Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27#AEW
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 27|May 27]]=
==AEW==
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW Keep
No closing comment on changing links, except to say that it's probably best not to do so for the very link currently under discussion. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = AEW }} → :Airborne early warning and control (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AEW&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-04-27&end=2019-05-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=AEW stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:AEW|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#AEW closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:AEW|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#AEW closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:AEW|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#AEW closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Propose redirect to All Elite Wrestling as primary topic based on vastly superior page views. - starship.paint (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- All Elite Wrestling averaged 13,802 views per day [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-12-31&end=2019-05-26&pages=All_Elite_Wrestling] from day before article start of 31 December 2018 to 26 May 2019 and was in the top 1000 most viewed pages for April 2019.
- Airborne early warning and control averaged 518 views per day [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2015-07-01&end=2018-11-03&pages=Airborne_early_warning_and_control] from 1 July 2015 (no older records) to 3 November 2018 (before All Elite Wrestling was applied as a trademark).
- Even at All Elite Wrestling's lowest daily viewership (4,049 views on first day of creation 1 January 2019) - it's still more than twice of the highest daily viewership of Airborne early warning and control (1,701 views on 14 April 2018). starship.paint (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Oknazevad|STATicVapor|Aldis90|NiD.29|Enochlau}} - creators of the redirect / disambiguation or the people who responded to my previous BOLD edit to redirect. starship.paint (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Support – This is what the majority of readers will be looking for. It at least needs to be the disambiguation page. StaticVapor message me! 01:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is far too soon. AEW is a well-established term in aeronautics. The current destination on AEW&C is a relative neologism incorporating two separate topics, while the wrestling usage has current popularity as much because because it is new as anything else. A propsal to merge AEW (disambiguation) in here might stand more chance, but even that is still too soon. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per Steelpillow. While I expect that the change might need to be made eventually, only three days after the wrestling promotion's first ever event is too soon to determine definitively, as the recent stream of news related to it likely inflating the readership, and longer-term significance can't yet be established. I'm wary of changing a well-established redirect of a technical term with such short term results. oknazevad (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- :{{ping|Steelpillow|oknazevad}} - assuming the exact same continued popularity, after how long would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- ::The right time is when somebody goes, "heck, it's high time this was updated, the wrestling usage is more than a mere local US thing now and has been in use so long it has eclipsed the much older worldwide usage - and I have the stats to prove it." Until then, it should stay as is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)
- Oppose no need to change a well established and widely known usage for something new and little known. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The wrestling usage fails to meet the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which emphasises primacy of both usage and long-term significance. It is far too early to determine the latter. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- :Since you say it's early, do you have a concept of when would it be the right time? starship.paint (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- ::Well, we're comparing a concept first implemented in 1945 with a series of events backed by a company founded less than 6 months ago. I can't see how the usage criterion could justifiably override the long-term significance within less than a decade or so! Rosbif73 (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- :::Okay. Thanks for clarifying Rosbif73. starship.paint (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The question the OP hasn't addressed is the actually important one: how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion? Raw pageviews of articles don't really tell us much, since most readers are likely hitting the articles via google (especially pop culture stuff). A better way to evaluate this is to look at how many people are hitting the dab page. There was [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-05&end=2019-04&pages=AEW_(disambiguation) a large spike] in pageviews for the AEW (disambiguation) page in January 2019, coinciding with when the organization was announced, but that spike has since dropped off significantly. Given the stability of page views over the long term, we can safely assume the increased volume comes from the wrestling promotion, but, the drop off suggests that those concerned with WP:RECENTISM have a valid point. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- :{{ping|Parsecboy}} - this isn't an argument against you, just a question. I recently linked the All Elite Wrestling page directly on Airborne early warning and control. As such, if viewers are not going to the disambiguation page, there would be no longer be any way to determine {{tq|how many people are typing "AEW" into the search bar, looking for the article on the wrestling promotion}}, right? starship.paint (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- ::Sure, but you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airborne_early_warning_and_control&type=revision&diff=899181101&oldid=899076186 did that today]; it would have no relevance to the steep drop off since January. