Talk:Breaking

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was consensus is against the move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The tool is new, but it is certainly informative and provides guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Based on the nominations currently before us, the traffic tool currently appears to provide no useful evidence at all. Perhaps its use can be refined, but its batting average so far is woeful. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
By batting average, one page that showed 37% more views was kept as primary usage, while another was rejected as showing primary usage even though it had 5 times as many views. Go figure. A lot may be the difference between establishing a new consensus or maintaining an old one, and I doubt that the example of 37% (1.37:1) is the lowest for "primary usage". It also appears that few editors are familiar with the tool. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tool is new, but it is certainly informative and provides guidance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Based on the nominations currently before us, the traffic tool currently appears to provide no useful evidence at all. Perhaps its use can be refined, but its batting average so far is woeful. Andrewa (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
By batting average, one page that showed 37% more views was kept as primary usage, while another was rejected as showing primary usage even though it had 5 times as many views. Go figure. A lot may be the difference between establishing a new consensus or maintaining an old one, and I doubt that the example of 37% (1.37:1) is the lowest for "primary usage". It also appears that few editors are familiar with the tool. 199.125.109.28 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion