Talk:APEM

Primary topic

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(moved discussion here) User talk:Uanfala There's no obvious primary topic. A handful of hits aren't convincing. Both articles are unsourced and have had editors redirect to them. A proper case should be made per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, until then this should stay at the basename. Widefox; talk 12:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • I have no strong opinions on that. I just saw that the journal had almost five times more pageviews than the organisation [1] and hence was very conspicuously a primary topic (at least according to the first criterion of WP:PTOPIC, I'm not able to evaluate the second one). So any move out of primary topic position would have needed some arguments. How unsourced the articles are, or how often editors have redirected the page (without a single time bothering to give an edit summary) strikes me as somewhat irrelevant. Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Uanfala Those are the stats for the articles, not the usage of the ambiguous term "APEM". There was a primary topic before, so traffic using "APEM" has gone to the primary topic in that period which is a bias too. Also, the problem with these small stats 1 vs 4 hits a day average, is that some days there's much more hits for the former (15/9/16 5 vs 3). The normal way primary topics work, especially for initialisms, is by default there's often no primary topic. As per the example Apple vs Apple Inc. we don't even just use hits. CIA, NSA, sure but this isn't clear-cut with this dab, and really with such low numbers really is better to, as usual, have the dab at the basename. Feel free to make your case and gain consensus e.g. WP:RM. Widefox; talk 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.