Talk:SCAR
(Redirected from Talk:SCAR (disambiguation))
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Requested move 3 September 2017[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: moved in accord with the consensus garnered below. (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth put'r there 20:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
SCAR (disambiguation) → SCAR – I am not able to find evidence that the use of the acronym "SCAR" has a primary/exclusive connection with Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, the current target of SCAR. For that reason, I believe that the disambiguation page should be moved to the base title. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support the move over a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose.While I could support the move on principle, there's little or none tangible benefit for the reader; Special:Whatlinkshere/SCAR shows 50 direct links from the mainspace to be fixed – an effort that could be better spent elsewhere. No such user (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)- That is what the template {{Incoming links}} is for. After this requested move is made, DPL bot will recognize that the disambiguation page will have 30+ incoming links in the article namespace, and tag the page with the template. Pages tagged with this template usually do not retain their incoming links for long as an active group of editors monitor the pages tagged with this template, and fix the incoming links accordingly. (In fact, I usually do all of that for moves I propose after the move is completed.) With that being said, I am not understanding, and never have understood, why incoming links to an ambiguous page title is valid reason to oppose a move; if the move benefits our readers as opposed to the current setup, it should be done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Steel1943: I know that we have mechanisms to retarget the links, but they are rather heavy on volunteer time; I do not routinely oppose such requests, but I estimate a cost/benefit analysis for such a move. I basically questioned the "move benefits our readers" premise: a rare person typing "SCAR" (uppercase) will maybe land up on the Antarctic Research page, and the hatnote will point them to the disambiguation page. This minor inconvenience in an unlikely situation is not worth the effort, IMO.
That being said, FN SCAR rifle is by and large the most searched item among the alternatives, with over 2,000 daily views compared to the Committee's meager 9 [1], so a case could be made to make that a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT instead (requiring the volunteer work again). Just, that kind of analysis should have been done at nomination. I'm striking my oppose on the basis of that finding. No such user (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Steel1943: I know that we have mechanisms to retarget the links, but they are rather heavy on volunteer time; I do not routinely oppose such requests, but I estimate a cost/benefit analysis for such a move. I basically questioned the "move benefits our readers" premise: a rare person typing "SCAR" (uppercase) will maybe land up on the Antarctic Research page, and the hatnote will point them to the disambiguation page. This minor inconvenience in an unlikely situation is not worth the effort, IMO.
- That is what the template {{Incoming links}} is for. After this requested move is made, DPL bot will recognize that the disambiguation page will have 30+ incoming links in the article namespace, and tag the page with the template. Pages tagged with this template usually do not retain their incoming links for long as an active group of editors monitor the pages tagged with this template, and fix the incoming links accordingly. (In fact, I usually do all of that for moves I propose after the move is completed.) With that being said, I am not understanding, and never have understood, why incoming links to an ambiguous page title is valid reason to oppose a move; if the move benefits our readers as opposed to the current setup, it should be done. Steel1943 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. No one should ever link to SCAR, it is inherently ambiguous, linking to it produces ambiguous hover-text. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2017 (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.