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 moved. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – You're serious? TLS? A primary topic claim on a TLA that is this obscure is quite crazy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Serious yes, but less strong a case based on usage per the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it is to be taken seriously but of course given any reasoned argument I'm happy to ignore all rules/withdraw. Is there one? This is no different from consensus on DHCP (disambiguation) (see talk page), or others like ITN (disambiguation) (actually ITN is different - more clearcut). Widefox; talk 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There's IETF (disambiguation). I don't think general awareness of an acronym per se should be a factor at all in primary topic selection, only relative likelihood between terms - I'm sure obscure acronym redirects are uncontroversial. This is about "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic" it's WP:PRIMARYUSAGE not primaryawareness or notfornerds. Widefox; talk 11:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Dicklyon. This is suffereing from a large amount of WP:Systematic bias. It doesn't even come close to dominating the top 100 google results. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
no. 1 in google does dominate. 40% of the first page supports that. It would be crazy to ignore the fact that "TLS" in Google gives us our page, we don't! Facepalm! We should give readers what they want per guideline (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), without dropping the ball due to (legitimate) concerns about systemic bias. Widefox; talk 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not even come close to having 40 results in the first page of results . -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, it's hard to imagine what Widefox is smoking to interpret the google search as supporting his primarytopic claim! Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
the default first page is only 10 results, all listed above, I take it that's not disputed? Google TLS and our article comes up. Our pageviews being more important than Google. No smoking needed, although interpretation is another matter. Widefox; talk 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a well known term to the public at large. The first thing I think of is the Times Literary Supplement (which is also my first Google result). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: it's irrelevant how often the page Transport Layer Security has been read. What matters for this discussion is whether someone searching on "TLS" is overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for that article than for any of the other uses - including my personal "primary topic" for it, the Times Literary Supplement, which is known widely among a much wider circle than the tech-dominated editors of Wikipedia. PamD 13:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree PamD, it's only about "TLS" - is data available like http referer or server logs to inform us? Without, I'm assuming a correlation between acronym and full name. Certainly Times Literary Supplement is well known as TLS, although a UK bias, so doesn't get us away from bias either. I do take everyone's point about systemic bias BTW. Widefox; talk 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
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.
Urhixidur The dab was sorted already per MOS:DABORDER "This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target,..." (using above). I've refrained undoing you again, can you discuss here please per WP:BRD. Widefox; talk 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I rather take it that the discussion above shows there is no clear dominant meaning for TLS, hence a plain alphabetical ordering is the way to go. Urhixidur (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)