Talk:CCHR

Redirect or dab?
My decision to restore the redirect had nothing to do with nationality or geography but with, as I said in my edit summary, the apparent primary topic associated with this initialism. The Scientology group's article gets 5 to 6 times more page visits than the article for the Cambodian group, and all the current incoming links for CCHR refer to the former article. Per WP:TWODABS, a two-item disambiguation page is considered unnecessary if a primary topic can be identified, which I think it can. In such cases, the primary topic article should remain at the plain title—or, as in this situation involving a redirect, the redirect should point to the primary-topic article—with a hatnote pointing to the secondary use. In this way, the large majority of users who want the Scientology-related article are delivered directly to their desired destination, and the users who want the Cambodian organization's article are accommodated by the hatnote and can reach their destination in the same number of steps as from a dab page. It's an issue of navigational efficiency--that's all.-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  04:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your stance on this issue. From what I can see, even though the article on Citizens Commission on Human Rights receives somewhat more traffic than the one on Cambodian Center for Human Rights on the English Wikipedia, there are more available Google search results for the Cambodian organization than the US-based organization (see  and .  Therefore, there is no clear way to determine the primary topic in this regard and hence a necessity for a disambiguation page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and certainly not worth arguing about further. I will clean up the page per MOS:DAB, and perhaps find another entry or two. Cheers!-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  05:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think NHN's reasoning is sound. --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)