Talk:Jump

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Jump
Jump (disambiguation)

Discussions:

RM, Jump (disambiguation) → Jump, No consensus, return to stable page title, 18 April 2017, discussion

Primary meaning of the word "jump"

Three things: 1. Where I come from, the slang term "jump" doesn't refer to violence, but to America's other favorite pastime. Synonymous with "hump", usually found in the phrase "jumped his/her bones". 2. I'm deeply suspicious of the line claiming that "jump" is a reversal of "pmuj" in the context of cooking. Get that sucker verified. 3. With that nonsense out of the way: I came to this article looking for a definition of the term as it applies to blogging - many blogs use the phrase "after the jump" to refer to a time delay whose specifics I cannot tell. Wpell (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EG Penguins? Clearly this page is not receiving the attention it needs. My question #3 above has still not been answered more than two years later. Wpell (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 April 2017

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. Not much agreement here that I can see – MALPLACED no longer applies since the retargeting of JumpJumping. So, much as with Walk and Walking, Wikipedia wins! (non-admin closure) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 18:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jump (disambiguation) → Jump – WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page Ppp ery 21:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Winged Blades^Godric 11:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC),--Relisting. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this move without seeing a clear consensus favoring the move. Jump is a primary topic and the page should be retargeted as a primary redirect to Jumping. It should not be a disambiguation page, as if "jump" is not primary. Jump (disambiguation) itself says: ""'Jump or Jumping primarily refers to the physical action of jumping". To suggest demoting "jump" to a term without a primary meaning is not controversial, affronts reason. Seek consensus.--John Cline (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery and John Cline: Queried move request. To me, the primary meaning of "jump(ing)" is "propel oneself off the ground by a sudden leg movement". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anthony Appleyard: For some reason, your previous ping didn't work. Ppp ery 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: I'm not trying to claim that jumping is not the primary topic. I opened this technical request that got contested to clean up after Chemical Engineer, who retargeted the redirect to the dab page, producing a malplaced dab page. I'm neutral on what the actual primary topic is. Ppp ery 23:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When you think about the word "jump", you probably think about "jumping". Clearly a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By all appearances, the disambiguation page had been located at Jump for a very long time, since at least 25 January 2006. Prior to that, it appears the article at Jump was about the village (now located at Jump, South Yorkshire following two moves in relatively short order ([1] and [2]) on 24 January 2006. @Anthony Appleyard: moved the page following a technical move request on 29 February 2016. There are an awful lot of things known as "jump" and based on a page view analysis [3] of just a few of the pages listed, it seems "jumping" does not qualify based on traffic. The Van Halen song alone averages more than twice the traffic and some of the other songs get close. older ≠ wiser 02:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per User:Pppery and User:Bkonrad. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. — AjaxSmack 02:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and redirect Jump to Jumping. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- By what rationale is the "jumping" clear primary encyclopedic meaning of "Jump"? — AjaxSmack 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? You're really asking me that? In what weird world is it not the primary meaning for the vast majority of people? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Necrothesp and per similarity to Walk, which seems appropriately handled. Lambtron (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jump refers to many topics apart from jumping, in particular places with the name. You cannot say that "Jump" a place is in any sense a sub-topic of Jumping. However, it is sensible to have Jumping as a subtopic of the word Jump which clearly has many more meanings, as is shown by the many more articles (I make it 40) with the word Jump as opposed to relatively few (I make it 7) which include Jumping. Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Jump/jumping clearly has a primary meaning of vigorous and sudden propulsion of the body by an organism; however many alternate uses there are, they are all secondary to and derived from this primary meaning. Etymology proves this. There is no logical basis for a move. HCA (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jump...clearly has a primary meaning of vigorous and sudden propulsion of the body..." in a dictionary but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — AjaxSmack 19:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it has that primary meaning in reality. Go ask any person, and the first thing that comes to mind for "jump"/"jumping" is the biomechanical motion. Nothing else on the entire dismbiguation list has anywhere near the prevalence or universal recognition, and no evidence has been put forth to justify otherwise. HCA (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure there has. As User:Bkonrad points out above, Jump (Van Halen song) alone gets more than twice the traffic of jumping. Here are the pageview stats. "The first thing that comes to mind" does not equal encyclopedic usage. — AjaxSmack 03:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I will accept your argument as valid if and only if you make an uncontested move of Facial_(sex_act) to be the primary page for Facial, since the former has 4x the daily pageviews of the latter. HCA (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a completely different type of request. This move is to place the disambiguation page at the base name because there are competing candidates for primary topic based on traffic and what could be considered as an interpretation of long-term significance. It is not about making any one topic the primary topic. A better comparison would be if you asked to move Facial (disambiguation) to Facial. older ≠ wiser 16:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Then do that. If you're convinced of this reasoning here, then it should apply universally.
        
