claim that for them fall=Autumn is unquestionably the primary topic. However, there is a sizable minority (Australia, NZ, SA) where "fall" is never used in this sense, and I think few Americans appreciate that. I submit that most Americans will be tempted to link to fall, if it redirects, and the problem is that this is astonishing to readers unfamiliar with North American culture. To avoid this unusual cultural dominance, it is important that fall leads to the disambiguation page. This is my attempt at my own wording of the nominator's reason #1), which I fully support, and is reason #3) seems to provide evidence for this problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment All other things aside, since "Autumn" is the title of the article (and rightly so I think), and since so many English speakers say "Fall" to mean the same season, I just can't believe that there is so much contention over leaving Fall as a legitimate alternate by way of a simple redirect. And what is this proposal? It's for the sake of disambiguation!! "Fall (disambiguation)" isn't good enough as a title for that function, but instead it must be "Fall", despite Fall's obvious and widespread usefulness as it is. So the argument here is not about Autumn/Fall, but about disambiguation being a higher priority than an obvious and helpful redirect. Personally, I think every disambiguation page should have a title that ends in "(disambiguation)", because that is an auxiliary function, not a primary one. And redirects are a secondary function, less than primary (and not requiring PrimaryTopic consideration), but more than auxiliary, which is bookkeeping. If someone types in "Fall" under search, does not "Fall (disambiguation)" appear in the drop-down list for easy access? It's not like identifying disambiguation pages explicitly causes any difficulty or slow-down even for slow typers! SmokeyJoe, and others, you're misdirecting your attention. Evensteven (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with "(disambiguation)" suffixing every disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are not real articles. Sometimes we specifically want a disambiguation, and sometimes we don't, and currently DAB page titling is inconsistent. The disambiguation page should be at Fall (disambiguation), with Fall redirecting to that. Why this is repulsive to old-time disambiguators, I don't know. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see we have one point of agreement: that this page should stay where it is. Sorry to hear you think Fall should redirect to disambiguation - an even more substandard use of the name space than the other suggestion. Surely priority to a redirect name should go to a page that redirects to an article, especially when the name is such a prominently used one! Your idea would simply amount to a manual double re-direct - what else is disambiguation for but to redirect according to choice? Evensteven (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The should be no article at "fall". People going there should be sent to a disambiguation page, yes. Anyone linking to the season should link to Autumn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And the basis for that unsupported assertion would be what? Evensteven (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a summary of my position as explained above, made because you seem to somewhat misunderstand my position. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, a summary then. But I don't misunderstand; I disagree. Evensteven (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Your disagreement is welcome. I have an opinion, I think sufficiently expressed, and respect other's positions of holding different opinion. I certainly don't contend that opposing opinions are in any way "wrong". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks. I wish I had thought to put it that way. Evensteven (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Except the Americans no one else uses "Fall", The correct term is Autumn, Anyway most people here would assuming "Fall" to be falling over and not Autumn. –Davey2010^Talk 03:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, Americans comprise about half of English speakers. Fall is not incorrect, it merely is not used everywhere. And we're not talking about an article title, but about a redirect. It's appropriate as is. Evensteven (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, that's complete rubbish! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Crystal, David (2006). "Chapter 9: English worldwide". In Denison, David; Hogg, Richard M. A History of the English language. Cambridge University Press. pp. 420–439. ISBN 978-0-511-16893-2. Evensteven (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, the season naming issue is orthogonal to the simple fact that this is an essentially ambiguous English word, and its other meaning is as generic as it gets. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dohn joe's evidence seems to suggest the current setup is getting readers where they want to go pretty well, and we've seen little evidence indicating another conclusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary stats

