Talk:Natural Selection (disambiguation)

How is Natural Selection different from Natural Drift (as presented by Maturana in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250373414_The_origin_of_species_by_means_of_natural_drift) As far as I understand the 'selection' isn't so much about the strongest but about adaptation and the relationship between the species, the medium and the resulting behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1340:3FC:646B:5B7E:E187:F089 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 November 2019

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 at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection (disambiguation) → Natural Selection – Per WP:DIFFCAPS. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think Darwin's manuscript is the primary topic for "Natural Selection" (capitalised) by long-term significance. Natural Selection is currently a redirect to Natural selection. I would therefore support move Natural Selection (manuscript) to Natural Selection over the redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed the manuscript only gets 122 views while the 2016 film gets 1,926, the video game gets 1,064, the 2011 film gets 915, the fuel album gets 551, the group gets 210, the Spectacular Spider-Man gets 112, the Hunters & Collectors album gets 52 and the unit gets 4 [[1]]. Those views clearly show that the manuscript isn't primary by usage and there's also the generic meaning to consider so the DAB at the base name seems best. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to pageviews, the disambiguation page gets only about 2 views a day. That's a hard ceiling on the number of readers who are typing in "Natural Selection" and looking for something on the dab page. On the other hand, the Natural Selection redirect gets 7 hits a day. So at the very minimum, 2/3rds of users using the "Natural Selection" redirect are getting where they want (though we don't know what proportion of those are via search or via internal links - of which there are 33 in mainspace). This is a case where the topic at the lowercase variant, Natural selection, is so much more significant and so much more widely read than the articles that actually match the capitalization, that it's appropriate for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The primary topic for "Natural Selection" is natural selection. Colin M (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. We have to have an entire guideline at MOS:DOCTCAPS – and even experienced editors keep violating it all the time – precisely because numerous people have a strong tendency to capitalize names of doctrines, theories, schools of thought, principles, and other important but abstract things that linguistically are not generally treated as proper names (proper-noun phrases) but which in the philosophy sense may be proper names. This would be a stupendous misapplication of WP:DIFFCAPS because there is no "diff". Innumerable people are going to type "Natural Selection" and mean the evolutionary theory, guaranteed. Ergo, Colin M is correct that the primary topic for "Natural Selection" is natural selection, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I don't buy Shhhnotsoloud's argument. While the average reader knows the title of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, most of them are not familiar with the manuscript title or with the existence of said manuscript. The phrase, including with sloppy "importance capitals", means the theory of natural selection, to virtually everyone. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:36, 29 November 2019 (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.