        Of course, your reasoning is terrible for this page, too. Let's look at the disambig page contents here: There's the clear primary meaning of an impulsive biomechanical movement, two minuscule communities, four scientific terms which are all clearly named for the biomechanical movement in order to denote rapid change, a computer science term in which you "jump to" a new part of the code (obviously named for the biomechanical movement), a statistical software which has a jumping human in the logo, the name of a file storage device of unknown etymology, a Japanese magazine of unknown etymology, 6 of 9 video entries clearly refer to the movement (3 unclear), a long-since renamed record label, a band named for a song about the movement, an album whose cover depicts an anthropomorphic hare jumping, 3 unclear musical references, 15 songs referencing the biomechanical movement (including Van Halen), 2 more songs using "jumping" as slang in a manner undoubtedly derived from use of the human movement of jumping in dancing, a musical with dancing involving a lot of jumping, 6 sports references all of which involve the movement, 2 sci-fi devices whose names clearly reference the movement due to their ability to rapidly move between two points, a jet-pack clearly named after the movement, a consultant firm of unknown etymology, and five miscellaneous links of unknown etymology.
        
        Clearly the vast preponderance of links are either directly referencing the movement (whether as a mode of locomotion or using it in dancing or sort) or clearly and unambiguously directly alluding to the movement to convey the discontinuous, rapid, or foreceful nature of the movement. The tiny handful which do not fit into this category are utterly inconsequential. Thus, there is no justification whatsoever for the proposed move. HCA (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. That various uses ultimately are derived from some common meaning does not necessarily make that meaning the primary topic. Clearly the vast preponderance of links are either directly referencing the movement -- the vast preponderance of what links? Whatever the derivation of the many entries on the page, what these entries refer to now is most definitely NOT the physical activity. It is a disservice to readers to point them to what you presume to be primary topic based on faulty dictionary analogy. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Then what do you propose defines the primary topic, if it's not popular use or prevalence within the disambiguation links? Mere pageviews? If so, I expect you to complete the move of Facial before returning to this discussion. HCA (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There are two main criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, popular use based on page views, which the physical movement fails, and long-term significance, which arguably might be the physical movement. Typically in cases where the indications are divided, a disambiguation page is placed at the base name. older ≠ wiser 01:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh, and I will ignore demands that I have to do anything about any other topic first. If you care about it, YOU make the proposal. older ≠ wiser 01:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The long-term significance overwhelmingly justifies the current state. That pop-culture trivialities generate more traffic is irrelevant and prioritizes temporary trivialities over true encyclopedic value. HCA (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And, since you're citing it so often, allow me to quote a the very first line of "Determining a primary topic": "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move." Given that I'm far from the only one to oppose this on similar grounds and, as the page says, "there are no absolute rules", the pageviews alone are an insufficient argument. HCA (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That may be your opinion, but that is not what the guideline says. older ≠ wiser 01:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and redirect Jump to Jumping. Jumping is the primary topic for jump in terms of long-term significance, encyclopedic importance and principle of least astonishment for the readers. While I acknowledge the reader's interest for popular culture topics under this title, our