Talk:AOC (disambiguation)

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The result of the move request was: withdrawn, with my personal observation that something that should literally be decided numerically is being voted on by peoples feelings instead. There's no doubt that AOC refers to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even in world view (go on, visit BBC and other international resources and tell me what pops up first when you search for AOC). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support AOC as primary topic, include a hatnote on the target to the disambiguation page.Polyamorph (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:NOPRIMARY and just because things rocket up a search engine doesn't mean Wikipedia should immediately switch around pages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:NOTPAPER, and given her Twitter nick is @AOC, I don't expect the nickname to go away any time soon. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  And? Apparently she is suddenly more important and pertinent than the

  Air and Space Operations Center and Aircraft Operations Center and Architect of the Capitol which also use that acronym?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Not more important, but clearly, from the page view stats, users are primarily searching for her and not those other articles you mention.Polyamorph (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We need to exercise higher standards than that for assigning a TLR as a primary topic. What is the viewership trend over the past five years, for example? bd2412 T 10:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; WP:Recentism. Also abbreviation may be used as a Twitter username, or in headlines, with her full name used in the article, whereas Appellation d'origine contrôlée is often just "AOC". Peter James (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per RECENTISM. Let's check in 5 years. CookieMonster755✉ 18:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Support [Edit: per Polyamorph and The Four Deuces below, had originally said wait] until after the 2020 election. If she wins reelection and holds the political power she has had up until now she probably deserves primary on this. In any case, her article's views should keep her as the top name on this page and not tucked in the middle somewhere, for ease of navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Page View statistics are here, would seem that there is much interest in this page since AOC was elected. In my view that points to them being the primary topic. But I can appreciate why some users might want to wait a few years to see if it stays that way. Polyamorph (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've also added the annual readership template talk page banner. Polyamorph (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez is the article the vast majority of readers are searching for when they type in "aoc." No need to make readers go to a disambiguation page and have to look for Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez just because years from now no one may know who she was. TFD (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The politician has a lot of media attention now, yes, but how will things be in 5-10 years? Will we just revert to having no primary topic for AOC, only to make something else primary later when it gains brief media attention? That's one of the main arguments against this move that you haven't refuted at all.
  talk) 07:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Maybe, it's possible for primary topics to change, but this is not a good reason against as we have no idea what the future holds. At present, Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez is indisputedly the primary topic per

MOS:DABPRIMARY: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Polyamorph (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

First: the page you linked to does not support your statement; it is merely a MOS guideline to list the current primary topic first on disambiguation pages. Second, I don't see how Ocasio-Cortez has had enough long-term significance to meet

talk) 07:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• a (generous) baseline daily average of 31 from 7/1/2015 to when she was added on 6/27/2018 to
• a (generous) new daily average of 392 from 11/1/2018 - 7/14/2019; or a conservative daily average of ~200.

This amounts to at least a 6.5x increase (conservative) to a 12.5x increase (generous) in traffic, assuming the majority of the rise is due to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez (I can't see what/who else could have caused it otherwise).   ~ 

dgaf)  20:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose per opposers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That said, would it break any rules in renaming as suggested, but having AOC redirect to the DAB-page? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, per

