Talk:TCL

On 10 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to TCL (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 10 April 2021

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TCL → TCL (disambiguation) – At almost 1000 hits per day, more than all others combined, TCL Technology should be considered a primary topic. This move opens up TCL to become a primary redirect. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The company does get more page views, but not primary per long-term significance, and doesn't get more page views than other entries combined.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ortizesp given Tlc gets 8,078 and Thermostat gets 11,761 compared to 19,209[[1]] for the technology company and there are a number of other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made a bold decision and removed the "Thermostat" reference from the dab page. A thermostatically controlled load is not a synonym of thermostat. The article at Thermostat only mentions the word once in its opening paragraph, and there is no such article as Thermostatically controlled load. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and created the redirect tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. The paper you linked makes it clear that thermostatically controlled loads are referred to as TCLs, and the thermostat article explains that those are. Not having an article isn't a barrier for inclusion on a dab as long as the term is mentioned somewhere on the target page (see: WP:DABMENTION). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strong case for a primary topic with respect to usage. The link from the dab page to the company was followed 770 times in November (according to clickstream data);compare 106 for Tcl, with no other link getting more than 10 views. – Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. TCL Technology is popular [2] but not more popular than everything else together, and the overall situation is complicated by the overwhelming popularity of Tcl. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit disappointed by the (mis)use of pageviews in the arguments above. Pageviews don't contain any direct indications for either of the two aspects of primary topics: long-term significance and reader usage (see Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics). They have often been assumed to be useful in the past, but only because of the absence of other sources of data. But now we do have one such other source: meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream, which gives direct information about what readers seek. We had 770 readers who navigated from the dab page to the Chinese company in November, 106 who clicked through to Tcl, and no data for any of the remaining 21 links (which means none of them got more than 9 clicks for the period). This means that the proportion of readers who sought the Chinese company must lie between 72% and 88%.
If you're wondering why there's such a discrepancy with the picture suggested by the pageviews-based votes above, then it's worth pointing out: 1) the great majority of traffic that makes up the pageviews comes from incoming links, and there's no particularly strong relationship between the distribution of incoming-links traffic and the traffic coming from reader searches; 2) in the specific pageviews links above, the greater part of the traffic is for topics for which "TCL" is either an alternative capitalisation (like Tcl), or a minor subtopic (like Thermostat or CAS latency) – you could try to estimate, for example, how many of the views for CAS latency could be weighed for "TCL" (a subtopic that's not even mentioned in the article), but you can't use the total views – that's apples and oranges. – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with clickstream, but I will point out that searching "tcl" uncapitalized in the searchbox leads straight to Tcl, not the dab page. This could lead to inflated pageviews for that article. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clickstream seems like it has potential but it seems hard to use without something like the pageviews tool, is too big to fully open, and severely degrades performance on a laptop. You're right about the subtopics of course (e.g. Thermostat), which have greater real-world significance outside of the narrow jargon-y subtopic that would map to thermostatically controlled loads (TCL). Also, it appears that the TCL company page was renamed in 2020, so the pageviews analysis by restricting it to July 2020 onwards puts the company a bit over 54%. I would however push back a bit on the pageviews argument as a whole. I would argue that incoming-links traffic traffic from non-dab pages are a rough approximation of real-world interest in a topic (i.e. the more interest, the more internal/external links, search engine hits, etc.). Also in this specific case. I would oppose because while the company would narrowly take the pageviews point, I don't see a clear winner for long-term significance. However, I would support my rearrangement of the company to the top of the DAB.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:11, 18 April 2021 (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.