practice has always been to give priority to basic topics (subject to editorial consensus on case-by-case basis), on the expense of popular trends and pageviews. While maybe not directly applicable in this case, see the principles at WP:CONCEPTDAB: If the primary meaning of a term [...] is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, [...] at that title should be an article describing it. [...] A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. Here, "jumping" is not even too abstract. No such user (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I doubt that "Jumping" is really the primary topic, such that we can with confidence say "well, obviously the great majority if people searching on 'jump' are looking for the article 'Jumping'". There's no particular reason I can think for "jump" to necessarily devolve to "jumping" but not "jumper", a word with many popular meanings -- the kind you wear, the kind you use in electronics, the kind you start your car with. And "jump" itself has many meanings, as seen by the size of the page. There's a famous song by that name, and I'd be surprised if a reasonable percentage of people searching on "jump" aren't looking for that song. There're other songs, and several films, and other things... I just doubt that there's a primary topic for "jump". Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: I think that it's a false analogy: jump and jumping are near-synonymous, and IMO anyone's first association for jump is the act of propelling oneself into the air. On the other hand, jumper is relatively rarely used as a reference to a person who performed a jump, except for professional athletes: as the dab page and wikt:jumper show, it acquired a broad range of unrelated meanings, including jumper (sweater) and jump wire (which happens to be my first association for jumper). No such user (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. First of all, many if not most of the people who want "jumping" will search for "jumping". And of the remainder, people who just searched on "jump"... you're sure that half of them are looking for "jumping" and not "Jumper" (a page with at least 10 meanings, some major such as Jumper (computing) and Jumper (dress) and Jump shot (basketball)). Or looking for what they actually searched on, "Jump" (a page with scores of meanings, some major such as Jump statement (unconditional branch instruction in computing), Jump (Van Halen song) (a very popular classic song), Jump start (vehicle) (commonly called just a "jump"), plus the Skydiving meaning, and others. But more than half are looking for "jumping"? I doubt it. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jump should redirect to Jumping as that is the primary topic for the word. Also, Jump should not redirect to Jump (disambiguation), because disambiguation is then unnecessary. Jump redirected to Jumping from late February 2016 to mid April 2017. The history is obfuscated before that; from what I have seen, this title seems to have existed since mid 2004. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 11:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as it seems obvious that Jump needs disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, needs disambiguation, which should be the default when there is no consensus for a primary topic, which clearly there isn't here. For comparison, skipping isn't the primary topic for skip, clapping isn't the primary topic for clap, spitting isn't the primary topic for spit, vomiting isn't the primary topic for barf. wbm1058 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we're getting with another four-letter-everyday-word (FLEW) primary topic: pitcher [[Mudcat Grant]] serves up thirteen [[single (baseball)|single]]s and a [[walk]]... Sorensen posted a 93–103 record with a 4.15 [[earned-run average|ERA]] and 69 [[complete game]]s, 10 [[shutout]]s, 569 [[strikeout]]s and 402 [[walk]]s. These would probably be fixed more quickly to link to Base on balls if walk was deemed to be ambiguous. It's an everyday word that shouldn't be WP:OVERLINKed anyway. wbm1058 (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running isn't the primary topic for run, hopping isn't the primary topic for hop, tripping isn't the primary topic for trip. Spinning and spin are both ambiguous words! Marking and mark, lifting and lift. And round and round we go.

