Talk:SMAP

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 page moved. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Music Assemble People → SMAP — This article was moved to Sports Music Assemble People without discussion by an editor to enable the creation of a disambiguation page on which the only other entry is a red link. The band name is clearly the dominant use at present, and they are never referred to anywhere as "Sports Music Assemble People", which is probably a Backronym anyway. Any disambiguation in the future could easily be handled by creating SMAP (disambiguation) if necessary. DAJF (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as a matter of procedure, basically. It was undiscussed prior to being moved, and the existence of a prior movereq discussions should have tipped off whoever moved it that this would probably be controversial.
  — V = I * R (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--Cckerberos (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; should be non controversial. I've started a deletion request for the current disambiguation page and will gladly start up the new one at SMAP (disambiguation).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:37, 28 August 2009 (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.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• SMAP → SMAP (band)
• SMAP (disambiguation) → SMAP

– Computer protocols are at least as important as boy bands. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Nouniquenames 14:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The band has in the past proven to be the primary topic by which the name "SMAP" is applied to, and that still seems to be the case. The Simple Mail Access Protocol article is short, unsourced, and does not appear to be in any way widely known in order for the band to no longer be afforded the acknowledgement by the English Wikipedia to be the primary topic by which "SMAP" is associated with.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; no evidence of primary topic. Powers ^T 17:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  They're one of the best selling groups in Japan and the other topics (that are on Wikipedia) in question are certainly not the primary topic either. Simple Mail Access Protocol is a stub and has been for years (no one's even bothered to edit it in 2 years and it seems to be about a defunct product). Soil Moisture Active Passive relies on primary sources and hasn't even been used yet. And Supervisor mode access prevention is only a redirect. From JHunterJ's previous revert of the original move, it certainly seems that he decided that the band was the primary topic. A simple search on Google also seems to bring up the band more often than any other option and prefers the band as a result rather than any other subject which may share the acronym, including a BBC News article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The first non-Wikipedia result on Google for me is Soil Moisture Active Passive. Remember, our main criterion for primary topic is that the topic is not just being more likely to be sought, but more likely than all others combined, and far more likely than any other single topic. I need something more than just a Google search to convince me of that. Powers ^T 19:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's compare the articles then. This one is twice as long as the other two we have on Wikipedia combined and is also the best sourced. And going back tot he search, it brings up more suggestions for the band as related searches than for the single satellite which won't be launched for two years and the e-mail protocol that apparently has never been implimented across platforms. I would say that's enough.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per primary topic usage criterion. Below is a list of page views for SMAPs. The disambiguation page's page view is only about 2.5 percent of the plain title and the page view ratio for the band and rest is about 10 to 1. I don't think other topics has long-term significance that outwaigh the usage statistics. --Kusunose 10:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMAP, viewed 10238 times in the last 30 days.
  • SMAP (disambiguation), viewed 256 times in the last 30 days.
  • Simple Mail Access Protocol, viewed 722 times in the last 30 days.
  • Soil Moisture Active Passive, viewed 285 times in the last 30 days
  • Supervisor mode access prevention, 64 times in the last 30 days.
• Support per Powers' findings for the real world (ie. not limited to Wikipedia) -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What findings? He just says that the first link in Google that wasn't Wikipedia was the NASA satellite which hasn't been put into service yet, while I pointed out the bulk of the rest of the links regard the band. And we can see that the article about the band is the most visited on Wikipedia. Why should facts about our internal visitor count not be included?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The visit count is inherently flawed by the article's position as the first encountered, as opposed to clicking through the dab at the shared title. From a technical standpoint, it is useless for this purpose. --Nouniquenames 01:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the dab page's visits though. That basically means that only 256 of the 10238 people who went to SMAP then went on to SMAP (disambiguation).—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The page view statistics do seem to indicate that the band is overwhelmingly the primary topic here. --DAJF (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why was this relisted? That's never done for RMs as far as I've seen.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • RMs are sometime relisted. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Relisting. There are currently 29 relisted RMs on WP:RM. --Kusunose 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't really seem necessary in this case as there's only 2 supporters to 3 dissenters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The page view numbers that Kusunose provides look pretty conclusive. Only 1.8 percent (537 / 30374) of traffic goes to the DAB, so the current setup seems to be working for most readers. Kauffner (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or guideline allows historical pageviews to determine ongoing primary topic? The pageview numbers are meaningless to the discussion. --Nouniquenames 02:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add "IMO" to that post of yours.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find something that says I'm wrong, and I'll strike it completely. As it stands, nothing in the policies and guidelines I've found allows use of pageviews to determine primary topic. At best, that would be OR or SYNTH. --Nouniquenames 01:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but OR and SYNTH only apply to article content rather than meta content.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - how does this move benefit Wikipedia or anyone else? SMAP are probably the most famous group of entertainers in Japan, and "Simple Mail Access Protocol" is a very short article on what does not appear to be a particularly significant protocol. And even if the move takes place, a disambiguation page is put into the prized position, for what purpose? JoshuSasori (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It saves a click and a pageload for the significant number of persons not interested in boy bands. Powers ^T 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of which less than 5 percent of the visitors to the page consist of.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Visitors to which page? Using what data? Powers ^T 22:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This one. Using the data posted above. The data you keep refusing to accept.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          There's a lot of data posted above. I explained my objection to the data you posted, and I've never objected to the data posted by Kusunose. So what, if you don't mind me asking, are you going on about when you say I "keep refusing to accept" data? What data?

          Second of all, you seem to be saying that fewer than 5% of visitors to SMAP, the article on the band, are disinterested in the band. To which I say: So what? The relevant figure is how many visitors who arrive at SMAP by searching for that title are disinterested in the band. There's a difference, because the latter figure excludes the no-doubt enormous percentage of readers who arrive here via deliberate links and would still arrive at this article in exactly the same fashion whether it was titled "SMAP (band)", "SMAP", or "Sports Music Assemble People". They don't coun't, because the title does not affect their ability to get here; the only readers germane to the discussion are the people who search for SMAP. And you can't tell me that 95% of them want to read this article, because you don't have any data to show that.

          Powers ^T 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          Fine. I don't. And I've nothing left to say except this discussion has been going on for much too long and it should have been closed at least 2 weeks ago.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:48, 1 January 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus from the previous RMs have shown that there's no consensus to move. No substantive policy based reason has been presented here. Ryulong's reasoning is in line with article naming policy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMAP → SMAP (band) – Notice SMAP would be redirected to SMAP (band) not SMAP (disambiguation) Fgnievinski (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: The band is the primary topic, as determined in the previous requested move from this past December/January. This page should be moved back to SMAP post-haste.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't dispute the primary issue. Redirecting SMAP to SMAP (band) would take care of that.Fgnievinski (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's the primary topic, it does not need to be disambiguated.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:45, 25 June 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.