Talk:WSFL (disambiguation)

Requested move
WSFL (disambiguation) → WSFL – WSFL currently redirects to Web Services Flow Language, which seems not the most common use for WSFL, so it's better to have the dab page at WSFL. S.K. 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The request failed. --Dijxtra 14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose: See comments below. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I oppose unless nom. can give an idea of what would be the most common use. From the dab, the only other choice in the system now is a local radio station and that seems relevant to a fraction of 1% of the world's population. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Using Google as an indicator of "common use", the most common would be the local radio station, since this is the first result. The IBM site on Web Services Flow Language is only second. The set of computer science people interested in Web Services Flow Language might be even less than the 1% of world population reached by the local radio station. ;-) As a CS person myself I'd tend to think those things are important as well, but since Wikipedia is written more for the general public, I'd say there is no clear winner in respect to "most common use". Also when looking into the Wikipedia links for WSFL, there was no overwhelming majority for the CS meaning. That's how I concluded that since there is no clear winner of the popularity contest, the dab page should be at WSFL. --S.K. 10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: One more thought: Since Web Services Flow Language has been superseded by Business Process Execution Language, the usage of that meaning will probably decline with time as well. --S.K. 10:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. In that case, I still oppose but now I think WSFL should be redirected to the radio station with a dablink in the radio station's article pointing either to Business Process Execution Language or to the existing dab page.  I only like direct dab pages like you're proposing in the most extreme cases.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that if the current Web Services Flow Language is defunct, it should be merged into Business Process Execution Language. Also, I fixed the move tag which had the destination as WSDL instead of WSFL.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to elaborate further, my Google results searching for WSFL have on fourth place the "Western States Football League", on eighth the "Wisconsin State Football League". But a lot of the other results are still for "Web Services Flow Language". And two of the wikipedia links for WSFL meant "Western States Football League". So really, for me there is no clear candidate to prefer. --S.K. 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks for fixing the typo!
 * That's my other pet peeve. Forcing all users through a dab page when most of the entries on the dab page are red links.  Turn those into blue links and I may change my mind. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. ;-) But then, my assumption here is that users try to find information on topics with a similar likelyhood in wikipedia as they appear in Google. If this is true, I'd find it more confusing for a reader if they reach a page on a completely different topic than to reach a page, that indicates wikipedia is aware of the different meanings but at the moment has no information on it. Just my 2 cents. --S.K. 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable - as a second resort. I'd be annoyed if the first place I was sent simply told me all the links that Wikipedia doesn't have.  But maybe that's me. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're down to personal taste here, but I'd probably be annoyed if I wanted to get football information only to end up with "geek stuff". ;-) And adjusting arbitrary numbers to the top four meanings of 40%, 40%, 10%, 10% we end up with 60% of "unhappy customers" no way which of the two front runners we choose as first meaning. On the other hand we have only have 20% because we don't have the information and a certain percentage who are annoyed by the second click. Obviously this is pulled out of thin air, but I guess it illustrates my point. --S.K. 14:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)