Oh, my. the sound made by dogs isn't the primary topic for Barking. "Principle of least surprise" and all. Maybe sometimes it's OK to "surprise" some readers. Taking a worldwide view, I think it's inevitable that some of our readers will be surprised some of the time. Hopefully they learn some good things when they're surprised, like that a walk in baseball is not a stroll in the park. Well, in the ballpark maybe ;) wbm1058 (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per pageview statistics [4], Jumping isn't even close to the primary topic for "Jump". Per WP:PRIMARY "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." The case could be made that "Jumping" is the long term significant primary topic per: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." This is one of those cases where the historical usage primary topic rule conflicts with the usage primary topic rule, as a result people are going to oppose or support based on which they think is more important. I suggest that a close of no consensus is appropriate at this stage given the discussion above. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A no consensus close begs the question "what is the status quo ante?" Some of the deleted history I reference above would have to be viewed to determine that. It has also been suggested above that, instead of defaulting to as it was before (whatever that may be), it should default to a disambiguation page. I'll be interested to see what the result ends up being. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to an undiscussed technical move on 29 February 2016, this had been a disambiguation page for a very long time. I think any claim of primary topic needs to demonstrate consensus. older ≠ wiser 10:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PTOPIC: If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page – this discussion has not confirmed that there is a consensus primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Redirect should be retargeted back to Jumping, where it was before. That is the clear long-term-significance primary topic, like Apple or Bell, even if other topics get higher page views. Furthermore, the redirect to Jumping version of the page which existed from Feb 2016 to when the present discussion started in April 2017 (that's 1 year and 2 months) should be regarded as the "stable" title in this instance, in the event of a no consensus closure here. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, with all due respect, nobody is suggesting that jumping is not the primary topic for... "jumping". Pome and pomme don't redirect to Apple, and Clapper doesn't redirect to Bell. wbm1058 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, wbm1058. I concede you have a good point, and you made me think and reconsider my position. I think that the question "where to direct titles with common words" has an unclear answer, and no point of view is actually "correct". On one hand, broad-concept articles such as jumping tend to be uninteresting, and possibly not what the readers sought after. On the other, displaying those conforms to the principle of least surprise – "well, here's an article about what everyone knows as 'jump'; oh, you didn't mean that – go to jump (disambiguation) and pick your choice". No such user (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Responding to the argument above: "Go ask any person, and the first thing that comes to mind for "jump"/"jumping" is the biomechanical motion. Nothing else on the entire dismbiguation list has anywhere near the prevalence or universal recognition". See the guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Not "what first comes to (your) mind". Otherwise, Barking would surely redirect to bark (sound). I'd never heard of the English town before I searched for similar redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline does not really address the situation at hand – it's more "your first association might be biased by your own experience so think more broadly", but I don't think "jump" is subject to such a bias. And that Barking example surely comes as a surprise, and it has never been tested on a RM. Again, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I wishfully hope we could formulate a broader guideline. No such user (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, clear and historical primary topic. bd2412 T 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom-I wasn't looking for the verb when I typed in the word.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

As the issue of page history has been raised, I'm providing it here. I also restored the deleted history of Jump for discussion purposes. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping was created at 14:11, 10 March 2002. Nobody created any redirect from Jump to that article until... 29 February 2016
Jump was created at 23:54, 27 June 2004 as a stub about a village in England
At 08:07, 15 November 2005, the hatnote:

This article is about the village of Jump in South Yorkshire, England. There are also several songs called Jump. See also jumping.

was replaced with a hatnote to the newly-created Jump (disambiguation)

At 18:53, 24 January 2006 EamonnPKeane moved Jump to Jump (village) (diff) – The village in England was the primary topic for 1 year, 211 days
At 18:53, 24 January 2006 EamonnPKeane redirected Jump to Jump (disambiguation)
At 13:31, 25 January 2006 Commander Keane moved Jump (disambiguation) to Jump: " (disambiguation)" is superfluous, see Malplaced disambiguation pages
At 13:04, 25 September 2006, Amakuru moved Jumping from 'See also' to the top of the list
At 23:27, 20 October 2008, Tavix elevated Jumping to MOS:DABPRIMARY status, although the disambiguation remained at the base title Jump
At 03:36, 21 January 2010, Eekerz lowered Jumping back down to the first ordinary item in the list
At 01:49, 30 March 2010 RussBot made a minor edit to Jump (disambiguation) (Bot: adding redirect template) #REDIRECT [[Jump]]{{R to disambiguation page}} (this is a currently deleted edit)
At 21:27, 23 November 2013, Red Slash moved the MOS:DABORDER cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below "miscellaneous" items down to the bottom of the page.
23:01, 29 February 2016 Anthony Appleyard moved page Jump to Jump (disambiguation) without leaving a redirect (Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink) – there was no primary topic for 10 years, 36 days
At 23:01, 29 February 2016 Anthony Appleyard redirected Jump to Jumping - which, as of today has been the primary topic for 1 year, 69 days. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Thanks for doing that. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Page move

