Talk:Swiss

message: Disambiguation pages are for a list of article that might share the same name, not a listing of related articles. So Swiss should redirect to Switzerland, and this dab should be moved to Swiss (disambiguation).
*Propose and Support.--Commander Keane 17:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts on this is the related to section should be entirely removed and move the relevant DAB options to be with the rest of the article, I Support Swiss being redirected to Switzerland as this article has all the "related to" topics necessary at the bottom Thaagenson 15:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Commander Keane 15:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeated same process-Gwguffey (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect proposal

message: :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. Cleanup required. (closed by non-admin page mover)  feminist | wear a mask, protect everyone 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Swiss (disambiguation) →  – Looking at the history of the redirect , you can see its target has oscillated between Switzerland, Swiss people and Swiss International Airlines, and there have been several suggestions (like in the 2010 RM above) for moving the dab page to the primary title. Disambiguating should be the obvious choice when people can't agree on the target of a redirect. And as far as I can see there's no primary topic for the term – it's unlikely that readers looking for the country will search for "Swiss" rather than "Switzerland", and the readers who do search for "Swiss" are likely to be looking for things that are Swiss, like the people or the airline. – Uanfala (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also going through the links, and in several places using AWB you have actually changed the displayed text from "Swiss" to "Switzerland" while retaining the link to Swiss, i.e. replaced with Switzerland instead of  Swiss. I've reversed the pipe or, more often, replaced with Swiss which perhaps you had intended. 94.21.252.238 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

text: As for the pageviews – 15 a day for the dab page vs. 70 for the redirect Swiss – that would indicate a primary topic if there weren't any incoming links. But there are quite a few of them, so it's not at all clear what proportion of traffic comes from these links. We can't know, but my experience so far has been that if the dab page receives more than 1/10th of the traffic, then RMs arguing for the absence of a primary topic have usually been successful.  – Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your comment that it's unlikely anyone searching for Switzerland would search for Swiss, and since there are 1200+ incoming links and only 70 hits per day, I think it's likely that most of those hits are coming from links. That's why, if those links are cleaned up, I think those 70 hits will drop very significantly, and it will then be relatively unimportant whether Swiss is a redirect or a dab page. I think some editors will still link to Swiss expecting it to be a redirect, but those can be corrected fairly easily as they occur. Station1 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 May 2020 

message: , if you're wondering why people continue making that edit, the reason is that the "established" version simply followed the format for a dab page with a primary topic (see MOS:DABPRIMARY). If there's no primary topic, then the format is almost always changed to the standard, where there's no single entry singled out at the top. I don't believe there's much of a difference either way, but the format with each of the two entries - for the country and the people - on individual bulleted lines seems a bit clearer. – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . I would recommend changing it back. Interstellarity (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Well, I see. I thought that "adjectival form" is more generally valid and the linguistically correct term than just rewriting it. "Something of, from or relating to" is not exactly the same. But that's my academic attitude, I suppose. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Besides, if we use "adjectival form" then "Swiss may also refer to: Swiss people" becomes obsolete. -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format