Talk:Quantum leap

On 22 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Quantum leap (disambiguation) to Quantum leap. The result of the discussion was moved.

Redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: Do not not redirect Quantum Leap. Since the two respondents in favor of redirecting to disambiguation raised no rationales for their objections, only WP:ILIKEIT non-rationales, and opponents provided solid policy reasons against such a redir, there is a clear consensus not to disambiguate the TV show name or redirect Quantum Leap (capitalized) to a disambiguation page or to anything but the TV show. The TV show is the only capitalized usage. Per WP:MOSDAB, WP:NC-FILM/WP:NC-TV, WP:PRECISION, WP:CAPS, WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:COMMONSENSE) – that's 7 policies/guidelines vs. zero – I'm moving the DAB page to Quantum leap (disambiguation), and seeking to speedily move Quantum Leap (TV series) over the Quantum Leap redirect, which already goes to the TV series article, as uncontroversial maintenance, per WP:CSD#G6. (Belated non-admin closure.) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Further objections to the disambigation were made at what is presently Talk:Quantum Leap (TV series)#Page move, going all the way back to Talk:Quantum Leap (TV series)/Archive 1#New article in 2006. There was also a factually and procedurally incorrect closing of a previous obvious no-cosensus RM as "move", at Talk:Quantum Leap (TV series)/Archive 1#Requested move, and the move to disambiguation was again contested at Talk:Quantum Leap (TV series)/Archive 1#Move: why?. This evidence was not immediately noticed because the {{archive box}} at Talk:Quantum Leap (TV series) was broken. It nonetheless strongly all supports closing this re-discussion as I have closed it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second purpose of the original WP:RM was to have this redirect to "Quantum leap" although i probably didn't make it too clear. What do other people think? Should this be redirected to the tv series or to the type of quantum physics page? Or even disambig? Simply south 17:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fine as it is.--Srleffler 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. This should be the article on the TV series. Powers ^T 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either Quantum Leap is ambiguous and shouldn't be redirected automatically or it isn't ambiguous and it should just be the TV show. Redirecting it to quantum leap would consistent with making that article the primary topic for both Quantum Leap and quantum leap.

However, as long as Wikipedia is case sensitive Quantum Leap and quantum leap are different articles that do not necessarily need to be disambiguated from each other. I don't think the original move was wise and had I known about it, I would have opposed it. I have no way to get hard statistics, but judging from the size of the pages (two paragraphs vs. several pages) and the frequency of edits (~50 edits in the last year vs. ~50 edits in the last month), I would guess that Quantum Leap (TV series) is the much more actively searched-for topic.

Also, I find it odd that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) got cited as precedence, but not WP:NC-TV, WP:PRECISION, or WP:CAPS, which seem more directly relevant. I have to wonder what information people were using to make their decision with, since there wasn't much debate. Actually, why does Pulp Fiction (film) have a dab tag? Hmm.... -Anþony 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the closing admin, I guess (because I have this on my watchlist

). Yes, you're right, bad citing, but WP:NC-TV says a similar thing, and then goes on to mention King of the Hill (TV series). Go figure. WP:PRECISION is vague as well: "If there is a reasonable chance the reader might have been looking for the other meaning...". With caps in the title, I'd say it's unlikely. The concerns raised here are valid, though; maybe some firmer rules are called for. Duja► 12:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to move Quantum Leap (TV series) here, most certainly. The different capitalization makes it distinct from quantum leap, and since Quantum Leap redirects there anyway it doesn't make sense to use the longer title. And a dab page is unnecessary because there are only two articles involved. -Silence 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Silence. Hear hear! -Silence (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement as well. More people who type in Quantum Leap will be looking for the show more then the theory itself so it makes more sense.Wild ste (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should remain as is. — Val42 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (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.

Unneeded dab

I believe this disambiguation page is unneeded if the two applicable topics are distinguishable by capitalization. Hatnotes on Atomic electron transition and Quantum Leap can handle the nav purpose (per WP:TWODABS—each is the primary for one caps variation). The Sinclair QL, while named after the quantum leap, is not apparently ambiguous with "quantum leap". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Quantum Leap which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

post-move

Before the February move, the traffic patterns were like this[1]:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:

Quantum_Leap Quantum_Leap_(2022_TV_series) link 9143 (~20%)
Quantum_Leap Quantum_jump link 195 (~0.4%)
Quantum_Leap Quantum_leap_(disambiguation) link 153 (~0.35%)
Quantum_Leap Paradigm_shift link 51 (~0.1%)
total: 24986 to 60 identified destinations, total incoming views 43768

In March '24, we saw a total of around 4988+10186=15174 incoming views here, and 429 views of the physics redirect,[2] (I didn't check all the redirects) and in turn:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-03.tsv:

Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(1989_TV_series) link 4942 (~32% / ~63%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(2022_TV_series) link 2147 (~14% / ~28%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_jump link 479 (~3% / ~6%)
Quantum_leap Paradigm_shift link 64
Quantum_leap Atomic_electron_transition link 47
Quantum_leap The_Quantum_Leap link 34
Quantum_leap Tipping_point_(sociology) link 20
Quantum_leap Emergency:_Quantum_Leap link 18
Quantum_leap Main_Page other 16
Quantum_leap Sinclair_QL link 14
total: 7781

--Joy (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In April, there were 3091 views and up to 5253 with incoming redirects, clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv showed:

Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(1989_TV_series) other 1563 (~29.7% / ~53%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(2022_TV_series) other 875 (~16.6% / ~30%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_jump other 350 (~6.7% / ~12%)
Quantum_leap Atomic_electron_transition other 63
Quantum_leap Paradigm_shift other 46
Quantum_leap The_Quantum_Leap other 19
Quantum_leap Tipping_point_(sociology) other 15
total: 2931 to 7 identified destinations

In May, with 2426 views and up to 4058 with incoming redirects, clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv showed:

Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(1989_TV_series) link 1319 (~32.5% / ~60%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_Leap_(2022_TV_series) link 503 (~12.4% / ~23%)
Quantum_leap Quantum_jump link 291 (~7.2% / ~13.3%)
Quantum_leap Paradigm_shift link 30
Quantum_leap Atomic_electron_transition link 28
Quantum_leap Tipping_point_(sociology) link 14
total: 2185 to 6 identified destinations

--Joy (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]