Talk:Breaking

Requested move

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 consensus is against the move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Breaking → Breaking (disambiguation) — Based on the article traffic tool, Breaking should be moved to Breaking (disambiguation) and Breaking (martial arts) should be moved to Breaking. —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This articles has been expanded from a stub only recently; therefore, article traffic may change in the future. Furthermore, given that the two different meanings are completely different, a merging would lead to confusion on behalf of the users, which should not be the goal of this lexicon. Enkyklios (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment none of the articles in the discussion have recently expanded. Look at the history of breaking (martial arts), and breaking (dancing) which are both smaller than they were a year ago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose breaking should remain the dab page. There are many meanings, and many are prominent. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. breaking (martial arts) is a very minor meaning of "breaking" except to a few martial arts fans. Leave Breaking as the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This and other nominations based on the traffic tool simply show it to be worse than useless as a guide to English usage. Andrewa (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Breaking (martial arts) isn't even the most popular page on the dab page, so can't possibly be the primary topic. Breakin' gets more than twice as many hits. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 18:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. Using wikipedia page views to determine primary topic is problematically solipsistic. At the very least there needs to be a wider discussion about the appropriateness of using the tool for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the "article traffic tool" sufficient grounds for a move? Shouldn't this be discussed somewhere like WP:NAME, first? Sam Staton (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The tool is new, but it is certainly informative and provides guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Based on the nominations currently before us, the traffic tool currently appears to provide no useful evidence at all. Perhaps its use can be refined, but its batting average so far is woeful. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (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.

By batting average, one page that showed 37% more views was kept as primary usage, while another was rejected as showing primary usage even though it had 5 times as many views. Go figure. A lot may be the difference between establishing a new consensus or maintaining an old one, and I doubt that the example of 37% (1.37:1) is the lowest for "primary usage". It also appears that few editors are familiar with the tool. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)