I set up the special redirect to the disambiguation page from the Autumn page fifteen days ago. In that time, about 28,000 people visited the Autumn page. 1,073 people viewed the Fall redirect to Autumn. Only 182 people clicked on the hatnote to the Fall disambiguation page. That means that around 12 people a day who went to the Autumn page clicked on the special redirect. That's 17% of those Fall viewers wanting the dab page. That's not very many at all, and shows that the current setup is probably best for our editors and readers. We would need more stats to confirm this, including where people who land on the dab page go, but it's a compelling early result. Dohn joe (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to see if the 17% changes over the year, or remains largely flat. In the run up to Autumn, at least in the Northern hemisphere, the argument could be made that looking at too short a time frame may skew the data. I guess what I'm saying is; we'll need a year's worth of data to see which argument is actually supported. Little pob (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Fall (disambiguation)(redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fall (disambiguation)(redirect). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 23:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2020

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: I see a weak consensus for a temporary move as a test (4 support the move either temporarily or permanently, including nom, with 2 opposed), but no consensus on the final status (3 vs. 3). Reasonable arguments have been advanced for both final outcomes. I suggest that Crouch, Swale implement that temporary disambiguation page for a month or two so that we can see what the pageviews look like, then start another RM to determine the long-term result. buidhe 23:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Fall (disambiguation) → Fall – No primary topic. Autumn gets 16,378, Waterfall gets 14,787, Free fall gets 14,506, Fall of man gets 12,428 and Falling (accident) gets 3,721[[20]][21][22]. All of those topics are topics with long-term significance and the accident meaning is very commonly associated with "fall" and here in England that's probably what "fall" means most of the time. While I understand this term is common in the US and is used in other countries (such as England) I don't think it is commonly used here while as noted the accident meaning is. Some of the items in "Other uses" also have some long-term significance to, noting that the Piano gets 45,375 and Iris (plant) gets 37,654. Also The Fall (band) gets 12,528, Fall (Davido song) gets 5,991 (though lacking long-term significance it is a full match and gets 1 out of around 2.737) and The Fall (Gorillaz album) gets 4,816. The DAB page gets over half the views of the Falls redirect (12 v 22 a day[[23]]) suggesting many readers are landing on the wrong page (since some probably search again or give up), but not clear since people who land on the Autumn or click on the see also of other DAB could have ended up here. The US Free Dictionary lists the "verb" section first and "Autumn" as the 4th entry in the "noun" section. Similarly my Oxford Dictionary lists the verbs first and "Autumn" is the 5th item in the nouns. In summary the season gets less than some other topics so the "much more likely than any other" isn't met especially with regard to the Gorillaz album and long-term significance is held by multiple topics. I would also note that the term for the season derives "to fall from a height" so again that seems to point to long-term significance for the accident meaning. It would be far less confusing for all those not looking for the season to be sent to the DAB page rather than loading the season page and having to find the hatnote and then finding the article you want than the readers looking for the season to click on one of the 1st links on the DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the current evidence available. Of the main terms you cited, only Autumn and Falling (accident) are commonly referred to as "fall". Pagehits like Fall (Davido song) should be heavily discounted based on the long-term significance (Apple vs. Apple Inc.) principle. However, I support a temporary move of the disambiguation page to conduct a test because the raw pageviews are so unhelpful here; we do not want to know how popular the topic is on Wikipedia, but rather how likely it is that a viewer searching for "Fall" will want that topic. See the section in Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics about MSG for how to conduct such a test. (Note that a test cannot be fairly run when there is a primary topic occupying the base title.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. “Fall” should NOT be used for the season in normal use in mainspace. Nearly all incoming links to “Fall”. Americans use “fall”, but they know “autumn”, in the UK, they mostly use Autumn, but most of the rest of the English speaking world never use “fall”, and it is astonishing. People confused about the use of “fall” for “autumn” would be better served by the DAB page than the Autumn page, and for all others, page links, urls, hovertext, the correct use of the article title (“Autumn”) is either equivalent or far superior. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Smokey Joe - the proposal is not to move Autumn to Fall. It's whether to keep Fall as a primaryredirect to Autumn, or make the Fall (disambiguation) page the basename article for "Fall". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohn joe (talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, Dohn joe, I know that. I skimmed through the incoming links, and I think they should all link directly to Autumn, or if the ENGVAR of the article insists to "Fall" piped from Fall (season), so that the hovertext correctly disambiguates. This means, in short, that it is a bad PRIMARYREDIRECT. It should not be used, which means it should not be, and instead jumping to Fall should take the reader to the disambiguation page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support. Even without a temporary pageview test, even limiting the pageview analysis to topics with articles known simply as "fall", thus including autumn in the count, autumn and fall combine for just 53% of pageviews (the other ten are here) - the bare minimum for a primary topic/redirect by usage. With all the other non-article topics on the page, I don't think we can say for certain that the season should be the primaryredirect for "fall". It's very close, though, so I wouldn't be sad if we kept the status quo, either. Dohn joe (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes the 53% is very generous since it gives views for the article titled "Autumn" but the redirect Fall (accident), if you swap for the "Fall (season)" redirect its a different story with that redirect getting less than 1 in 419 views. Note that even the "Fall (accident)" redirect gets more (146) than the "Fall (season)" redirect (43). Similarly if you use the "Autumn" article and the "Falling (accident)" article for views you get a negative number, 21,840 for "Autumn" v 22,609 for the others on you're list[[24]][[25]]. Note that I removed the "Fall" redirect since that gets views no matter what article the user wants. Indeed when you take into account the others titled "Fall" and anything titled "The Fall" and "Falling" etc you would easily have a negative number. That shows pretty clearly that the season isn't primary by usage and as noted other topics have long-term significance to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced people looking for waterfall or any of the other items mentioned would look up "fall." Both previous move requests failed, and I don't think anything has really changed since then. Calidum 15:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this frankly absurd request. Things like waterfall are partial title matches; things like songs and albums drastically fail the second criterion of primary topic. All verbs on Wikipedia are normally listed at their gerund form. The only thing a reasonable person would ever expect to find at Fall, the only topic meeting primary topic criterion 2, is the season. Seasons have an almost unfathomable amount of long-term significance; there is a reason that autumn, winter, summer and spring are all primary topics. Red Slash 17:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Spring is a disambiguation page for a similar (though probably greater) reason since there are many common topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yep. Spring was sprung from being a primary topic, if it ever was one. BD2412 T 05:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, phooey, I'm dumb Red Slash 23:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I'd especially like to see opinions on the first !vote's suggestion of an experimental move to gather better stats. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes similar to what is done at Lincoln (such as Fall (season) and was done at Hearts (Fall (season, from disambiguation)) I expect, note that Fall (season) already has incoming links so the 1st wouldn't work unless a different title was used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

