Talk:GWR

Requested move 26 April 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GWR → GWR (disambiguation) – to allow for the current title to be harmonised with the main article primary topic (which is Great Western Railway, and should be where this common acronym also leads to (per WP:CONSISTENCY) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please show evidence that Great Western Railway is the primary topic for GWR? Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the evidence that is needed is the simple and uncontested fact that the article is currently at Great Western Railway. However, on top of that, there is this discussion showing that there is consensus that this is indeed the primary topic (as opposed to a similarly-named modern entity). I don't see why this would be controversial. Other examples of abbreviations linking to the primary topic they would refer to in the vast majority of cases include NYC, USA, and plenty of others. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I don't think the RM that you mention applies, and even if it did, previous RMs are typically a sign that something is not uncontroversial. I also feel that comparing New York City with a railway company that most people have never heard about is not a fair comparison. I'm marking this as contested. You're more than welcome to start an RM. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The RM very much shows there is a consensus that the article "Great Western Railway" is the primary topic for the designation "Great Western Railway" (many of the comments there specifically make arguments that that is the case, ex. The original GWR was in business for well over 100 years and has much more literature written about it which has enabled its article to be developed to GA status.. And thus, it is also the primary topic for GWR. A major railway company which was engineered by none other than Brunel is much more likely to be searched for than some American one which is actually known as the G&W, or some former radio station. Please withdraw your opposition. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't quite agree with your argument. I'm also contesting the very fact that your request is uncontroversial (if nothing else, the fact that we're having this discussion shows that it's not uncontroversial). Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Dr. Vogel, this should have a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic grabs are rarely uncontroversial. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I think it's fair to give the person a chance to explain themselves. Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Pinging requester as a courtesy. Steel1943 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No evidence that a railway company is the primary topic for the acronym. Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Vogel, did you get pinged when I posted the move request here in my initial edit? I'm asking to see if there is any reason for me to separately mention editors when I move a discussion over in this manner. Steel1943 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't get pinged, I found this myself. You may want to ping the other involved editors. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham and 162 etc.: Pinging the rest of the participant thus far. Steel1943 (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym is commonly used for the railway, which is a primary topic. As for evidence, https://www.google.com/search?q="GWR"&source=lnms&tbm=nws (news only, everything "GWR"] yields 57k results; https://www.google.com/search?q="GWR"+-rail&source=lnms&tbm=nws (-"rail", so not including everything which mentions "rail") yields about 37k results; and https://www.google.com/search?q="GWR"+-rail+-"world+record"&source=lnms&tbm=nws (excluding "world record") yields 25 k results.
So:
1. About 20 thousand results concern "GWR" and (mostly the British ones) railways (this is also confirmed by using "AND" in the search; https://www.google.com/search?q=%22GWR%22+AND+rail&tbm=nws)
2. About 12 thousand (37-25) somehow mention the world records (although doing the search with "AND" yields only 9000 results, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22GWR%22+AND+%22world+record%22&tbm=nws)
3. Everything else combined accounts for about as much as the railways
In short, there's rather clear evidence that the most common thing people will be referring to, even when using the acronym is the railway. Combine that with the clear historical and current long-term significance of the thing (the original GWR existed for over a hundred years; and the modern one carried, pre-pandemic, over 100 million passengers annually) and there is clear evidence that this also meets that part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

So, on both usage and long-term significance, "GWR" should clearly point to the railway article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no clear primary topic, I think of Great Western Railway when "GWR" is mentioned perhaps because I have used it in the last few years but I don't think that's what most people want, Guinness World Records though probably not commonly known as "GWR" gets 50,982[[1]] views compared with only 7,767[[2]] for Great Western Railway as as can be seen there are other railways even in England with the acronym "GWR". Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The present-day GWR gets more pageviews [3], not to mention the ambiguity with everything else at GWR (disambiguation). No primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very clear primary topic. One of the most important railway companies in British history and the only one of the Big Four which retained the same name that it had before amalgamation. Pageviews are pure recentism and this has clear long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The RM from two years ago concluded that the historic company was the primary topic for "Great Western Railway" because of its undeniably greater long-term significance when compared to the contemporary train operator, despite the likely higher usage for the latter. Such considerations for long-term significance are very relevant for articles: we want their titles to be stable and we don't want to have to move them around with the fluctuations in reader interest every couple of years. This is much less of a factor when we're only deciding what to do with a redirect or a dab page. If you look at usage (Wikinav for GWR and the linked dab Great Western Railway (disambiguation), while taking care to exclude traffic for the latter page that arrives from other sources) then you'll see that more of the readers searching for GWR seek the contemporary rather than the historic company, with fewer, though still relevant, clickthroughs for other topics, both railway-related and not. This is also the picture that emerges from RandomCanadian's reported search results above. – Uanfala (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, looking through the prism of a UK railway enthusiast the historical train company probably is the primary topic, but that is a very small amount of the Wikipedia readership. Stkngjo (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just because something is the primary topic for when spelled out in full, doesn't mean it's automatically the primary topic as an acronym too. There is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here, especially when considered internationally. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.