Talk:STE

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move performed per consensus below. Taelus (Talk) 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STE (disambiguation) → STE — I am requesting this be moved to STE, as there are several common uses of the acronym 'STE' and that the disambiguation page should be there. Which is regional in its usage. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Withdrawing opposition (see my comments below). Will wait until I see new statistics before considering switching to support. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic statistics you quoted only show views of STE. At least that's what it says on the page. Where does it say 'entered from the text box'? As I've mentioned before, you would always get a high ratio of STE to disambig, as the various club articles did not disambiguate their own links to the Secure Terminal Equipment. I've changed the articles to not do the redirect, going directly to the Secure. The hits for STE would go down and a more valid comparison could be made. Although I'm not sure that it is even relevant. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you see that traffic stat after I changed all the redirects, (look at this month) there was a big drop in the daily traffic to STE. There's now been a spike as we are discussing the page. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of my assumptions (mentioned somewhere I discussed it) is that there WASN'T such a cleanup of STE redirects. This is the first I've heard of it, so I'll reassess based on that (although, reading more carefully, I see Gnevin mentions it below - sorry). 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only did it this week. May is pre-cleanup. I found approximately 100 articles that did not have a Secure link, only a STE link. So I pointed those at Secure. To me, that's a cleanup, as you shouldn't just have acronyms, you should have the full name. But even then, I've not cleaned up all the articles to the point where it was [[[Secure ...]] (STE) which I think is best. There were too many. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem that it was done, its just that the assumption that there were no (article space) links into STE was a key in my logic. That meant (almost) _ALL_ of the hits on STE were from the search box. If thats not the case, my logic doesn't work. Doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong, just cannot be "proved" that way. It will be interesting to see how the statistics fare now that it IS the case. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Secure STE is primary usage, the page has been like this for 7 years. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it being this way for 7 years counts for something. But, I think it has lead to lazy editing in the Secure club articles. They should have linked to the Secure Terminal Equipment page, not the redirect. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I disagree with the notion of the "Secure STE [being the] primary usage". In what region? There are several hundred million Americans who might first think of (or search for) goals against average. Nor is it relevant that the page has been like this for 7 years. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since there are varying degrees of disagreement over what is the "primary usage" or "most intended search result" for STE, have it redirect to the STE (disambiguation) page and let the user make their own choice. Done. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, until I see some very compelling evidence of a primary topic. Powers ^T 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, One's target shouldn't be assumed, between the Secure Terminal Equipment - there are three main targets in my opinion. The disambiguation page is a logical place for STE to point to. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no single target. Also, this is very confusing that an IP editor appears to be talking to themself. Miami33139 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

not supported by the linked articles

Examples:

CV

C_v, the flow coefficient
Companion of the Order of the Volta, an award of the Republic of Ghana
CV (Consonant-Vowel), an open syllable pattern in linguistics

MBA

Maschienenbau und Bahnbedarf AG
Middle Bronze Age
Minimum Basic Agreement

So, I can return to the article

Software Test Engineer, e.g. lead STE at RealNetworks, STE at Microsoft

Google search: LinkedIn STE profiles, Realnetworks Ste profiles | LinkedIn etc.

Yuriy Dzyаdyk (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

OTHERSTUFF on a wiki that can be edited by anyone is an unreliable guide to what is appropriate content. Please see WP:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB for guidelines applicable to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that though, I'm not sure what your examples are supposed to demonstrate. With the exception of Companion of the Order of the Volta on CV and Minimum Basic Agreement on MBA (disambiguation), for the other entries you mention, the linked articles explicitly support the usage. In the case of Software Test Engineer, neither of the pages you link to (RealNetworks and Microsoft) contain any mention of Software Test Engineer let alone the usage of the abbreviation. older ≠ wiser 14:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]