Talk:M16 (disambiguation)

M16 should redirect to the rifle

There is a question if M16 should redirect to the rifle or the disambig page. While there was a consensus over the correct M16 page title, the military use of the M16 designation, is by a order of magnitude the most common use and meaning of M16. Thoughts? Ve3 20:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no question at all. M16 rifle started at this page. After discussion, it was moved to make way for this abbreviation expansion page. The issue has been resolved (about 4 times now). You contest the consensus of a dozen editors over a period of a year or more.

It is not good practice to redirect a page and subvert the consensus. Pretending that the documented discussion never happened by moving to another Talk page, where folks are less likely to see your comments, is not in the spirit of WP:AGF.

--William Allen Simpson 21:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The orginal debate did not have to do with if it was a primary topic, it was over the correct page name not if it M16 should redirect to it. There never was clear consesus on if the page should redirect here, nor did this happen 4 times. I would agree 'subverting conseus' and 'pretending discussion never happend' are all wrong, but I none did none of those things. Threating me with being banned to get your way, and to avoid a discussion I also consider wrong. The only thing not in the spirit the wikipedia has been your behavior. Ve3 22:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks didn't decide to move a page to a "correct page name", but leave the redirect. The redirect was immediately redone as an abbreviation page. There's no legitimate contest about the prior consensus, as the edits leave a clear history. Your move vandalism is far beyond normal dispute resolution. The pages have been restored 4 times so far.

--William Allen Simpson 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong. They decided ont he correct page name for the M16 rifle, not if it was the primary redirect. It was not "immediately" redone- it was over a month before it was changed to a disambiguation page. There is no consensus about this page nor was the ever a formal discussion about it. The "majority of links in existing articles" that go to M16 refer to the M16 (in fact only a couple do not). 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move M16 to M16 (disambiguation)

I have filed a requested move, to move M16 to M16 (disambiguation).

The reason is to allow M16 to redirect to M16 rifle, which is by far the most common meaning. You can discuss the move here. --Commander Keane 02:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose -- this was previously discussed here, now M16 rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M16 rifle was renamed after discussion, and the redirect was made into a proper abbreviation page here as usual. Whether the rifle is the "most common" is irrelevant. There is one user that lost the previous debate (twice, both July-August 2005, and January-February 2006), and continued a move and redirect campaign afterward. --William Allen Simpson 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- That debate was over the page name of M16 rifle, not if it was a primary source. It is not a ll irrelevant if it is the most common. Per Disambiguation#Primary_Topic if the majority of links go to it, that is a critical reason for a disambig. I not only did not loose the debate "twice"- I was not apart of the early discussion and the second was with 1 other person- but I did not start the quote "redirection campaign". It is called a Requested moves application- which was done by user Commander Keene. Ve3 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose less than than six months since the last WP:RM --Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment' There was never a formal WP:RM, and even if you do, it has been more than 6 months. The debate about the correct page name took place in June 2005 and the talk between two people was in August 2005. Ve3 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• OPPOSE 132.205.44.134 02:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It is my understanding that anon. accounts do not facter in for votes.

• Support According to wikipedia policy- the major considerideration if a page shold be a primary source is the number of redirects that refer to the page. Of the links that link to M16 I have done a analysis on April 4 2006- there are about 56 links to this page. Of those, all but about four refer to the M16 rifle. Ve3 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This was previously discussed here, now M16 rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). M16 rifle was renamed after discussion, and the redirect was made into a proper abbreviation page here as usual. Whether the rifle is the "most common" is irrelevant. There is one user that lost the previous debate (twice, both July-August 2005, and January-February 2006), and continued a move and redirect campaign afterward. --William Allen Simpson 06:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring previous discussion, what is the reason for this oppose? The rifle seems to be, easily, the most common usage seen on the dab page.--Commander Keane 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"There is one user that lost the previous debate" I not only did not loose the debate "twice"- I was not apart of the early discussion and the second was with 1 other person. The former was not about if it was primary source, and the latter was not a formal redirect either. Also, I did not start the quote "redirection campaign". It is called a Requested moves application and is quite correct do as the far majority of that link m16 refer to the M16 rifle. Ve3 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Previous requested move:Talk:M16 rifle#Page title February 2006 --Philip Baird Shearer 14:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That is totally incorrect there was not a debate about a requested move in february 2006. There was a debate about the page name in July 2005- which did not include if this page should be a redirect. The second discusion was not a debate at all, but question somone had if M16 had dash (e.g. M-16). And the third- which was between 2 people was- was in August 2005.

• I would again point out that according primary source, if the the amount of redirects to a page link to the M16 rifle, then that is one of the reasons for making it a disambigation. Consider that of about 56 links all but ~4 refer to M16 rifle. Ve3 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well I finally saw what you are refering to- but that was by one user who never actually declared a debate, was the only one to vote in it, and then put discussion around unrelated debates. Ve3 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Requested move 24 April 2022

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

---

M16 → M16 (disambiguation) – M16 should redirect to the rifle, which is far and away the primary topic. page views. Schierbecker (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. The next viewed page is MI6, which is a typo and not a real thing to disambiguate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Came here expecting to oppose and was surprised at the the dearth of other major M16 topics. —  AjaxSmack  03:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Very clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.