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.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Ruff (disambiguation) → Ruff
• Ruff → Ruff (bird)

– The word "ruff" can mean anything. As shown by the pageviews, Ruff (clothing) actually gets more views (48k) than the bird (25k). However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that readers are much more likely to want the article of clothing than the bird, so I don't think the clothing should be primary topic either. Google web results and Google Books show no clear dominant meaning, while Google News and Scholar are mostly people with the surname Ruff. Disambiguation seems to be the best option here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• status quo I can't say that I'm in favour of the move; the primary meaning in the bird, with the article of clothing deriving from the male ruff's breeding finery. I'm not in favour of changes that result in neither of the major uses being direct links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  "I'm not in favour of changes that result in neither of the major uses being direct links" - this was the kind of argument that resulted in the state of New York remaining at the title New York for over a decade, despite not being the clear primary topic. Ultimately, the correct determination of primary topic (or lack thereof) takes precedence over making life slightly more convenient for half our readers. Also, I think you've got it backwards; Ruff#Taxonomy and nomenclature actually implies that the name of the bird was derived from the clothing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  @Jimfbleak: does KOH's point about the naming being the other way round make you change you're view? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Crouch, Swale, I took the bird article to FA, so I'm reluctant to see my baby moved, but I won't lose sleep whatever happens Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  I don't think the quality of the article has much to do with primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support Strong support the clothing topic seems distinct enough that being named after it doesn't seem that important (and the article doesn't appear to say that its named after the bird anyway) in addition there is Ruff (cards) which again seems to be quite distinct (though it gets far less views) and has no indication of being named after the bird. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, Ruff (cards) is the primary meaning for me, as an avid bridge player. However, I didn't want to bring personal biases into this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Changing to strong support per the note about the origin being the other way round. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Support. No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Support WP:NOPRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
• Question: Does the "page views" link only show how many times articles were chosen from the Ruff disambiguation page? If so, then you need to add in how many times people directly accessed the Ruff (i.e. the bird) page to your Ruff (bird) total. If they get what they expect, they wouldn't go to the disambiguation page, would they? Granted, that may not add much... MeegsC (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Only a small number of people get to an article by searching, most come from Google so a small number of visits to the DAB page doesn't necessarily show many readers aren't landing on the wrong place who are searching. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Pageviews for Ruff (bird) are currently tiny, because the article is sitting at Ruff right now. Measuring outgoing traffic from a disambiguation page (see WP:DABTEST) is indeed the most accurate way to compare pageviews, but it cannot be conducted in a reasonable manner when an article is currently occupying the primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Support per usage and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. Note that the closing admin is expected to fix the 500+ incoming links when this is moved, even though the admin bit isn't required for that task. Otherwise I would have closed this as "move" myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2020 (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.