Talk:ATF (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | On 6 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from ATF to ATF (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 6 May 2022
- 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. Usage clearly and overwhelmingly favours the BATFE as the primary topic.
One opposer used "other stuff exists", and the other disputed the BATFE's long-term significance but failed to establish that any other ATF has long-term significance strong enough to nullify the BATFE's usage edge. Overall, neither of these opposing arguments are compelling. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
ATF → ATF (disambiguation) – ATF should redirect to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is the primary topic. Ninety percent of outgoing page views are for the U.S. government agency. Schierbecker (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
]
- Oppose per MOS:ACROTITLE. There are enough non-US entries there for this to continue on being a disambiguation page. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)]
- IRS are perfect examples of similar situations where the acronym redirects to the primary topic. Schierbecker (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Just a note that that the figure of 90% is relative to the total outgoing traffic that's recorded in the WP:Clickstream dataset. Targets that receive less than 10 clicks for the month aren't recorded, so that figure represents an upper bound. To get the lower bound, you need to compare the 775 clicks for the Bureau link in March with either the total views of the dab page for that month (1524, which includes readers who didn't follow any of the links from the dab) or with the upper bound for the number of total clickthroughs (those recorded + the maximum possible for those that weren't; that's 775+28+24+28+23*9 = 1062). – Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Many significant meanings. There is no way that the US department is more significant than them all taken together. Andrewa (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support. We may be a global encyclopedia, but that doesn't stop a US entity from being a primary topic for a given term, just like it wouldn't stop a UK or Canadian one. -- Vaulter 14:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments here against the move are extremely uncompelling. 90% of views is a supremely strong WP:PRIMARYTOPIC appeal and needs to be met with specific, detailed arguments towards the second criterion. Absolutely nothing of the sort is found here. "There is no way" is not a compelling argument. Red Slash 21:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)]
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.