Talk:HRC

Additional meaning

Too meaning Heart Rate Control --77.225.252.35 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added to HRC (disambiguation). Astronaut (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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: moved Google ranking gives one impression, usage gives another, consensus below is for no primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HRC (disambiguation) → HRC – Currently, HRC--which has ~2800 views the past 90 days--redirects to Human Rights Campaign, a specific organization that uses this acronym. I do not see a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore suggest that HRC become a disambiguation page. To wit:

Human Rights Campaign has 31770 views over the past 90 days. Keep in mind that this is slightly inflated because during most of this time, HRC has redirected here.

Whereas:

United Nations Human Rights Council has 37282 views.
Human rights commission has 8897 views. (The stat counter is not case-sensitive.)
United Nations Human Rights Committee has 7508.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has 34100 views.
Honda Racing Corporation has 7640.
United States Army Human Resources Command has 2222 views (exactly!).
Hard Rock Cafe has 76200!
And of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been viewed 368182 times. (Even if we assume only 10% of readers searched for her by typing in HRC...)

Now, all of these terms, including the Human Rights Campaign, are fortunately easy to distinguish thanks to the available WP:NATURAL disambiguation. But I think it's very clear that HRC is not a term that has one specific primary topic. It's impossible to know or even guess the intent of an editor who wikilinks HRC or a reader who types "HRC" into the search box. Instead, we should have a disambiguation page there. Red Slash 08:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statistics track usage by URL, thus traffic for a redirect are not duplicated in the traffic for the target. There is no direct inflation of stats for Human Rights Campaign because of the redirect at HRC. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I'm surprised and I'm actually not sure you're right--check the about page. I'll trust you on this, Bkonrad, but it does surprise me. Largely irrelevant to this particular move, of course. Red Slash 09:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't that say the same thing? A: It counts the title the page was accessed under, so redirects and moves will unfortunately split the statistics across two different statistics pages. I.e., if you access a page using the redirect title, it counts it under the redirect title. older ≠ wiser 11:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - At second glance, I can see how that might be confusing because the question had two parts, both about redirects and what happens to the statistics when a page is moved. The latter part of the answer addresses what happens when a page is moved. The statistics do not move with the page. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Several UN bodies known by HRC. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because all the ungay needs to melt away. Oh, sorry. Per this Google ranking. Kauffner (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As a rule, there are very, very few unambiguous TLAs (FBI, IRS, and UFO are in this small and distinctive family). A TLA without a single massively overriding use should be a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 22:20, 11 July 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.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Noticing that Hillary Rodham Clinton has been repeatedly referred to in previous and ongoing Talk page discussions as "HRC", I happened to check this page and notice that she was not listed here as one of the disambiguation topics. I then took a look at the article history, and discovered that seven different previous editors have included her here over the past decade, but the user JHunterJ started repeatedly removing that entry about two years ago. So I added her again. It is clear to me that she is often referred to as "HRC", which is evident simply from noticing that another topic on the page is a book that refers to her as "HRC" in its title. I suggest that a ten-year history of eight editors in favor versus only one being recently opposed should suffice to make it clear that she should be included as a dab topic on this page (in the absence of some indication of a different consensus that has yet to be established). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, add your suggestion to MOS:DABMENTION (with consensus), or if the guidelines at MOS:DABMENTION do continue to reflect the consensus, add your very clear referred-to-as information to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Trying to cast this as 1-vs-8 is disingenuous, since we have consensus guidelines in place that cover this exact issue. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to WP:Assume good faith rather than accusing me of being disingenuous. I was not aware of exactly what was said at MOS:DABMENTION, and you had not explicitly cited it in any of your edit summaries (although I now see that you linked to it in one of them, which I had not previously noticed). However, I still think the topic should be included on the grounds of the prominence of the topic and the obviousness of the common usage of the abbreviation, and I suggest that burdening the article about her with an explicit mention of the abbreviation should be unnecessary. I note that the omission here is inconsistent with WJC, ~~GWB,~~ BHO, and RWR (disambiguation). I also checked GHWB, but it is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT without a corresponding dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"GWB" struck above since it is off-point as noted below. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made it about me, and the rationale is disingenuous, so no assumption of faith (good or bad) was needed. Please make your suggestion about "burdening the article" at the disambiguation project. The omission here is consistent with GWB, given that George W. Bush mentions the initials are being used to refer to the topic. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument; if there are other examples that are contrary to the consensus, please feel free to bring them in line with the consensus too. The current guidelines are that if the Wikipedia article cannot be "burdened" with the ambiguity, no Wikipedia ambiguity exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you're the one who made it about you, by reverting seven different people on this (now eight). All I did was describe the facts of the situation as I saw them. The word disingenuous describes a lack of sincerity. I assure you that my rationale was completely sincere. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. You made it about me with your comment of 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC). All I did was clean up the page according to the guidelines, the guidelines that are not "mine" but the consensus among the Wikipedia editorship. So, stop trying to paint this as 1-vs-8 and instead 8-vs-Wikipedia-consensus, as I've explained that the 1-vs-8 is not in line with reality. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I am content to wait to see what others might want to say about including her or not. I have not reverted your revert of my edit, and I have brought the long-simmering issue to the Talk page for discussion (which I believe is appropriate), and I have acknowledged that you seem to have a point in regard to MOS:DABMENTION (although I don't personally find that fully persuasive). At the moment, I am content with that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for pointing it out, but the additional IP edit seems to bring the situation to 9:1 as a local phenomenon (although I would have preferred if the IP had commented here). I note that the MOS:DABMENTION guideline tells us that we should "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions", and I suggest that this page is an appropriate such exception, for the reasons given above. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It brings the situation to (9:broader consensus), yes. I'll call it 9:295, since there are 295 participants in the disambiguation project, where that broader consensus is documented. Instead, though, the easier question is what is the reasoning for not adding this very clear information on the article Hillary Rodham Clinton first, after which there would be Wikipedia ambiguity to disambiguate? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may call it what you wish, but at this point (after yet another editor just added it again and it was removed again) I think I'll call it 10:1 as a local phenomenon, which seems to indicate a pretty clear local consensus (although I wish more people were commenting here instead of just editing). Personally, I don't think it would necessarily benefit the other article to add the obvious abbreviation to it, so editing it merely to justify what should be done to this dab page might seem like (at least a small) disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, so I prefer not to do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is to be avoided, right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be avoided as a way of attempting to change the guidelines/policy, yes. But as a way of reaching agreement that a particular topic appears to be one of the "occasional exceptions", it seems adequate. Certainly those words are there for some reason. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem redundant with WP:IAR, but sure. Is the encyclopedia suffering from the absence of "HRC" on this page? Are there readers who decide to look up Ms. Clinton who pop over to the search bar and decide that "HRC" is probably the article they want? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And personally, I know it won't benefit Wikipedia to list things on Wikipedia disambiguation pages that aren't ambiguous on Wikipedia. There are a great many things that can clutter up a great many disambiguation pages if we start using "obvious" rather than "ambiguous on Wikipedia" as a the criterion for Wikipedia disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, as a general rule. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with the tally reaching 11:1 and the number on the left side increasing almost daily, to me it seems pretty clear that this page is a justified exception to MOS:DABMENTION (although I continue to wish more people were commenting here instead of just editing). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tally has reached 11:295. With no answer as to how the encyclopedia would be improved by not using MOS:DABMENTION, there's no clarity as to its justification. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general searches on the web

