Talk:Echoes
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Requested move
- 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: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Echoes → Echoes (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT. I see nothing on this page to dissuade me from thinking that the clear primary topic of the term is the singular, Echo, which all of the pop culture topics intend to invoke. bd2412 T 22:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Copied and pasted per the editor's request: Support - and feel free to copy paste this support onto all similar moves. I think this is now a case for use of technical move rather than full RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support as per nom Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this one. The dab page has about two dozen separate entries for things titled "Echoes". Someone typing in "echoes" is probably looking for one of them. It's thus more helpful to our readers to keep this as a separate dab page, per WP:PLURALPT. Dohn joe (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Dohn joe, i.e. per WP:PLURALPT (a new Wikilawyer shortcut to me) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A number of the entries are quite notable and are at least as likely to be the search target of "Echoes" as is echo. — AjaxSmack 00:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support Seriously? It's pretty obvious that the primary meaning of "echoes" is "reflections of sound". Those opposed to this move may be underestimating how often people search for topics by plurals; people often talk about the general topics as "echoes" and "bridges", not "bridge" and "echo". —innotata 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Some people might search with the plural though I would fathom most would click on the "echo" before finishing typing the "-es" in this case. No matter, the issue is that most people typing "Echoes" are probably not looking for the echo article. Look at the pageview stats. In August, echo got 10,545 views. But, a mere two of the entries on the Echoes page, Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd with 6885 views and Echoes (Pink Floyd song) 7737 views together outpolled echo. With over a score of other articles listed on the Echoes dab page, echo is not the primary topic. — AjaxSmack 00:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Determination of a primary topic does not rise and fall on page views alone; we must also consider the historical importance of the topics. Echoes have existed nearly since the beginning of time. They are used by many kinds of animal for various purposes. Their use has been recorded in human art and technology. In short, they are more important than any work attempting to invoke them in its name. bd2412 T 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. Echoes are a pretty resonant concept in culture, think of antiquity. Anyway, as far as page views, that still is a bit higher for echo. As for the supposition that people click the dropdown options, you're assuming everyone views Wikipedia's interface the same way, and uses it the same way, as you do, which is a bad assumption. —innotata 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Determination of a primary topic does not rise and fall on page views alone; we must also consider the historical importance of the topics. Echoes have existed nearly since the beginning of time. They are used by many kinds of animal for various purposes. Their use has been recorded in human art and technology. In short, they are more important than any work attempting to invoke them in its name. bd2412 T 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Some people might search with the plural though I would fathom most would click on the "echo" before finishing typing the "-es" in this case. No matter, the issue is that most people typing "Echoes" are probably not looking for the echo article. Look at the pageview stats. In August, echo got 10,545 views. But, a mere two of the entries on the Echoes page, Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd with 6885 views and Echoes (Pink Floyd song) 7737 views together outpolled echo. With over a score of other articles listed on the Echoes dab page, echo is not the primary topic. — AjaxSmack 00:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. If it were a simple "-s", it might be an easier case, but persons specifically typing in "-es" are more likely to be looking for one of the things named precisely "echoes" rather than the acoustic phenomena. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per nom. And I don't think it should make a difference that this just happens to end with es; it's still just the plural of echo. kennethaw88 • talk 03:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The case that the singular is the primary topic of the plural does not stack up in this particular instance. Andrewa (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (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.