It would seem that "no consensus" in this case means that the dab page should be moved to the base name, "Jump". Just checking to make sure that this is agreeable to all ya'll before I "jump" in. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 18:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jumping is the clear primary meaning, and jump should remain a redirect to jumping. All other meanings are either derived from this, rare, or regional. HCA (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor HCA: I understand your oppose rationale, which sounds reasonable; however, the policy clearly states:
  If an article title has been stable for a long time, [...] it should not be changed.
For most of "Jump's" existence it has been the title of the dab page. It was in February of 2016 that it became a primary redirect to "Jumping" and the dab page took the title "Jump (disambiguation)". This is all explained above in detail by wbm1058. In February of 2016, when the dab page went from being titled "Jump" to "Jump (disambiguation)", "Jump" was a well-established dab page and there had been no primary topic for more than ten years. We might disagree with policy; however, it is the community consensus we go by unless it can be shown that we shouldn't. My interpretation could be wrong, which is why I opened this section. Do you think I'm misinterpreting the policy? If so, then please explain in detail. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 23:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think (and correct me if I am wrong) that HCA's comment above was a misplaced RM !vote, rather than a comment on the procedural move as a result of the close. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting situation I don't see everyday. Usually "no consensus" means to leave things as they are; however, in this case, as you note below, it depends upon how status quo is perceived. As I said, I perceive the status quo to be the stable condition that lasted more than ten years, but since as you do indicate, a year of being a primary redirect to "Jumping" may or may not trump ten years of not being the primary topic. I intend to follow through with that page move unless editors can explain to me why I shouldn't. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it depends what you consider to be the status quo, as no consensus indicates a revert to the status quo. Jump was a dab page for a very long time but was changed to a redirect over a year ago. Do you consider that a year of stability is enough to change the status quo? I suggest that after it was changed a year ago by AA that the change was simply unnoticed for the past year, and am leaning toward reverting Jump to a dab page (Agree) as that was a stable status quo for a very long time before it was changed. As for HCA's comment directly above, the RM is closed, any comments in this section should be solely to discuss the procedural move as a result of the decision above (in light of the somewhat unclear status quo), not to rehash the discussion in supporting or opposing the RM itself. Can subsequent comment please stay on topic. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fail on page views criteria; Jumping is only rated as a B-Class or Start-Class article, while Jump (Rihanna song) and Jump (Madonna song) are both Wikipedia:Good articles. If we conclude that Jumping has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value in spite of its middling quality-classification, this would seriously put into doubt both the encyclopedic importance of "good articles" and the validity of the admonition that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". This might be an easier call, on the enduring educational value criteria, if Jumping were a featured article. Perhaps those arguing for that might work on improving the quality of the article, then come back and revisit this. I'm not sure that where this trend ultimately leads is a good thing: making stubs primary topics over similarly titled featured articles, simply because the topic of the stub is "what first comes to mind" in any context, not restricting to the context of encyclopedic topics. Is Answer, the response to a question, a primary topic too? wbm1058 (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Walk has been cited to justify this, however Walking qualifies as primary topic based on page views. Walking's page view count dwarfs that of Jumping, leading to the de facto conclusion that walking is a topic of more encyclopedic importance than jumping. wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Inclined to agree. That and one year of growing stability of "Jump""Jumping" vs. ten years of established stability as a dab page does make the difference. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 09:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sigh... can we please stop debating as if the RM is still open? I would suggest that Paine Ellsworth go ahead and move the dab page to Jump if they feel that it is the appropriate de-facto status quo (given the complicated page history and end this discussion now before it spirals out of hand. It was probably a mistake to ask for agreement without clearly defining what the comments are supposed to be regarding. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been moved. Thank you very much for your participation in the requested move and in this "aftermath" discussion. We now have fair and focused documentation as to why this page was moved following a "no consensus" decision. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 10:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but yes, the status quo ante was restoring this as redirect to Jump (disambiguation) followed by a procedural redirect reversal per WP:MALDAB. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Godsy! "Better late than never." Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 12:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]