Talk:Overtime

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Overtime → Overtime (work)
• Overtime (disambiguation) → Overtime

–

• At first glance, it seems like
  Overtime hours might also be options. Dekimasuよ! 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: WikiProject Organized Labour has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Business has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Time has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in common usage I think the work meaning would be primary but its clearly not primary by views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Overtime indicates 2k incoming views a month which makes sense for a topic of significance, and hatnote as the top link, though with only 53 identified outgoing clickstreams, which is quite unimpressive. There isn't a whole lot of obvious correlation, at logarithmic scale view, in a page views comparison of the three. I suppose it makes sense to do this as an experiment, format with
  MOS:DABCOMMON to avoid astonishing anyone, and check if the navigation outcomes changed significantly afterwards. --Joy (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I'm really not aware of any circumstance where page views on Wikipedia determines primary topic and FWIW this is circular referencing, which is simply against guidelines (
  WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY indicates multiple elements for this purpose. There needs to be an analysis of reliable sourcing and also some awareness that there are quite widespread varieties of English - overtime might be common in some US sports, but it is not, for example, the most common term in the most played sport in the world: football uses injury time and extra time. Overtime is overwhelmingly used in the context of work and the primary topic. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  >" I'm really not aware of any circumstance where page views on Wikipedia determines primary topic "

  Pageviews is one of two factors we consider in a primary topic. Per

  WP:NOPRIMARY

  setup.

  >"Overtime is overwhelmingly used in the context of work and the primary topic."

  I think your

  WP:NWFCTM bias is showing here. "Overtime" can refer to many things, one of which is in the context of work hours. Your reply asserts that this meaning is the primary topic with no citation of any kind of sources. 162 etc. (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The first problem is self-referencing (ie self-generated content) *in the absence* of any other analysis.

  WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY indicates multiple elements need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Overtime in sports is a primarily US English term. I'm not proposing this move, the onus is on those proposing the move to demonstrate an analysis of reliable sources. I'm more than happy to change my mind, but if an analysis cannot be presented with regard to reliable sources I do not see why a term which is universally used in one way acorss multiple English speaking environments should not be primary against a term which is specific to one particular English speaking environment. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  As a proverbial footnote, would highlight

  WP:PT2. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There are two considerations when determining a primary topic.

  WP:PT1

  , which is the pageviews. The article about the work concept fails this criterion.

  WP:ENGVAR

  .

  So the article currently at

  WP:NOPRIMARY is the best choice. 162 etc. (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There's no "failure" in this discussion - note: "While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider" (emphasis added).

  WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY clearly indicates case-by-case analysis is required and further cautions around the sole use of pageviews/nav links etc: "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons)" (emphasis added). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose per Goldsztajn. There may even be an argument to move Overtime (sports) to Extra time to avoid the dab term. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving

  WP:RETAIN. 162 etc. (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Maybe, but it would satisfy

  WP:NCDAB. Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. That's why we seek consensus. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. Very clear primary topic internationally. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]