Talk:Prior (ecclesiastical)

[Untitled]

To be, or not to be? Is this thy question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.157.165 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.47 (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2023

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. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Prior → Prior (ecclesiastical)
• Prior (disambiguation) → Prior

– No primary topic, mainly between the religious title and the concept in statistics and probability, which is often called a "prior" as a noun. Page views: [1]. I don't have too much of an opinion on the exact move target; I based Prior (ecclesiastical) on Rector (ecclesiastical). Adumbrativus (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - per nom. Estar8806 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I was quite surprised that Prior went to the article it did, disambiguation is the best solution. The proposed disambiguator seems to be the best option.--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support while Prior probability may not be called just "prior" much it gets more views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at "What links here", I see no false positives. I suspect that is because "prior" on its own, as a noun—a usage I am very familiar with—is not common in encyclopedic prose. Indeed, the sense is highly technical but for a rise in usage within certain online communities. Although the proposed move seems obvious at a glance, I'm not sure what good it does besides create work for Wikipedians who enjoy changing links en masse. The dab page gets ~3 views per day, a tiny fraction of the views of this page and a tinier fraction of those for the probability. Pople don't get here or there through it. Hence, oppose. —Srnec (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

1.7 % of the visits to Prior result in a click to the dab page [2]. If that ratio were 17%, then there would clearly be no primary topic, if it were 0.17, then the status quo would be fine, 1.7% is within the inconclusive range, so we'd need to judge based on other considerations. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The overall traffic is pretty low, so maybe the fact that the hatnote is the 2nd most clicked link in the article is more indicative of there being something a bit off. --Joy (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Page views > incoming links, any day of the week. Steel1943 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  But you are comparing a page that is not title "prior" and is not going to be. Srnec (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for unintentionally pointing out the lack of existence of a redirect such as Prior (statistics), so I went ahead and created it. Steel1943 (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:NOPRIMARY between prior probability and the religious term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment If the hatnote at the top of the page was written in such a way as to include one or more specific alternatives such as the probability page it may render the reasoning for the move moot. Actually, I would suggest that that be done anyway. Gusfriend (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The data on usage isn't enough to draw conclusions either way (pageviews are largely irrelevant, while the usage data, as I point out above, is inconclusive). However, from the standpoint of long-term notability, it's clear that the well-known but rather niche ecclesiastical title isn't the primary topic over the ubiquitous concept in statistics. Whether that article happens to have that term in its title is irrelevant, what matters is that the topic can be referred to using that term. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: The word "Prior" as the religious title has very long term historical use. --Spekkios (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2023 (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.

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)