Talk:Gigaton

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: No consensus. The main arguments below revolve around whether the unit or the album represents the Primary Topic. There is clearly no consensus on that matter; therefore, there can be no consensus on the move that hinges on that matter. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record here's what the gigaton article used to look like before it was merged into tonne. There was a certain logic in the merge as although gigaton is a unit so large (equivalent to a

petagram in weight) it almost always occurs in the context of carbon emissions, it isn't ONLY limited to carbon emissions, so did belong in the main unit article. But it wasn't an album, and still isn't. And here is the "gigaton is" test in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If this proposal is closed unsuccessfully I suggest restoring that content at, say.

Gigaton (unit). —В²C ☎ 14:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose the album title is the
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Other useage is at best a dictionary def, or a redirect to another topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not exist to nom or Support this proposal. These proposals that blatantly ignore policy are disruptive. —В²C ☎ 23:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually the suggestion that if this RM fails to restore

gigaton (unit) is helpful. It's unlikely that any maths or physics editors will weigh in since the article alerts for an RM here won't reach them, while that content deleted from gigaton, and the relation to petagram, was real encyclopaedic information of use to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. Gigaton is an
  SI one. The SI unit is gigatonne. Narky Blert (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support. The scientific unit has greater long-term significance than the album by orders of magnitude. BD2412 T 02:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the scientific unit is only a dictionary def. and doesn't even have an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ton does. "Gigaton" either should, or more likely should be discussed there and redirected there. BD2412 T 02:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The album is the primary topic.
  -- Calidum 03:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support. The scientific unit has indeed greater merit than the album itself.
  talk
  )
• Support. The unit of weight is the primary topic, giga to not giga tonne or giga metric ton or whatever, sorting out which is which is exactly what someone might be using Wikipedia for, and the album is astonishing. Anyone wanting the album should expect to need a second keyword. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there's not even an article for the metric unit, just a one-liner already included in another topic? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That one line is pretty important, and likely precisely the information wanted, unlike the album. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But if it was the primary topic and "likely precisely the information wanted" then it would have its own article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! The information belongs, is important, but it is not best to structure the encyclopedia by putting everything on its own page. Read more at meta:Association of Structurist Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support the album looks to be primary by usage but the unit is probably primary by long-term significance, a DAB may be the best compromise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gigaton (unit) redirects to tonne, where the primary spelling in that article is gigatonne. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Gigaton and gigatonne are used interchangeably by the non-technical. It is a subtle, technical distinction, with the difference being smaller than is relevant to the intended meaning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, relctantly - I can sympathize with the opposers but "ton" actually does have an article, and "gigaton" is a reasonable term to use to search for a reasonable encyclopedic article. The US/UK spelling differences are irrelevant. Red Slash 20:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.