Talk:ATT

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS non-admin closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATT → ATT (disambiguation) – The phone company AT&T is clearly primary topic here. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Much of the proposal makes sense, but forcing readers to click through yet another article to get to modern day AT&T seems wrong. It would be better to have a single article on AT&T which focuses on the current company, and then have a history section which links to daughter article(s) on prior iterations of the company. Majoreditor (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't seem to understand the proposal - I propose that after this move, ATT would redirect to AT&T. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, got it. The bot re-directed me to another page to comment on the other proposal. I support. a redirect from ATT to AT&T. Majoreditor (talk) 04:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: no evidence that the US phone company is "clearly" primary as asserted. PamD 13:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did a Google search. Everywhere single result on the first six pages was about the phone company. The Arms Trade Treaty was the first result on page 7 - everything else on page 7 was the phone company. AT&T is also the only result on the first page if you tell Google to exclude pages that include the word "phone". Second page has a Jewish Schools organization on page 2, and then right back to AT&T. So, AT&T dominates Google searches for ATT, even if you tell Google to exclude the word phone. I consider that pretty clear evidence. Also,
    WP:BLUE. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The problem with a Google search is that none of the results actually use the initialism "ATT" to refer to the company; it's just Google ignoring the ampersand. Powers ^T 16:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if you exclude "&" from the search, you still have half of the results about the phone company. I honestly can't find any search on Google that eliminates the phone company from the results. Can you? Ego White Tray (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what that proves, aside from the fact that the company has its hands in a lot of different businesses. Mainly, though, I haven't seen any evidence that "ATT" is a common way to refer to "AT&T". Powers ^T 02:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No evidence presented above that ATT is ever used to refer to AT&T. I'm sure it is, but the point is that we're a long, long, long way from establishing it as primary usage, and I am very skeptical. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I'm not sure there is compelling information to substantiate which ATT a person is looking for. It would be very interesting if wikipedia could expose the statistics for click through on disambiguation pages. But since that isn't the case, I'm not sure we could assume what visitors are looking for. An additional issue we have is to determine which AT&T page to direct to, especially since they have their own disambiguation page and discussions about merging out content at Talk:AT&T. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2012 (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.