talk) 07:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a feeling. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.
  WP:RECENTISM due to current news spikes, particularly U.S. media. The pageviews only spiked since roughly the beginning of the year, about seven months. Not enough time IMO. If we moved pages according to this standard, Wikipedia article titles would be constantly in flux. If she is re-elected to a second two-year term in 2020, and goes on to have a long political career, then maybe we can talk. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, I do not believe anyone would search for AOC and be astonished when they find themselves at a dab page. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.
  WP:RECENTISM is about article content where "an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events". Primary topic is about readership usage and long-term significance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per the above. A helpful move for our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  WP:SEO over our ability to be encyclopedic, and having this acronym redirect to a subject specific to the United States could show some bias favoring readers in the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The politician is who people are searching for and her name keeps being removed from the top of the page and put deep into the listings. I just found the link almost at the bottom of the page under 'Other'. That's why the politician should either be primary or a hidden note provided making sure that her name stays at the top of the list - when 95% of people are looking for a particular item Wikipedia shouldn't bury the lead well down the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this move 2601:541:4500:1760:606D:A571:70B7:D72F (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is a term with far, far too many meanings to deem a politician who is known almost exclusively in the United States, and is of virtually no interest to Canadians or Britons or Germans or Australians or South Africans or New Zealanders or Russians or Filipinos, to be the permanent
  primary topic. Yes, she gets called "AOC"; that doesn't mean she's the only topic in the world that gets called that. Her presence on a disambiguation page is perfectly appropriate; giving her precedence over all other AOCs, including a German airport and Swiss wine and ethernet cables, is not. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose. Current solution of putting reference to her article on top is fine. SQB (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - nothing but
  WP:RECENTISM. DoubleCross (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose per
  not yet). —  AjaxSmack  18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 as proposed. Lots of good discussion here. The deciding factor is that the supporters cited clear statistical evidence of primacy via pageviews, and no compelling argument was made whatsoever about long-term significance (though it should be noted that a couple assertions to long-term significance were made). Our policy at

A couple of opposing editors suggested that

• Support as proposer. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per previous RM. There is no need to displace a 3 letter acronym for a colloquial name of a politician. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you can explain it to the ~90% of readers who click-through to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support (per clicked seaches over 90% as linked), primary by number of views but not yet well known enough worldwide to merit primary of the three letters, although may eventually get there. She is the first link at the AOC disamb. page, so readers likely have no trouble finding her page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, currently ~90% of people visiting AOC are clicking through to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But there's no reason for that extra step when they can simply be redirected, with a hatnote at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez back to AOC (disambiguation). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a good case, and it is her common name, so I'll change to support. Looks like AOC International picks up about half of the remaining clicks, so should probably be included in a hatnote if moved. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the ridiculous number of possible meanings of this very common three-letter acronym. BD2412 T 04:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412: I'd argue that there really aren't many practical examples of AOC links from this dab page being primary identity instances (AOC the company, and the AOC under discussion here really being the only two that stand out as using AOC as their identity). Regardless, I'm struggling to understand why we would not direct our readers to the page that ~90% of them are actually trying to reach, with a hatnote for the dab and the AOC company for the other instances? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.
  Air Officer Commanding not significant at all then? Who on earth is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Clearly no primary redirect here. It's not just about pageviews. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  Air Officer Commanding. Meanwhile, ~90% of readers clicked through to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and sources lean heavily into "AOC" being synonymous with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Clearly no primary redirect here. It's not just about pageviews. Correct, it's not just page views. It's also about our readers who, judging from click-throughs, are being stopped at a dab-page when they're really trying to get to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the person who you apparently have never heard of (and thus, is apparently irrelevant to all our readers). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The U.S. congresswoman's page does get over 90% of the bounces from this disamb., and has so consistently for over four years. Many of the last RM's opposers cited 'recentism' as a main reason, but it would seem that the past and continuing consistency would remove that objection. She's commonly known as AOC, and that's what many or most readers will be searching for when looking for her page, which is why the disamb. receives 90%plus of outgoing links going to her article. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I said there is no primary topic, not that any other topic is primary topic. I merely used the highly significant term from British and Commonwealth military history as an example. This is not American Wikipedia. Most of us outside America (and, I will take a stab, even many people in America) have never heard of this woman and would not expect an abbreviation to point to her article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pertaining to the letters AOC specifically, the only other article which picks up many clicks from the AOC disamb is AOC International, and that can be hatnoted. Things like Articles of Confederation usually will not be searched for by initials. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• By usage, the WikiNav data is pretty clear. There is still some room for discussion of there actually being a visible long tail of other AOC usage in there, though. I think we should change
  WP:PTOPIC to say that when there's a disconnect between primary by usage and by long-term significance, that we don't short-circuit navigation, but disambiguate - this is an encyclopedia, not a search engine, and teaching readers to use simple hyperlink navigation is a good thing, not a bad thing. Oppose --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s
  AOC to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Shwcz (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  AOC to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and add a hatnote to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support The link should go to the
  primary topic, which is the one that readers are "highly likely" to be looking for. We don't need to tell readers that before they go to the article about "Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez," AOC also stands for many other things they have never heard of. TFD (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, that'd be a bit of an oblivious take... a huge amount of people are aware of AOC monitors, as they're mass-produced and sold worldwide. If there was a brand of consumer products like 'JFK' that was already common in the 1940s, that would be an issue there, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We have to follow the guideline

