Talk:New Order

Primary destination?

Is it right that this disamb page should be the first destination for people looking for "New Order"? I thought that the protocol (and I may well be wrong but my subjective experience is that most pages work this way) was to direct to the most likely wanted article (in this case I'd guess New Order (Band)) and then offer disambiguation from there. The way this page works is that absolutely no-one gets straight to their desired page forcing everyone to navigate a disamb page when a good proportion of them could have been saved the additional jump. danno 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll make a move request. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood the OP. It appears to be saying that the band is the primary topic and should be where readers are directed to instead of a disambiguation page. However it is not completely clear what the basis of the complaint is. In October 2010, both the band and disambiguation pages were at their present titles. I think the OP might be referring to the redirect at new order, which in October 2010 was a redirect to the disambiguation page. This was changed in November 2010 to redirect to the band article. older ≠ wiser 20:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to primary location (2011)

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Order (disambiguation) → New order
New Order → New Order (band)

– There is just no way the English band is the primary topic for this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The band consistently has significantly more traffic than any other article on the dab page and more than all of them combined.[1], even including those entries that are only partial title matches. For August 2011 through the 11th, the band had 25,435 views. The next closest with 7,351 is the partial title match Novus ordo seclorum (which arguably is not actually ambiguous with "New Order"). All the other pages combined had 20,443 (including many partial title matches). For July 2011, the band had 69,821 views. #2 was again Novus ordo seclorum with 19,136. All the other pages combined had 56,739. Finally, the disambiguation page was viewed only 259 times in August and 755 times in July. That doesn't indicate there are a whole lot of people who needed to go to the disambiguation page after arriving at the band article. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 55% traffic share isn't what I'd call an overwhelming dominance. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 55% includes all of the partial title matches, which are arguably not ambiguous with "New Order". Excluding the partial title matches it is not even close. older ≠ wiser 19:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used your numbers. Don't blame me because if didn't use the right ones. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about blame? I tried to indicate as clearly as I could that the figures included the partial title matches. And yet you misinterpreted the figures so I reiterated the qualification. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The above page view data, and the lack of any reasoning or evidence to go with the original move request -- Foetusized (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New order is usually understood to be a something about a new "order", regime changes, or other paradigm shifts of some kind. It's a very generic concept. The more notable ones are the various new world orders and things like the Nazi's Neuordnung (~~the band is named after this one~~). This should be the main target per WP:ASTONISH, unlike New Order (band) which is probably the last place I expected to land. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69,821 views for the band in July vs. 9328 for New Order (Nazism) suggests significantly more people might be astonished not to land at the band's article. Derivation is not a strong indicator of primary topic, else Boston would get you to the place in England rather than in Massachusetts. New world order (politics) had 7461 views. Neuordnung had only 5 views. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the difference in capitalization (which is modification to the proposed change after the initial request): it would be inappropriate to place the disambiguation page at new order since every one of the listed options (with the exception of new world order (politics) is a proper noun. older ≠ wiser 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be equating "I think this way" with "Most everyone else thinks the way I do." For more people than you seem to realize, myself included, "New Order" is the name of a musical group, and does not bring to mind a generic political concept. Sorry, but I still see no reason for this proposed move -- Foetusized (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose HEY HEADBOMB. The band was named after "The People's New Order of Kampuchea" (Cambodia) because the members saw it in a newspaper article and liked the sound of it. You would see this in the New Order article if you would take a couple minutes to glance over it.-- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is non-constructive contribution. The closing admin will be far more likely to consider your opinion if provide a valid rationale based on policies and/or guidelines. They will be unlikely to consider your opinion if you shout at good faith contributors. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 55% of the page views, especially when the article is already at the primary topic, means that it is not "highly likely" (quoting from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) that a reader typing "New Order" in the search bar will be looking for the article on the band. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geeze, how many times do I have to say this - that 55% calculation includes many partial title matches which should be discounted -- the point I was trying to make (apparently poorly) is that even if you include all the unlikely to be ambiguous partial title matches, the band is still significantly more likely. If the unambiguous partial title matches are excluded, there is simply no contest. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the page view stats are strongly influenced by the band already being at the primary topic. In addition, have a search for "New Order" in google books – apart from two Books LLC hits (which copy content from Wikipedia), I didn't see any books relating to the band in the first 10 pages of results. Jenks24 (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"New Order"

The usage of New Order is under discussion, see talk:New Order (band) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]