Jump to content

Talk:Try

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 11 August 2019

[edit]
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 (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– It can be WP:ASTONISHing for jargon specific to one sport to be primary topic, so there really needs to be strong evidence that readers are overwhelmingly looking for this sense over all others to be able to make such a declaration. In fact, the top three in the pageview results are Try (Pink song) (5,401 views), Try (3,724 views), and Try (Colbie Caillat song) (2,530 views). So even with the advantage of being at the base name, the rugby term isn't even the single most viewed, let alone the one with a convincing majority of views. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now -- If you look at the last four years rather than only the last month you don't get the same result [1]. Try goes to 252 averaged a day -- (from only 120 a day over the last month) -- and gets the most views. You'll find that if you do a search during a big rugby tournament the numbers go up, and during the off-season down. With the other possible links I'm sure there will be surges, especially for pop culture related articles, but over time you'll get regression to a lower mean (five years after a song or tv episode comes out how many views are we likely to see? -- take this as an example). Try is still getting the most views, and is less likely to drop in popularity compared to pop culture articles, therefore I oppose the move. -- Shuddetalk 15:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Pink song is already 6 years old so I don't think it's going to experience a huge drop anytime soon. I only presented two examples because I thought it should be enough to establish that the rugby term is not primary, but we can examine more evidence. If you look at everything from July 2015 to June 2019, Try has 371,736 views, Try (Pink song) has 286,356, Try (The Walking Dead) has 233,614, Try (Colbie Caillat song) has 120,649, Try (Nelly Furtado song) has 34,496, and Try (The Killing) has 24,834 (not sure if we should include Try! at 76,780 so I left it out). If you do the math, it turns out that Try only gets 35% of views. This four-year period should be enough to cover all major events such as the Rugby World Cup.
As for your regression to the mean argument, if you're going to speculate, then I'm also entitled to speculate. Just look at the sheer number of entries in Try (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media. It is very probable that in the next five years some new pop culture phenomenon called "Try" will appear and top the charts. The fact of the matter is, "try" is a very common English word that could mean anything, so any subject-specific meaning of it needs to clear a very high bar to become primary topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I think Shudde pasted the wrong pageviews link above - when I click that I still only get 1 month of data. Here's a link that should show the pageviews since 2015. Colin M (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a rugby league fan I can get rather parochial at times with my sport owning article titles. This one, however, is indefensible. It's not just a matter of page-view stats but also that it is a common English-language word. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - no clear primary topic. Move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The rugby term has long-term significance (notwithstanding the popularity of the 6-year-old Pink song). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The fact that a six-year-old song is still reasonably consistently seeing as many or more pageviews in 2019 says that we have a case of no clear primary topic. CThomas3 (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I often take a dim view of the long-term significance aspect of WP:PTOPIC, but I think this is a case where it's truly relevant, especially because all the other title matches (albums, songs, and TV episodes) are ephemeral pop culture things. Here's a concrete example of the practical ramifications of long-term significance: try has 2,158 wikilinks across mainspace articles, whereas Try (Pink song) (the next most viewed article) has 190 wikilinks. Hence it's especially helpful to be able to link to the rugby concept at the base name without piping. Plus, while it's not primary wrt/ usage, a plurality of 35% is not too shabby. Colin M (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just competing with all these pop culture terms though; it's also competing against the plain English meaning of the word "try". It just feels wrong for a subject-specific term to be the primary topic of such a common English word, even if the word doesn't have its own article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this. As you say, wikt:try does not have an article, and per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we will never have an article about it, so I don't think there's any reason it should even enter into the conversation when determining the ptopic here. Colin M (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it shouldn't enter into the conversation here; the fact that so many pop-culture items called "Try" are being generated every few years is testament to the long-term significance of the English word "try", which is far greater than that of the rugby term. So with long-term significance being an invalid argument in favor of the rugby term, we have to go to the pageviews, which show it not even commanding a majority. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the short-term and long-term pageview links given as well as the lack of long-term significance. "Ephemeral" pop culture is bias, as much as "just sportsball stuff" would be. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per long-term significance. The other entries are just pop-culture entries, which will be unlikely to be sought in 20 years time, and none of them rise to the level of the high-significance rugby term. The English-language word isn't really relevant, per WP:DICDEF, and it has no obvious encyclopedic topic to which it might map.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this move 2601:541:4500:1760:C44D:6BE:7AE2:69B9 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - how bizarre to assume that a song is going to be ephemeral but a very specific sports term is not. But primarily, I think people are missing the point of "long-lasting educational significance". It's not a country. It's not a scientist. It is not a planet, a cuisine, a school of thought, or even a sport in and of itself. It is a term used in a sport. People do not die because they can't get enough tries to eat. People do not write very many books about tries. 35% of page views is very nearly a death knell for primary topic, especially one with as little significance as this. Red Slash 00:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clear case of WP:NOPRIMARY.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely support as per WP:NOPRIMARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, because the rugby term is a jargon, indeed the worst sort of jargon where the term does not mean what the word means. PrimaryTopic is prevented by the strong PrimaryMeaning of wikt:try. The rugby term try is so jargonny that is is awkward to define. "Try at goal" no longer matches it's origin. The current Try would be better titled Touchdown (rugby). Even rugby players would better understand you saying "touchdown" instead of "try" out of context. A try in rugby is not when they try, but when they succeed at a touchdown in the goal area. Continuing the silliness of word choice, not that a standard touchdown does not have to touch the ground. In American football, you don't even try to touchdown, whereas in rugby you often have to try very hard to touchdown to try, when the opposition tries very hard to hold it up. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and same for Trying. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:14, 28 August 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.

Proposed: merge Trying

[edit]

Trying should be merged here. Essentially the same word. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts, Paintspot, Cthomas3, JHunterJ, and Red Slash:? @Zxcvbnm, SmokeyJoe, IJBall, Amakuru, and Colin M:?

Closed as not merged. Consensus is against this proposal at this time. bd2412 T 20:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Try&oldid=1253174549"