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- :::{{ping|Parsecboy}} - yes, I did. As I said, I wasn't arguing against your point. I am actually referring to future views. starship.paint (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose AEW has put on one show, it could easily be WP:RECENTISM if the promotion were to vanish at this point. I think its best to move the disambiguation page to AEW, for now. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, period. This is supposedly an encyclopedia-in-the-making, not a supermarket checkout line magazine. A long-term technical subject with scholarly research should always trump advertising ephemera. Qwirkle (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
::Well, that's hardly a good argument. Whilst I agree oppose, saying that no matter what, a technical subject should defeat a company is ridiculous. If All Elite Wrestling had the notability of the WWE, then it would make complete sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
:::Were one to have an article about a company, that is. At the moment the article is advertising ephemera, and likely to remain so for at least a few years. Qwirkle (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - WP:TOOSOON to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shouldn't take too long though. Definately needs a hatnote at :Airborne early warning and control Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looking at wikipolicy on the subject of Primary Topic, we have "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". At this time I don't see that a wrestling team ticks the boxes for having the greater enduring notability across the English-speaking world nor the educational value. This wrestling group is too recent to show up significantly in google ngrams and the current flurry of pageviews may be down to the initial rush of interest. The situation may change of course, and it might become primary topics, or it might be that there is no primary topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Long term historical use definitely seems to me like the aviation designation has more importance. One could say that in the future the wrestling usage may be more common, but that leans towards WP:CRYSTALBALL for me. To me its seems like the All Elite Wrestling usage reflects a more current event and not long term usage. It is said that far more people searching AEW will look for wrestling instead of aviation, but seems hard to prove. Before today I have never heard of "All Elite wrestling", and it seems local to the US while "Airborne early warning" is a military concept that is known worldwide. This all is suggesting to me that a change is not needed. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Please note that User:Galatz is delinking articles from AEW related to aviation while this discussion is still open and after I reverted back pointing out it this discussion was still open is now edit warring to de-link the term. MilborneOne (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I have already explained to you, piping the link over linking to the redirect is perfectly valid, regardless of the outcome of here. It does not meet the criteria in WP:DONOTFIXIT so it is a valid edit. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 16:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::: While piping links is valid, my understanding is that linking to a redirect is preferred, if available. Only reason I've heard of is that it uses less space on Wiki's servers. I'm not a computer guy, so I don't know if this is valid, just what the big guys told me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
::::We simply should follow what the sources say. starship.paint (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
::::: WP:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken says the MoS. And altering links during a discussion could look an attempt to fix the stats. It would certainly change the "what links here" which could be relevant to editors understanding of the extent of the usage of the term being redirected. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Firstly, nobody has quoted the stats with regarding to what links there. Secondly, {{tq|the usage of the term being redirected}} must be the correct usage. If your source says AEW&C, or Airborne early warning or AWACS, but editors link AEW, that would be incorrect. starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
:::::: Also note that propose of the change User:Starship.paint has also started changing or removing links related to AEW related aircraft/military articles while this discussion is still open. MilborneOne (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::: What's the matter? This is all a separate matter from this discussion. The thing is, you have a problem with your articles. If the sources say AEW&C, the article should link it as AEW&C, not AEW. If the sources say airborne early warning (AEW), the article should say airborne early warning (AEW), not just AEW. If the source said airborne early warning and control but the article wrote AEW, I would change it to airborne early warning and control. If your articles have unsourced parts, they will be questioned or removed. It's as simple as that. starship.paint (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for many of the reasons already stated. Looks to me like we have a consensus.
:: Comment {{ping|Steelpillow}} AEW&C is actually an older term dating from the 1950s. AWAC is more current. Not that this impacts your argument, though.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
:::I stand corrected. Thanks. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
