Talk:Idle

Requested move 13 February 2022

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Idle (disambiguation) → Idle – While in a dictionary Idleness may clearly be primary it doesn't seem to be for the encyclopedia. Idleness gets 679 views but Idle (engine) gets 1,656 and that also has long-term significance, Idle (CPU) gets 926 views and probably also has a fair amount of long-term significance, IDLE has 4,541 and Eric Idle has 29,348[Talk:Boring#Requested move 20 April 2019 Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support. All indications are that there is no primary topic with respect to either long-term significance or usage. – Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
• Oppose Idleness is the clear WP:BROADCONCEPT. Idle (engine) is poorly named and should likely be moved to Engine idling per WP:NATURAL, not even sure if Idle (CPU) should exist or be merged somewhere because it's pretty much a stub. IDLE falls under WP:DIFFCAPS and can stay where it currently is. Eric Idle is a WP:PTM and doesn't require disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

  Idleness looks at first like a broad-concept article, but that's only because of a lengthy digression in the lede about the meanings of the word "idle", which is out of place in an article about an aspect of the human condition. Idle (engine) may or may not need renaming, but that doesn't change the fact that "idle" can refer to the idling of an engine (in fact, that's the only meaning of the noun "idle" in contemporary English [2], and nouns are what is expected to be used in article titles on Wikipedia rather than adjectives or verbs). The term is clearly ambiguous (there are a dozen valid entries on the dab page), and even though at present we can only speculate about what readers actually want when they search for "idle", it's clear from the traffic data [3] that for many of them, Idleness isn't it. – Uanfala (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support. Idleness is not at all an appropriate broad concept article for someone looking for one of the technical definitions. Long-term significance really means long-term encyclopedic significance, and a glorified dicdef doesn't really qualify for special consideration (e.g. like Apple over Apple Inc.) when the numbers are heavily against it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

  @King of Hearts: Usually, the technical definitions fall under "idling", not "idle". I have no qualms about redirecting "idling" to the disambiguation page, but someone searching for "idle" is likely looking for a broad summation of the term. Also, if you truly believe that idleness is a WP:DICDEF, then the deletion of that article would make this discussion moot so this discussion should be put on hold until its notability is decided. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support per nom. "Idle" can refer to several topics, none of which is primary. Station1 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

  @Station1: And none of those topics should really be named "idle", as I demonstrated above. As far as disambiguation goes, there is nothing to disambiguate, so that is a totally moot point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

  I tend to agree that Idle (engine) would be better at "Idling", but either way it gets more views than Idleness. I'm not sure about Idle (CPU), but the fact is, it is at that title right now and people are reading it. If Idleness stays at that title, as it should, then "Idle" might refer to at least any of those three articles, of which Idleness is the least viewed despite the PRIMARYREDIRECT going there. Station1 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support, no clear WP:PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support, no clear PT. MB 16:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support per nom. No clear primary topic for this title. The safest bet is to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support As the nomination notes, if we were a dictionary there would be a good reason to point to the current page, but it doesn't look like we can conclude here that this is the intended page a clear majority of users looking for "idle" would intend to end up at. We probably should move idling as well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]
• Support per nom -- "idle" has multiple definitions in the dictionary and on Wikipedia, and Eric Idle gets more page views than all of them. A clear "no primary topic" situation. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC) [reply ]