This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I don't know whether it's backed by any formal policy or not, but I get the impression that on WP it's more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page than to a specific article. In particular this seems to be true of most of the Cx names. That also seems to hold at least in some cases where one article linked from the disambiguation page dominates the outgoing traffic. For example see the
traffic for
C89. OTOH
C99has been given to a specific article. So on balance I'm opposed, but not strongly. If someone would clarify what the policies or best practices are for this kind of situation, that would be very helpful.
RW Dutton (
talk)
18:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per the plane being the primary topic by usage (and possibly long-term significance, given its long, continuous service history). The opposition so far relies entirely on "other stuff exists" and is thus uncompelling. The programming language can be hatnoted, and just because it's "more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page" doesn't mean it's correct to do so. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿)
14:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose I don't know whether it's backed by any formal policy or not, but I get the impression that on WP it's more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page than to a specific article. In particular this seems to be true of most of the Cx names. That also seems to hold at least in some cases where one article linked from the disambiguation page dominates the outgoing traffic. For example see the
traffic for
C89. OTOH
C99has been given to a specific article. So on balance I'm opposed, but not strongly. If someone would clarify what the policies or best practices are for this kind of situation, that would be very helpful.
RW Dutton (
talk)
18:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Support per the plane being the primary topic by usage (and possibly long-term significance, given its long, continuous service history). The opposition so far relies entirely on "other stuff exists" and is thus uncompelling. The programming language can be hatnoted, and just because it's "more common to leave short "code-like" names with numbers and letters pointing to a disambiguation page" doesn't mean it's correct to do so. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (
投稿)
14:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.