Talk:Dead End

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

• Dead End (disambiguation) → Dead End
• Dead End → Dead End (1937 film)

– Granted, the film is a best-picture nominee, but I think the phrase is common enough as a title that it's a bad idea to consider it the primary topic. I can be convinced otherwise, however. Powers ^T 00:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

• Comment. The film certainly isn't primary with respect to usage. Cul-de-sac got 125,000 page views in the last 90 days, the film got 11,000. Kauffner (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
  • I appreciate the data, but we have no way of knowing how many people got to cul-de-sac by searching for "dead end". Powers ^T 14:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
    • There are ways to figure that one out. But I noticed another issue: Dead end already redirects to Cul-de-sac. So there is no conflict. So...neeever mind. Kauffner (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
• Support per nom's and others' data. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
• Support per nom. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
• Support per nom. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
• Support. Traffic for Dead End does not satisfy criteria of more than all other combined -- even without considering that some portion of the base page traffic is intended for other senses. I'd also suggest that dead end should redirect to the disambiguation rather than cul-de-sac. Many of the incoming links for that intend a metaphorical usage which would better serve reader by directing them to a disambiguation page where a link to wiktionary is available. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
  • Any such links should be removed, or linked directly to wiktionary if deemed suitable (which is rare). Powers ^T 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Reply
    • Right, but their existence is an indication of ambiguity for the lower case term. I don't see very strong indications that cul-de-sac is the primary topic for the lower case spelling. older ≠ wiser 00:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Reply
      • I don't believe ambiguity involving non-articles should have an impact on primary topic determination. Only ambiguity within the scope of actual (or even potential) encyclopedia articles should count. Powers ^T 17:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Reply
        • It seems decidedly unhelpful to dismiss common uses for which which editors demonstrably create links. The intended use in such cases is often wiktionary, but placing cul-de-sac as the primary topic makes it nearly impossible to systematically detect and correct such errors. older ≠ wiser 00:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Reply
          • Anytime we have a primary topic, it makes it hard to detect and correct such errors. I don't see that as a good reason to avoid naming a primary topic. Powers ^T 17:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Reply
            • In this case it is not entirely obvious (to me at least) that cul-de-sac is the primary topic. There are some common words where a dictionary definition is as likely to be what readers are looking for. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Reply
• Support per nom. JDDJS (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Reply

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress