Talk:CFL (disambiguation)

Proposed redirect

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

I propose that this (CFL) be redirected to Canadian Football League and the disambig moved to CFL (disambiguation). It seems to be by far the most widely used instance of the acronym both on Wikipedia (check what links there) and elsewhere. heqs 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds perfectly reasonable. If it is done, the tag {{Redirect|CFL}} should definitely be pasted at the top of Canadian Football League. Lumbercutter 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Heqs made this change soon after. Looks good.] Lumbercutter 03:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Proposed move back to CFL

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

I have proposed that this page is moved back to CFL. CFL is an important TLA and should not link to just one it its uses. The number of what links there is not an adequate guide to the use of CFL as was mentioned in the previous comments. CFL has emerged as a common abbreviation for Compact fluorescent lamp. Alan Liefting 22:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what's the most common usage in English? Seinfeld fans would say Canadian Football. 132.205.44.134 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per the previous discussion, the vast majority of links are intended for Canadian Football League. Only 1 out of the first 150 links to CFL appears to refer to compact fluorescent lamps. There's a redirect tag at the top of the Canadian Football League page, and I don't see any reason why that's insufficient. Dekimasu よ! 07:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Dekimasu.--Bookandcoffee 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFL means more than one thing!

In my mind CFL certainly means Compact fluorescent lamp. Current setup cause a double redir. CFL -> Canadian Fotball -> Disambiguation -> Compact Fluorescent.. When it can be: CFL -> Disambiguation -> Compact Fluorescent.. Sports already get it's "fair share" in media outlets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electron9 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The CFL disambig page has a long list of articles that use CFL as a TLA. This would suggest that CFL should be the disambig page on the principle of "least surprise". I think having CFL as a page about a Canadian football league is causing systemic bias. Canadian football is predominantly of interest to Canadians (but not all). WP is of global interest. -- Alan Liefting talk 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFL (disambiguation) → CFL — No reason to redirect CFL to CFL (disambiguation) —Alan Liefting 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose (again, and for the same reasons). This is the same proposal that failed in April. CFL was redirected here only two days ago by Benkeboy [1].--Bookandcoffee 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, CFL is supposed to redirect to Canadian Football League. We've already had two discussions on it. Benkeboy redirected it to disambiguation, which leads to the weird situation that Alan says needs correction. The restored redirect to Canadian Football League should remain. 132.205.44.5 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, see my comments above under this heading. Benkeboy 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bookandcoffee who gave the best explanations above and below. The hasty redirect of CFL to CFL (disambiguation) was rightly reverted; CFL should continue to redirect to Canadian Football League until someone can provide a good reason to the contrary. Keep in mind that the "hype" regarding compact fluorescent lamps is fairly recent whereas the Canadian Football League initialism has been in wide use for about 50 years. heqs ·:. 03:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bsroiaadn^Talk 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There currently are 14 items listed under CFL(disambiguation). I see no reason for any of these should be more important to warrant it taking CFL. So moving the disambiguation to CFL should be a reasonably peaceful way to solve this issue. NB: before coming to this article I had no idea of any other the uses of the abbreviation CFL. Anyway, what is common practise for abbreviations? Making the abbrevation the (de facto) disambiguation? At least it makes more sense to me. Benkeboy 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument used for deciding disambig pages is the principle of least astonishment – what are people actually looking for when they type in “CFL”. One of the ways to determine this is to look at the CFL what links here list to see what the major article linking shows us. However, this list may be skewed if a diligent editor has at some point disambiged the list, so another approach is to look at the number of links pointing directly at the articles. Canadian Football League has 1817 direct links, Compact fluorescent lamp has 165 links. The pages I watch, (Ceylon Federation of Labour, Chicago Federation of Labor, Chinese Federation of Labour) have a combined total of 28 direct links! Both these methods give a pretty reasonable picture of what the expectation is around this abbreviation. Of course neither method is exact, but it seems reasonable to me to continue to link CFL directly to the Canadian Football League.--Bookandcoffee 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 to CFL

I have reverted the move of this DAB page to CFL. There are three failed move proposals here, and no new proposal, nor any evidence or links to such proposals elsewhere. I fail to see how this recent change could have been considered a non-controversial move. Please propose a move on this page next time, ar at least provide a link to a move discussion, per WP:MOVE policies. - BillCJ (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Move Proposal