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you disagree with the guideline, then get it changed. TFD (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't disagree with it at all in this regard - you are only reading one part of it. What is your argument that the long-term significance of the politician is more than all these other topics combined? Or, why should we disregard long-term significance aspects in favor of usage? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Long-term significance is a consideration "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." None of the topics currently meet that test. The example was "Apple." While more people may be looking for the computer, which is named after the fruit, the fruit has substantially more coverage in reliable sources.

  Another example might be Laurie Bembenek, an American fugitive in the 1980s best known as Bambi. For months, coverage of her overshadowed that of the Disney character, and had Wikipedia been around, most readers typing in Bambi would have been looking for her article. But her name would fade from the news, while the classic Disney film will be rmembered forever. TFD (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone is arguing that any single AOC topic meets that test, rather, the argument is that because none meet it, yet many exist, and recent popular usage isn't so overwhelming to override the latter, the term is ambiguous and there is no primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If none meet it, then no argument can be made to ignore the topic most readers are searching. Without citing the guideline, can you explain why the readers who type in "aoc" instead of "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" should be sent to a disambiguation page instead of the page they were seeking? TFD (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it can, because

  WP:PLA issue? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  All readers are harmed if they have to land on a disambiguation page and have to find the article they are seeking. But if the page goes directly to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, we avoid inconvenience to the 99% of readers who are searching for her article. We even include a hatnote educating them that AOC also stands for other things with a link in case they want to find out what those things are. TFD (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This argument would be much more palatable if it didn't seem to advocate this weird premise that disambiguation pages are inherently harmful. Especially in the case when the top link is to the most common meaning and there's very little to search for. Perhaps not helpful enough to readers, but hardly harmful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Answer this question: "If I was looking for the article about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and typed in "aoc," I would prefer to: (a) land on her article, or (b) land on a disambiguation page with links to over 30 articles about topics that have been referred to as AOC, then find and click on the linked article for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." TFD (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is very little to find when her link is at the very top of the list. Even the fact that most people click through over there can be thought of in a different way - that most people don't actually have a problem clicking through the first link in the list :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IOW you are making it more difficult for readers but you don't care. You don't happen to work in the civil service by any chance/ TFD (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If clicking the first link in a list is your definition of "difficulty", perhaps you need to think of doing something other than making witty retorts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per
  Air Officer Commanding and other topics that were relevant before and will still be relevant after her time in the limelight has passed. If she rises to the level of a JFK or LBJ then we can think again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. An even stronger case now than it was three years ago. You don't have to "rise to the level of a JFK or LBJ" to have long-term significance. I think by any metric, the politician does have long-term significance. And with 90+% of users looking for the article on her, it's a clear primarytopic by both criteria. It is user-unfriendly to put our readers through unnecessary extra steps. Dohn joe (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Locke Cole. Per wikinav, it does seem most users coming here are looking for the American politician. Koopinator (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose after having a glass of
  No such user (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You were saying? —Locke Cole • t • c 15:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The politician is the clear primary topic for AOC per wikinav data. More than 90% of users who search for AOC are looking for the politician. Vpab15 (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per the excellent and well argued nomination, the data says it clearly what/who the readers are searching for. At the time when the 1st RM was brought up three years ago, it was a clear case of
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - the notion that the abbreviation should be understood with that topic is recentism and US-centric. The world is bigger than US. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]