 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Primary topic edit
(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)
- 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)
- 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)