This article has been renamed from CFL (disambiguation) to CFL as the result of a move request.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was - consensus to move as no one article now has primary usage. Keith D (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFL (disambiguation) → CFL — As discussed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, we should choose the target to "CFL" to be the one which is most useful to readers when they hit "Go" in the search box. Right now CFL redirects to the Canadian Football League. This would be appropriate if Canadian Football League were the primary use of CFL, but with the rise of "CFL" to mean compact fluorescent lights, I don't consider it reasonable to continue to treat the Canadian Football League as a "much more common" usage for CFL than all other usages. Better to have "CFL" target the disambiguation page. Yes, there are 300 or so internal links to CFL right now that would need to be fixed, but we do that kind of work routinely. —Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator. Dragons flight (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose - Unless Compact fluorescent lamp has more than 1800 direct links (up from 165 links last July), then I don't see the need for changes at this point. It may gain more links in time, and then it would be appropriate. (Note: Thanks for proposing rather than attempting a unilateral move as other users have. Given the history of the back-and-forth moves and defeated proposals, it is certainly not a non-controversial move.) - BillCJ (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the actual internal link totals are misleading in this case. There are many links to Canadian Football from relatively minor athletes (or in some cases from the hometowns of relatively minor athletes). Such references from sports trivia do accumulate given the length of the history of the CFL and the fact that we allow nearly all professional athletes to have articles, but I think that in terms of public interest/awareness these links don't actually demonstrate much weight. Outside the regional context, CFL the lightbulb, is almost certainly better known than Canadian Football. Horsesforcorses observations below show that even though there may be ten times as many internal links to Canadian Football there are nonetheless more people who are visiting the lamp page. Given the two conflicting major topics linking to the disambig makes a lot of sense. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per last discussion. 70.55.84.42 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Using the Article traffic statistics, Canadian Football League received 20569 hits last month, where Compact fluorescent lamp received 54159. This trend has been the case every month since December when the stats began. In light of this I see no way CFL should redirect to Canadian Football League. Not even the most popular topic, never mind the primary one Horsesforcorses (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wikipedia:Disambiguation and evidence of User:Horsesforcorses. 14days (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:BillCJ, and previous discussions.Sportyguy03 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I know little about the soccer league and even less about the lamps, but a vanilla Google search of "CFL" shows as many hits for the latter in the first ten results. Compact fluorescent lamp article is also ranked higher on that search than Canadian Football League, which corroborates Horsesforcorses's figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Songs of ts steiner (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Direct wikilinks are the least relevant measure, especially since CFL has so many templates and team lists which will create great numbers of extra links without improving article's 'popularity'. Evidence of Web searches and traffic stats much more compelling. Compulsions70 (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Canadian Football League has disambig link at top. There are far less articles needing to be changed so as NOT to point directly at the Canadian Football League than there are football related articles needing to fix CFL to go directly to the Canadian Football League. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I certainly hope there aren't many soccer related articles, since we are talking about American football. That point aside, cleaning up a few hundred links is a fairly routine AWB task. We shouldn't be avoiding an appropriate outcome just because it might take a little work to get there. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given the figures cited by HforC this doesnt even seem controversial. Biggest argument is that a lot of links point to Canadian Football League and it would be a lot of work to fix? That is not a problem for readers. Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors." Plenty of editors have bots and script tools to do these things quickly. There is even a WikiProject specifically for this, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. Tigeron (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The argument that most CFL wikilinks are intended for Canadian Football League should not be taken lightly as only a make-work project for dab clean-up. The point is that most often when editors wikilink CFL they are thinking of football and that is a definite consideration since we want most links to go where we expect. In fact, out of 256 article space wikilinks to CFL only one was not intended for Canadian Football League and that was for Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it is impossible to know how many wikilinks to CFL for other things were already fixed. I can state personally that I added a link to CFL (looking for lamps) and was surprised that this went to football and then later fixed it. Hence, I suspect the current wikilinks for CFL have little to do with what editors expect and are mostly a matter of fixing the bad ones over time. Dragons flight (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments: Just as a post-closure note, I'd like to point out that I've been doing an AWB run to change links that are currently using CFL to mean the football league — and a considerable number of them are unnecessary as the article in question already links to Canadian Football League, but then relinks the acronym a second time for no obvious reason. So a good number of the current inbound links shouldn't even exist anyway. For what it's worth. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Compact fluorescents

Shouldn't compact fluorescents be initialised as cfl rather than CFL? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms are often capitalized even if the terms composing them aren't generally. A google search on cfl light shows many examples of compact fluorescent lamps expressed as CFL (in caps) and almost none in the first few pages with it in lowercase. Dragons flight (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DAB#NAME "There should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), variant punctuation and diacritic marks." so there would still be only one dab page whichever way it is capitalised. Keith D (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of redirecting to the Canadian Football League?

Does anyone else feel that it is appropriate to at least examine the idea of redirecting CFL to Canadian Football League? --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha, Bradv, and Þjarkur: Apparently, this DAB page was moved last ~~month~~ year by an admin without any discussion here at all, in spite of the most recent discussion (2008) concluding that there was no primary topic. I don't normally override an admin, so I'm not going to revert the move myself, but I am requesting that ~~the move be self-reverted, and~~ a move discussion held. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be worth another discussion. The lamp isn't quite as popular as in 2008 so the football league may very well have overtaken it as a primary topic again. I however found this redirect to be unexpected. According to this BBC article, the league is little known outside of Canada. (Bradv hasn't been active for a few weeks) – Thjarkur (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all points. The league article got nearly thrice the views as the lamp article in the last year, so even though it's not well known outside of Canada, it still looks like the primary topic. My main quibble here is that procedure wasn't followed where a clear consensus already existed. I think the end result will be the same (CFL being the primary topic again), so I'm not asking for a revert now. (I had misread Brad's move date as 2021 instead 2020, so this isn't as recent as I originally thought.) BilCat (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the options on the disambiguation page, only the Canadian Football League and the light bulbs seem to be real possibilities for targeting. The bulbs are fading (pun intended) in popularity as LED bulbs become more common. So the question is, is the football league enough of a standout amongst the possibilities to claim "primary topic" or should the redirect go to the DAB page? --Khajidha (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my reading of it too. The league gets nearly three times the views as the lamp, and also has historical significance. So the other factor to consider is current usage, which I haven't checked. At this point I'm content to let the status quo remain, but someone else is welcome to file an RFD for CFL if they disagree with the current setup. BilCat (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that no one has complained in a year could be seen as evidence in favor of leaving it as is.--Khajidha (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]