Talk:Open loop (disambiguation)

Requested move 4 June 2018

 * 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. 

Not moved. The argument that opposes this request based upon policy appears to be strongest. While there is numerical consensus for the first move, there is no consensus for the second move, and obviously the "Open loop" title must be vacated in order to make the first move. Of course, there is no prejudice for a new requested move if one or more other "Open loop" articles are created. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  01:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

– The disambig page should be at the noun form, not the adjective (hypheated) form. The article currently at that position is a tiny unsourced stub, certainly not primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Open-loop → Open loop
 * Open loop → Open loop (rhetorical device)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. There is no other article that would be titled "open loop". The other articles all use "open-loop..." as a modifier in a longer title. There's no real reason for the dab page at all, but it doesn't really get in the way of anything as it is; it would if its title was changed. Station1 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right. As a compound epithet before a noun, of course it's hyphenated. But it should certainly not be hyphenated when "loop" is the noun that is modified by a preceding adjective. Tony (talk)  13:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: cut-and-paste moves in edit histories here. Dekimasu よ! 19:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're referring to this edit in 2007, a WP:HISTMERGE could be done, but I'm not sure it's necessary for such a simple dab page, especially since it was attributed in both edit summaries. Station1 (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support the first move, move the second one to Tension loop or delete it: Wikipedia topics (even dab pages) should usually be nouns. An open loop is a conceptual or literal loop that has an absence of feedback. Systems (and people) that do not make effective use of feedback are thus often described as having an open loop, so "open loop" is a perfectly good noun. Regarding the second suggested move, the article about the rhetorical device is completely unsourced, so we don't really have any evidence of its common usage. Web searches for "open loop" and "open loop rhetoric" and "open loop rhetorical device" turn up basically nothing about this rhetorical device. I was able to eventually find much more relevant topics by searching for "tension loop", which also seems like a term that is easier to understand. (I was surprised to find that Waiting for the other shoe to drop is a red link on Wikipedia; Cliffhanger isn't.) —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support first option. Tony (talk)  13:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as nominated. I looked into "tension loop" and it's also ambiguous; the most common usage of the phrase today is in "pick-up artist" slang; just Google it and you'll see.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:30, 15 June 2018 (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.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Open loop which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That discussion was moved here below. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2019

 * 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: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

– Today marks the inauspicious one-year anniversary of the questionable closing of an RM that left a completely unsourced rhetorical device, once called "the stubbiest of stubs", as the primary meaning of "open loop". The rhetorical device is a question that cries out for an answer – i.e., a system that sorely needs feedback. Properly, open loop and open-loop should be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs to Control loop. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Open-loop → Open loop (disambiguation)
 * Note: this request became malformed upon the deletion of the Open loop page, so that page has been removed from this request.  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  02:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed. And I'll also nominate the current stubby open loop article for deletion. Dicklyon (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: the AfD is leaning toward delete, so this will likely make the outcome simpler. Comment there if you care. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I moved the RM discussion from Talk:Open loop to here, so that it is on the same page as the prior discussion and won't get deleted if the other article is deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. You can't move "Open-loop" to "Open loop (disambiguation)" if "Open loop" is deleted: it would be WP:MALPLACED. I suggest you now wait for the Afd to be settled. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You may have missed where I said I believe Open-loop should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Control loop. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Open loop was freed up, I made it a redirect to Control loop as you suggested. Anyone objecting to that? Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Move Open loop → Tension loop as proposed. However, while I agree with the nominator that the primary meaning is in the domain of control systems, I'm not sure whether Open-loop controller or Control loop is the best target. I would argue for the former, and in the absence of the obvious one, the dab page would be the best choice. So I'd say, Open loop→Tension loop + Open-loop→Open loop. No such user (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2019 (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.