Talk:Listen
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 15 September 2015
[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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both sides have made good arguments in terms of primary topic/redirect and the votes are roughly split, now winner here. Jenks24 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Listen → Listen (disambiguation) – Redirect Listen to Listening per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTDICT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With several competing articles on aspects of listening and a large number of other topics listed on the diambiguation page, there seems to be no primary topic. There is no evidence presented in the nomination that readers searching an encyclopedia for "listen" are looking for that one feeble article on "listening". — AjaxSmack 02:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: a reader is unlikely to search an encyclopedia (as opposed to a dictionary) for a verb as such. The dab page should probably have an entry for listening in the top section, but that's enough. PamD 10:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support as I don't quite see how any of the other items in this disambiguation page could counteract the generic English verb's long-term significance, as they all seem to be derived from its meaning - and several of them need to be removed from the disambiguation page because they're violating WP:D. In any event, it would help if we had someone extract the basic stats from stats.grok.se, do a Google Books search on the topic, etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- The verb may indeed win on "long-term significance", but I think it fails competely on "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." We're not talking here about how frequently that sense of the word is used in everyday speech,but how frequently it's the sense wanted by someone searching for it in the encycloepdia. I've cleaned up the dab page a little, removing one entry which had no mention on target page, formatting another better, and adding a link to listening. It seems strange that this is a candidate as "primary topic" although there hasn't been a link to it at all hitherto! PamD 20:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- @PamD: Yeah, I also noticed that there was no link to Listening at Listen before I made this nomination ... definitely odd and very unexpected. I thought I fixed that issue, but it seems that I did not, so thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks to me that people who wrote this page didn't think there was an actually article on listening, but instead thought it was simply a dictionary definition that is covered through Wiktionary. Since there is such an article, and since the overwhelmingly most common thing that people should expect for an encyclopedia to explain with regard to "listen" is how listening works, then that is the primary topic. And because this is an encyclopedia and not just a compendium of Internet search terms, that takes precedence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- But why would any reader look up a verb in an encyclopedia? Encyclopedia article titles are nouns. If they look for "Listen", they almost certainly want something called "Listen" (song, computing function, etc) rather than the concept of "listening". If they wanted that, and had enough English language skills to be able to benefit from an English language encyclopedia, they would search for the noun "listening". PamD 14:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because they're too lazy to type out the longer noun, and they know that Internet searches tend to get them what they want? I thought you were the one advocating for the searchers here, not me :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- But why would any reader look up a verb in an encyclopedia? Encyclopedia article titles are nouns. If they look for "Listen", they almost certainly want something called "Listen" (song, computing function, etc) rather than the concept of "listening". If they wanted that, and had enough English language skills to be able to benefit from an English language encyclopedia, they would search for the noun "listening". PamD 14:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- The verb may indeed win on "long-term significance", but I think it fails competely on "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." We're not talking here about how frequently that sense of the word is used in everyday speech,but how frequently it's the sense wanted by someone searching for it in the encycloepdia. I've cleaned up the dab page a little, removing one entry which had no mention on target page, formatting another better, and adding a link to listening. It seems strange that this is a candidate as "primary topic" although there hasn't been a link to it at all hitherto! PamD 20:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per PamD and AjaxSmack. Unlikely search term. Dohn joe (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Listen and listening are basically the same word. Titles should not be decided by editors guessing search term index frequencies, serach needs are better facilitated by the search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 1 October 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.