Talk:Scramble

NRMP

The use of this in medical residencies is widespread, yet it's been removed from here a couple of times. I'm surprised this is controversial, but so it goes. Here's why I think it's relevant:

It's the official title of how residencies were obtained prior to the advent of SOAP. See [1].
It's a notable term. A Google search for "scramble nrmp" yields more than 120,000 results. See [2].
It's not a dictionary definition. Scrambling is a complex process that requires explanation. This is gone over in the NRMP article.

I think that addresses all of the listed concerns. Are there others? If there's no disagreement here and no other issues, I'll add it back in. Kyle Barbour 11:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the issue. It's whether or not it is a viable search result on Wikipedia for those looking up "Scramble". And even if it is added to the list, it should not be bolded. If we have no article on it, and no article will be made on it, there is no reason we should include it here.—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is for me — I added it because I was trying to find information on it and was surprised it wasn't here. It's describe further in a section I added to the NRMP article. I've already indicated that it's a major, official name that's used by thousands of people. It's not currently and never has been policy that something has to have it's own article to be listed in a DAB, it's only a requirement that someone would use that as a search term, which I believe I've demonstrated. So what's your opposition?

I'm fine with it not being bolded, listing it in whatever fashion matches the MOS works for me. Kyle Barbour 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way: notability is the concern, because notability is the metric we use to determine whether it's a viable search result. Kyle Barbour 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's been a couple of days, and I haven't heard any contradictions to this reasoning, so I'm putting it back in.Kyle Barbour 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've removed it, again. Just because no one pays attention to this one dab page that no one but you cares about does not mean that you get to bypass our rules and regulations on what is and is not listed. The "scrambling process" has never been covered on Wikipedia until you decided that it suddenly is so important that it deserves its own section on the article that you linked to, and should be mentioned here. Your sourcing was poor on the other page and I've removed the content there. This would have slid if it had not been for Ramaksoud2000 getting a bug up his ass and harping on how I treated you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you left in all of the content I added to the NRMP article, except for a minor change in punctuation. What did you remove, exactly? Kyle Barbour 22:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we've been having the same conversation many times and not getting anywhere. As such, I'm asking for a third opinion. Kyle Barbour 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Keeping the link in here seems quite reasonable to me. It seems to be a notable use of the term, and the references in the NRMP article indicate that the term has some degree of acceptance, such that somebody (other than Kyle Barbour, who we know did) might plausibly enter it as a search term in wikipedia. So, it's a notable term used for a specific process (albeit, not, so far as I can see, an official one), it has a directly relevant article, and I don't see that it damages the dab page to keep it in.—Anaxial (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

OK. Since you've declined to continue this conversation ([3]) and given the third opinion, I'm adding the content back in. Kyle Barbour 21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]