Talk:CJCS-FM

Requested move 7 November 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved as per discussion. (non-admin closure) Bradv  04:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

CJCS → CJCS (AM) – I propose moving this page, currently titled "CJCS" to "CJCS (AM)". The reason is that CJCS is a common abbreviation for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (for which this article already has a disambiguation template at the top). It appears that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs article has an average of roughly 1,000 views per day, while this article averages around 10 views per day. After this page move, the page titled "CJCS" could be either 1) made into a disambiguation page or 2) made into a redirect to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I propose the latter, due to the much more common use of CJCS as referring to the Chairman, than to the radio station.  Ergo Sum  22:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=cjcs&num=10 In ictu oculi (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this article already hatnotes to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm not sure why the proposal is actually necessary. The number of page views, further, isn't that helpful a comparison — what those numbers show is that the overwhelming majority of people who want the article on the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are using the title "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", not the title "CJCS", to get there. If this page were garnering a couple of hundred hits a day, I'd be more convinced that some of those people were expecting the title to get them to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, because that would be an abnormal number of hits for a small-town radio station — but at just ten hits per day, even if I charitably assume a 50-50 split between people who wanted the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and people who wanted the radio station, that's just not a significant number of people at all. And since the reality is that most traffic is directed to articles via the wikilinks in other articles than via direct search-bar searches, the number of people who get here because they were expecting to get here is far closer to 90 per cent or more of those hits than it is to 50. And even if it does occasionally happen that somebody actually does type CJCS while expecting it to get them to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the hatnote redirects them to the right place anyway. And furthermore, the correct disambiguator for a radio station is not "(radio station)"; it's "(AM)" for a radio station on the AM band or "-FM" for a radio station on the FM band. Accordingly, I could potentially support moving the article to CJCS (AM), but not to "CJCS (radio station)". Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction. I've adjusted the proposed move to CJCS (AM). While your estimates on search bar vs. internal link arrivals at this article may be accurate, it is still true that the abbreviation CJCS much more commonly refers to the Chairman than the radio station. A quick google search reveals this, as does any survey of academic literature and news articles.  Ergo Sum  00:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of what the abbreviation can refer to is irrelevant to the question of what title people are or aren't actually using to get to the Wikipedia article. If the number of people actually attempting to get to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by using "CJCS" is as negligible as it is, then the current situation (in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is already hatnoted to catch that one in a hundred exception) simply isn't causing any actual problems. That's my question: why fix what ain't broke? Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bearcat. The evidence shows that any theoretical abiguity is in practice negligible. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: current hatnote is sufficient. Ebonelm (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * Update: Pursuant to the above discussion, as of August 2017 the radio station has converted from the AM band to the FM band — meaning that its article had to be moved to CJCS-FM, because -FM is always part of the call sign for a Canadian FM radio station. Accordingly, the grounds for it retaining "primary topic" for the undisambiguated "CJCS" are much weaker than they were a year ago, and so I've now converted that into a dab page. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CJCS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922170143/http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/17092010/2/biz-finance-haliburton-broadcasting-group-inc-buys-three-ontario-radio.html to http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/17092010/2/biz-finance-haliburton-broadcasting-group-inc-buys-three-ontario-radio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)