Talk:CRM

Removals and reasons

Please add these back when articles are present or anticipated:

Red-links with no other inbound links

• Cis-regulatory Modules
• Centralized Resource Management
• Certified Records Manager
• certified reference material
• Centre de Recerca Matemàtica, a mathematical research centre in Barcelona
• Coastal Research & Management
• Compensating Resource Manager
• Constituent Relationship Management
• Content Resource Manager
• Content Rights Manager

Deleted articles

• CRM32Pro, a multimedia SDK to develop cross-platform games.

Non-article entries

• Cluster Resources Manager
• Conflict Resolution Manager(Oracle APPs)
• Customer Resource Management
• CieRre de Mes

Entries with links to articles with no mention of DAB subject

• Clean Room Model, reverse engineering and recreating of a design without infringing copyrights and trade secrets, see Clean room design
• Communication Resource Manager, part of the X/Open specification for distributed transaction processing, see X/Open XA
• Charles Rennie Mackintosh, an architect, designer, and watercolorist (no mention of his using the initials professionally in this article)

I understand the rationale, but I would assert that any notable artist who has used his initials as a signature ought to be included (I can provide visual evidence with minimal effort. Dunno about scholarly reference.) I will not reintroduce, as I added it initially. However, my rationale is primarily based on the fact that I tried to find him on Wikipedia by searching for the initials. If I think "hey, what's the easiest way to pull up Charles Rennie Mackintosh on Wikipedia? probably type [browser shortcut] CRM," then I would imagine that others might as well. VermillionBird (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), in the United States
• Selltis. This isn't a list of Customer Relationship Management companies

Redirect to Primary Topic?

The recent actions by an anon (reverted by User:Klausness) makes me wonder if this article shouldn't redirect to as per Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Primary_topic ? A quick glance through Special:WhatLinksHere/CRM seems to to indicate that this page does indeed have a primary topic. What do you think? Kingsley2.com (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. It might be worth checking with editors of the other topics linked to from here. The first few google hits for CRM are for Customer Relationship management, but there are hits for other meanings, and google results do tend to be skewed a bit towards computer-related topics. I'm not totally opposed to the suggestion (as long as it's done properly -- move this page to CRM (Disambiguation), then change the redirect from CRM to go to Customer Relationship Management, and then put the link to the disambiguation page at the top of Customer Relationship Management), but I'd like to get some more diverse input first. Klausness (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks User:Klausness. I will reach out to some other editors and ask them to respond to this thread. And I agree that we should do it properly. Kingsley Joseph (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spreading the news. Redirecting to a primary topic for an acronym is helpful only if it is by far more common than the others. That is mostly the case for household names such as IBM of UFO which may even sit at the acronym itself. CRM might bee be the most probable but there are many others and by having a redirect there it is wrong for all of them, so they need to weighed together, not only with respect to links but also what people expect to find when they type which is always difficult to guess. Arriving at a dab page is never completely wrong and helps that people are explicit when they through acronyms around. So I'd rather fix the links to the dab page above as there are tools for it.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tikiwont, can you point me to these tools? From my exploration of the other topics, only Cultural resources management appears to have any users looking for it via the acronym. I'll keep looking though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsleyj (talk • contribs) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For a general idea on tools see WP:TOOLS. I am using the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser and ran this by CRM and fixed many links and actually their usage. While indeed most links were for Customer Relationship management, most were also bad usage, e.g. acronyms that are not explained at all and redundant or duplicate links. Some uses were also unclear or without sufficient context. In other words Customer Relationship management seems to be a topic that seems to benefit from being linked in full. As for typing CRM it is hard to know what people have in mind. Considering the growth of wikipedia and its diversity it can be anything even something that doesn't have an article yet.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think CRM should remain as the disambig page. The point about the google bias to computer topics is valid, and using what links here as a guide to topics in WP is misleading, because ideally there would be very little linking to the disambig page, if the links have been fixed to go directly to the relevant article. If there are a lot of links to the CRM disambig page that should link to customer relationship management, the answer is to fix those links. Viv Hamilton (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the guidance & help. I've gone in and fixed the links to the DAB page. Like Tikiwont mentions, most of the links were to Customer relationship management. I found one link that should have pointed to Cultural resources management and fixed it as well. I still believe that most usage of CRM directly maps to Customer relationship management:

• Amazon book search
• Google Book Search
• CRM related searches

The point I'm trying to make is that, even if we dismiss links to CRM and Google results (both of which I picked up from Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Primary_topic as possible indicators), the volume of books published that reference CRM primarily in the software context is overwhelmingly high. The only other expansion that has any citable usage at all is Cultural resources management, although its usage is tiny compared to Customer relationship management. If we do redirect this to Customer relationship management, we can have redirect links to Cultural resources management and to this DAB page. --Kingsley Joseph (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Airline code for Commander Mexicana

RichardWeiss (talk · contribs), you have removed an entry for this airline code (at least twice) because you claim that the information is not accurate and verifiable, which raises a few problems. For one thing, disambiguation pages are only meant to assist users in navigating to the topic that we believe they were looking for based on an ambiguous term. Disambiguation pages shouldn't contain any new information that isn't already present on the linked target article, so questioning the validity of a piece of information on this page doesn't really make sense. That kind of discussion would need to take place on the airline code article, not here. By removing the entry on this page but leaving it alone on the airline codes list all that's been accomplished is a reduction in consistency and completeness. Second, since we have already started a bit on this verifiability debate, I really have no idea where you're coming from there. Every online tool that I've found for looking up ICAO airline codes shows that CRM does in fact designate Commander Mexicana, so I'm not sure how you "cant find any evidence this si true". Now if you want to go on the airline codes article and challenge the reliability of the sources, feel free to do that, but this looks completely accurate and verifiable to me. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Per the FAA, this is the code for Commander Mexicana. Per many references, Commander Mexicana exists. Per Sayre's Law, I restored the entry.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)