Talk:Coca (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
COCA also means Cost of Customer Acquisition
[edit]I'd like to open a discussion about User:GB_fan's deletion of an entry I added to this Coca disambiguation page for Cost of Customer Acquisition, or COCA. Here's what I had added in my August 19th edit:
- Cost of Customer Acquisition, an alternative name for Customer acquisition cost
Cost of Customer Acquisition is a widely used business term, but here on Wikipedia the article describing the concept is named Customer acquisition cost which is another widely used and *synonymous* term. I didn't have time to fix Customer acquisition cost by adding a Cost of Customer Acquisition alias or improving the Customer acquisition cost article (which needs a lot of work) by including the term Cost of Customer Acquisition. Here is a sample of high-value articles where "Cost of Customer Acquisition and/or COCA (with that meaning) are used, demonstrating my point that Cost Of Customer Acquisition is widely accepted and used term:
- Customer lifetime value
- OPEXEngine Benchmarks: Interpreting SaaS Cost of Customer Acquisition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiemonster70 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- How Much Did That New Customer Cost You?
- Cost of Customer Acquisition
- Startup Killer: the Cost of Customer Acquisition
My addition of Cost of Customer Acquisition to this disambiguation article adds value to Wikipedia, and User:GB_fan's deletion removes value. User:GB_fan's comment with the deletion is "Not used in the article anywhere." While true, that doesn't mean that the addition to this disambiguation article isn't valuable. And that's particularly true when the target article, like Customer acquisition cost, is marked as needing significant improvement. Can someone explain to me what wikipedia rule justifies the deletion? As things stand now, the next time someone comes to Wikipedia trying to figure out the meaning of the COCA column in a business spreadsheet they've just been handed, they won't find the answer.
Cookiemonster70 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- If they are the same thing, how much time would it have taken you to add "or Cost of Customer Acquisition (COCA)" to Customer acquisition cost versus the amount of time it took you to write the above to this page and then add it back to this page? DAB pages are navigation help to articles with similar names or concepts and the page you added (as you confirm) does not mention COCA or Cost of Customer Acquisition at all. All you need to do is add it then you could have created a simple redirect from Cost of Customer Acquisition to Customer acquisition cost and added the entry back in. No one would have complained and you would have improved the encyclopedia. Instead you do the research to show the link and post here instead of fixing the problem I identified with your addition. You caused more work for yourself and me that didn't need to be done. So here is my solution, fix the article, create a redirect and add it back here. GB fan 21:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't need you to explain the solution that you needed to see so you wouldn't delete the edit. What I did ask you to do is explain what Wiki rule allows you to delete my edit. I'd still like to see that. I don't like editors that, IMO, delete things by shooting from the hip, like I believe you did with my entry. Those kinds of deletions make Wikipedia less valuable. I took the time to write the above, because I do see value in highlighting an editorial deletion you made that I think is wrong. If this thread makes you, and/or other editors, just slightly more thoughtful in your deletes of content, then it was time well spent. Also, as noted in my original entry above, I didn't have time to do the research and other edits when I made the original entry on August 19th. I like to think that Wikipedia is built one quality sentence at a time, not one article at a time. I'd recommend that next time, instead of just deleting, you consider dropping a note to the people like me encouraging us to continue editing and making more improvements. A note to me that, "hey, your COCA entry on the DAB page is a little weak since the target article doesn't mention it. Can you edit the target article when you get a chance - it could really use some improvement." That kind of encouragement, instead of what you did, is what will make Wikipedia even greater than it is. Cookiemonster70 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of WP:MOSDAB says:
- Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term, as described in the Disambiguation guideline. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching.
- WP:DABRELATED says:
- "Do not include articles unless the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. (For example, the Set disambiguation page legitimately has an entry for Volleyball.)"
- There is nothing in the linked article (still) that indicates that it could be referenced by the search term "Coca." The term is not described in the target article. According to those two guidelines the entry does not belong until it is used in the linked article. GB fan 00:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of WP:MOSDAB says:
- Yeah, I didn't need you to explain the solution that you needed to see so you wouldn't delete the edit. What I did ask you to do is explain what Wiki rule allows you to delete my edit. I'd still like to see that. I don't like editors that, IMO, delete things by shooting from the hip, like I believe you did with my entry. Those kinds of deletions make Wikipedia less valuable. I took the time to write the above, because I do see value in highlighting an editorial deletion you made that I think is wrong. If this thread makes you, and/or other editors, just slightly more thoughtful in your deletes of content, then it was time well spent. Also, as noted in my original entry above, I didn't have time to do the research and other edits when I made the original entry on August 19th. I like to think that Wikipedia is built one quality sentence at a time, not one article at a time. I'd recommend that next time, instead of just deleting, you consider dropping a note to the people like me encouraging us to continue editing and making more improvements. A note to me that, "hey, your COCA entry on the DAB page is a little weak since the target article doesn't mention it. Can you edit the target article when you get a chance - it could really use some improvement." That kind of encouragement, instead of what you did, is what will make Wikipedia even greater than it is. Cookiemonster70 (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)