Jump to content

Talk:Cargo 200 (code name)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Zinc-lined coffins”

[edit]

Is tsinkovyi grob (“zinc coffin”) properly translated as “galvanized steel coffin,” or “galvanized steel-lined coffin”? In Russian, galvanizing is tsinkovainie, literally zincing. —Michael Z. 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Website nonfunctional

[edit]

The website is down, and apparently leads to some gambling website. Please use Wayback Machine. 67.169.138.27 (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is there a code for ordering new soldiers?

[edit]

in german bundeswehr there was one, but I forgot it.... 84.191.14.113 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 October 2024

[edit]

Cargo 200 (code name)Cargo 200 – it is an invalid disambig page with only two meanings --Altenmann >talk 23:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: third meaning added, i.e., there now must be a second move, Cargo 200->Cargo 200 (disambiguation) --Altenmann >talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is that the nominator was trying to say, there is no rule that says a disambiguation page needs to have more than two entries. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is: WP:ONEOTHER. Cargo 200 (code name) is clearly a primary topic; the film is named after it. --Altenmann >talk 18:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEOTHER doesn't say that a disambiguation page needs to have more than two entries. It only says that a disambiguation page is not necessary if there are only two topics and one of them is a primary topic for the term. Being the original source of a term does not make a topic automatically primary, but perhaps the code name is primary in this instance. There is a third topic: 200rf.com (aka Look for Your Own). Its launch in February 2022 seems to have been responsible for a big spike in interest in March 2022 (echoed a year later in March 2023). It gets about 11% of the page views of the three topics combined. The code name gets about 52% and the film gets about 37%. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
200rf does not belong to this disambig page; the name not nearly close, and I removed it. --Altenmann >talk 01:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The oblique reference seems sufficient to list it under "See also". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Although, clearly one came about because of the other. Primary topic threshold has not been met. Outside of a spike in 2022, looking at both articles over a long term (which is a defining mark for deciding primary topic), both articles see almost equal traffic.
[1]https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2024-09&pages=Cargo_200_(film)%7CCargo_200_(code_name) RCSCott91 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]