Talk:UBC (disambiguation)

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: Page moved and UBC redirected to University of British Columbia. -- Hadal (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UBC → UBC (disambiguation) –

The current 'UBC' page is actually a disambiguation page that lists articles with names that form the acronym UBC - it should be renamed 'UBC (disambiguation)'. This current 'UBC (disambiguation)' page has a minor history that prevents autoconfirmed-users from moving 'UBC' to 'UBC (disambiguation)'. By freeing up the 'UBC' page, it can be used to redirect to University of British Columbia, which is most commonly associated with the acronym UBC. Tone.itdown1901 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious that there is a primary target for the three letter combination. Suggest a fuller discussion before moving. older ≠ wiser 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support From a simple Google search, it is clear that the term 'UBC' is most widely recognised as being the abbreviation for the University of British Columbia. Web search: ubc "university of british columbia" yields 8,690,000 results; image search of 'UBC' yields entire pages of images of the university, its students/faculty and its logo. Handsdown.1 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also think the current page should be named UBC (disambiguation), whilst the page titled UBC should redirect to the University of British Columbia for a number of reasons:
1. Well known universities such as UCLA, MIT, JHU, UNSW, HKU all redirect to the full name pages of their respective universities.
2. Even terms such as Harvard and Stanford (which could refer to people) redirect to their universities - whilst there are distinct disambiguation pages i.e. Harvard (disambiguation).
3. UBC is ranked among the top 30 universities in the world by academic criteria and top 31 by reputation by Times Higher Education - it is therefore a very well known institution. It would be an inconvenience for people looking up this well-established university to type 'UBC' in the Wikipedia search bar only to be taken to a disambiguation page; and then have to click the university link to view the actual page of interest. Can.ada.man01 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The University of British Columbia should be the primary topic/target for the page UBC. This page should be moved to UBC (disambiguation). The University is widely recognized by this initialization (evidence in the logo it uses; and its major brand site http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcbrand/. The use of 'UBC' in social media is a strong indication of how strongly the University's public identity is associated with this initialization: the University's official Youtube channel/account is 'UBC': http://www.youtube.com/user/UBC Psy.kick.chic (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The University of British Columbia is the first (and only) thing that comes to mind with "UBC", but my background possibly biases my viewpoint (no, I wasn't a student at the institution). The "UBC" brand is certainly recognized internationally. +mt 11:37, 14 June 2011 (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.

Revisit whether UBC should point to UBC (disambiguation) page or University of British Columbia as primary topic

Dear Bkonrad (aka older ≠ wiser),

Thanks for the lighting fast revert[1] on UBC and also for restoring[2] the University of British Columbia hatnotes. I hastily and incorrectly assumed that there was no discussion on the disambiguation talk page because there were no hatnotes on the University page.

Regarding that disambiguation talk page move discussion, in which you participated, there was absolutely no opposition to redirecting UBC to University of British Columbia rather than the robust UBC (disambiguation) page as summarized here:

Tone.itdown1901 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
older ≠ wiser 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Handsdown.1 (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can.ada.man01 (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Psy.kick.chic (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support +mt 11:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this superficial show of unanimous support, I am very concerned that there was no meaningful discussion.

More than half of the discussion came from usernames created the morning of June 14, 2011 (users Handsdown.1, Can.ada.man01, and Psy.kick.chic), apparently for the sole purpose of that move discussion. Of even greater concern to the adequacy of the discussion is that Tone.itdown1901 is now blocked because that user is a "confirmed sock puppet" and "abusively used one or more accounts."

Finally, +mt, a Canadian resident discounts his support by stating "my background possibly biases my viewpoint." User:Hadal, who closed out the discussion, also has this Canadian national bias.

That leaves you as the only non-sock puppet and non-biased party to that discussion. At the time you said, "It is not obvious that there is a primary target for the three letter combination. Suggest a fuller discussion before moving." Given your reluctance to move then, the apparent inadequacy of the discussion, and the specter of sock puppetry, would you support revisiting this issue?

Ciricula (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was cross-posted on the following talk pages:User talk:Bkonrad, Talk:UBC (disambiguation), Talk:UBC, and User talk:Hadal

@Ciricula: Note: The genesis of the above move was this edit placed under the "Uncontroversial requests" heading. Later, I moved the request to the "Contested requests" section. Another admin later copied the contested request to create the the move request above. I did not follow the discussion very closely and I don't have that strong of an opinion. My only concern at the time was that the move shouldn't have been performed as a uncontroversial request without discussion. Considering what you learned about the other editors commenting in the discussion and especially that the original poster is a confirmed sockmaster, it may well be worth revisiting the decision. I'd suggest starting a new discussion, following the instructions at WP:RM. older ≠ wiser 18:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]