 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jumbo jet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Jumbo jet (disambiguation) →
Jumbo jet – After a NAC of the discussion at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Jumbo jet,
Jumbo Jet now redirects to
Wide-body aircraft. The RfD discussion did not reach unanimous agreement, and both sides raised valid points, although supporters of redirecting to
Boeing 747 turned up later in the discussion (which may weaken the earlier votes). Curiously, nobody raised the option to disambiguate the term, although a disambiguation page exists. While "jumbo jet" may more commonly refer to
wide-body aircraft, there may not be enough of a clear
WP:PTOPIC. I am proposing this compromise solution.
sst
✈ 13:51, 25 October 2015 (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 policy on article titles.
- Oppose. Been there, done that. See Talk:Jumbo jet § Requested move. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any sustained desire for such compromise; just for endless discussions which cover the same ground. Noting that the past idea of a "disambiguation" page for this topic was a seat-of-the-pants content fork of wide-body aircraft. Putting a {{ Too few opinions}} tag on a disambiguation, hah. The proponents of the 747, in general, haven't had a good grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, which has hampered their case. Seeing how much parallel history there is here, I think it best to just leave it as is. Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose and speedy close per last move request last time, and per the recent RfD. It means "widebody" and should point there. The RfD has been recently closed and is a consensus discussion which established the use of the terms. This is trying to overturn an XfD discussion with a lesser process, the RM process. The RfD was well attended, and we have a result. If you want to rediscuss it, use WP:Deletion review to argue that the outcome of the RfD is incorrect and that disambguation should be considered at RfD. Disambiguation is an option at RfD and it was not chosen. We do not require unanimous results, we just require WP:CONSENSUS which we did have, since the RfD closed with a concrete outcome and was not a no consensus closure. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose and speedy close per 70.51.44.60 above. The RfD is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Jumbo jet. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
The RfD reached a clear enough consensus - it does not need to be unanimous. We now have a rational arrangement in which both Jumbo jet and Jumbo Jet (capilatized J) redirect to the primary topic, Wide-body aircraft, and that article has a dab link to Jumbo jet (disambiguation). This is a classic example of how Wikipedia handles such cases and can be regarded as a stable outcome. It really is time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- As one who did not support the outcome of the original discussion, I'd like to say this. Those on the "losing side" need to accept the decision, and move on. There are far more important things to worry about. Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (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.
|
| This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jumbo jet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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: Not Moved Mike Cline ( talk) 15:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Jumbo jet (disambiguation) →
Jumbo jet – After a NAC of the discussion at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Jumbo jet,
Jumbo Jet now redirects to
Wide-body aircraft. The RfD discussion did not reach unanimous agreement, and both sides raised valid points, although supporters of redirecting to
Boeing 747 turned up later in the discussion (which may weaken the earlier votes). Curiously, nobody raised the option to disambiguate the term, although a disambiguation page exists. While "jumbo jet" may more commonly refer to
wide-body aircraft, there may not be enough of a clear
WP:PTOPIC. I am proposing this compromise solution.
sst
✈ 13:51, 25 October 2015 (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 policy on article titles.
- Oppose. Been there, done that. See Talk:Jumbo jet § Requested move. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any sustained desire for such compromise; just for endless discussions which cover the same ground. Noting that the past idea of a "disambiguation" page for this topic was a seat-of-the-pants content fork of wide-body aircraft. Putting a {{ Too few opinions}} tag on a disambiguation, hah. The proponents of the 747, in general, haven't had a good grasp of Wikipedia guidelines, which has hampered their case. Seeing how much parallel history there is here, I think it best to just leave it as is. Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose and speedy close per last move request last time, and per the recent RfD. It means "widebody" and should point there. The RfD has been recently closed and is a consensus discussion which established the use of the terms. This is trying to overturn an XfD discussion with a lesser process, the RM process. The RfD was well attended, and we have a result. If you want to rediscuss it, use WP:Deletion review to argue that the outcome of the RfD is incorrect and that disambguation should be considered at RfD. Disambiguation is an option at RfD and it was not chosen. We do not require unanimous results, we just require WP:CONSENSUS which we did have, since the RfD closed with a concrete outcome and was not a no consensus closure. -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose and speedy close per 70.51.44.60 above. The RfD is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 16#Jumbo jet. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
The RfD reached a clear enough consensus - it does not need to be unanimous. We now have a rational arrangement in which both Jumbo jet and Jumbo Jet (capilatized J) redirect to the primary topic, Wide-body aircraft, and that article has a dab link to Jumbo jet (disambiguation). This is a classic example of how Wikipedia handles such cases and can be regarded as a stable outcome. It really is time to move on. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- As one who did not support the outcome of the original discussion, I'd like to say this. Those on the "losing side" need to accept the decision, and move on. There are far more important things to worry about. Mjroots ( talk) 18:40, 28 October 2015 (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.