Pageview test results

The results of the WP:DABTEST for July and August 2020 are in:

Candidate	Pageviews	Percentage
Autumn (from disambiguation)	740	73.1%
Falling (accident, from disambiguation)	152	15.0%
Fall (Eminem song, from disambiguation)	29	2.9%
Fall (academic term, from disambiguation)	20	2.0%
Fall (nautical term, from disambiguation)	16	1.6%
Fall (1997 film, from disambiguation)	15	1.5%
Fall; or, Dodge in Hell (from disambiguation)	13	1.3%
Fall (Davido song, from disambiguation)	10	1.0%
Fall (Ride EP, from disambiguation)	5	0.5%
Astrological fall (from disambiguation)	4	0.4%
Fall (Justin Bieber song, from disambiguation)	4	0.4%
Meteorite fall (from disambiguation)	3	0.3%
Fall (Once Upon a Time, from disambiguation)	2	0.2%

Given the lack of evidence that Autumn is not the primary topic, the "no consensus" result in the June 2020 RM will hold, and the move will be reverted to the long-term status quo with no prejudice against a new RM acknowledging the results of this test. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes thanks King of Hearts that's the right thing to do but obviously the results didn't take into account the albums etc that do fail PT#2 but likely prevent #1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I did take them into consideration. The ones I left out (by laziness) add up to ~1% of the raw results, not enough to tip the scales at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops, sorry King of Hearts I was referring to Fall (Davido song) which only got 1%. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, King of Hearts - excellent work. Dohn joe (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)