Talk:Soft landing

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 1 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Soft landing (aeronautics) to Soft landing. The result of the discussion was moved.

One article for soft landing to cover aircraft and rocketry?

Should there be one article and what should it be called? crandles (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2023

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: moved. The sole oppose reads more like a delete !vote, otherwise unanimous. (closed by non-admin page mover) House Blaster^talk 00:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– This appears to be the primary topic, with over 3x as many views as the economics article and no clear long-term significance advantage either way. Hard landing already has the aircraft term as primary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Soft landing, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Soft landing → Soft landing (disambiguation)" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match Hard landing. The page view difference is pretty borderline for a primary topic, but the consistency argument weighs in favor it. The disambiguation page is then not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just gotta say, disambiguation is the main exception to WP:CONSISTENT Red Slash 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has now added some (valid) entries to the disambiguation page. This does not change my support, since only one of them has an article and that article has negligible pageviews. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to match Hard landing. — 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 💬 07:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Since there are only 2 articles, the DAB page is unnecessary. Just delete the DAB page and a hatnote at the top of the primary article should point to the other article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to match Hard Landing Cheese122 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS, particularly given that the economic term is borrowed from the much more clearly applicable aeronautic term. BD2412 T 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for educational significance. Honestly, how could an encyclopedia article ever exist on "soft landing"s? The entire article basically says "soft landings are landings that are soft". DICDEFs don't get primary topics. Red Slash 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What guideline or policy states that "DICDEFs don't get primary topics"? BilCat (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Twice among many, many other examples Red Slash 16:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specific precedent of Twice is that topics without articles count less for primary topic, at best. If you think the aeronautics term shouldn't have an article, well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is thataway. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. I'm not concerned about consistency, as primary topics can vary greatly. BilCat (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (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.