"hrc" AND ("Hillary Clinton" OR "Hillary Rodham Clinton") got to "Page 31 of about 304 results"

"hrc" AND "Hard Rock Cafe" got to "Page 11 of 104 results"

Greg Kaye 11:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure what that comment is trying to say. If I understand correctly, what you're trying to say is that "HRC" is commonly used to refer to Hillary Rodham Clinton (and in fact more commonly used to refer to that topic than it is to refer to the Hard Rock Cafe), and that you would therefore support including that topic on this dab page – is that correct? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HRC -> Hillary Clinton as primary topic

A recent edit offered the following as justification for the revert: "Revert move of Hillary Clinton to top of page - doesn't meet MOS:DAB standard, and is not a clear enough of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status to be at the top". I don't quite follow so I'd like to discuss.

"Doesn't meet standard" (this objects to having Hillary Clinton on top) - do you mean you miss having HRC redirect to Hillary's article, and this article being named HRC (disambiguation)?
"not a clear enough of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status" - since article subject is about to be frikkin president of the United States, with thousands of news items referring to "HRC" when they have difficulty getting interviews with the candidate; talking about "Team HRC" and so on, I would say it's quite obvious Hillary is the primary topic. This is 2016 - what made sense before is irrelevant now.

Perhaps we need to reverse the earlier decision to move HRC (disambiguation) to here (HRC), only the redirect going to Hillary and not some UN body (obviously)? CapnZapp (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A second editor again reverted, again without engaging in talk, and again with an incomprehensible (or possibly derisive?) edit summary. What does "poxy single-entry section" mean? CapnZapp (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no significant change in traffic to this disambiguation page and there is no clear evidence supporting placing Clinton as the first entry on the page in a space-wasting single-entry section (a pox on single-entry sections--sections are meant to group related entries not to give prominence to one entry). I don't see any reason that the entry should not remain in the other uses section. older ≠ wiser 11:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnZapp: If you believe "HRC" should primarily refer to Hillary Clinton, feel free to initiate a move request to move this page to HRC (disambiguation) and make HRC a redirect to Hillary Clinton. That, and I'm not sure how my edit notice was unclear in the least: There is no precedence to create an "Individuals" section at the top of the page, or even to create it at all. A reference to a person would belong in a "People" section, and since it doesn't exist, the reference to Hillary Clinton belongs in the section "Other uses". (Keep in mind before trying to create a "People" section, if you do, that sections on disambiguation pages shouldn't generally contain only one entry, which has already been addressed by one of the reverts by Bkonrad. Steel1943 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the record, if such a move request were stated, I would oppose it. For one, Human Rights Campaign seems to be equally as "primary" at the present time. (And since at least one other entry is a contender, that's enough to oppose.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]