Talk:WebCrawler

References

I can't believe that there are no reliable sources for this. Surely some newspaper, somewhere, has mentioned it even once? Can any editor who watches this page and knows the topic please supply a reference? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Removed spam from talk page. Slightly bungled it, but got it right eventually, see notes in log for details! --FeralOink (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) samee converse 17:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WebCrawler (search engine) → WebCrawler – Currently, this is unnecessary disambiguation, as WebCrawler currently redirects to WebCrawler (search engine).[1] The page history/move logs here indicate that this article has been moved several times within the past month (including 2 within the last 48 hours)[2][3] I have not seen any previous discussion about what should the actual article title be, so I am starting one here now. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to WebCrawler. Webcrawler points to web crawler, but even in 2010 @Sieste: stated at Talk:Webcrawler: "Not that it really matters: both articles have hatnotes pointing at the other." This is relevant because the search tools were a lot more case-sensitive than they are now, but the hatnotes still serve well enough without the need for further disambiguation.

webcrawler doesn't actually get many views (4 a day, compared to 54 for the redirects to this target excluding both the existing and requested target titles) so the chance of readers actually confusing WebCrawler and web crawler seems slight. 94.21.253.25 (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic here but I wonder how you get data that shows page views per day for an article? --Tim42 (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took the mean average. The Page Information, available from the sidebar, tells you the number of page views over the last thirty days, so you can just divide it by thirty. The external Page Views tool (clickable from there) gives you more choices over the range of dates, and will tell you the number of page views per (UTC) day when you hover over the graph. 62.165.227.102 (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per OP. If the current primary redirect at WebCrawler isn't a problem, then moving the article to that title also isn't a problem. -- Netoholic @ 09:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I was the original person that made the move from WebCrawler Search to WebCrawler, back on 7th January. I felt it wasn't particularly controversial so therefore just went with it. The main reason why I moved it is because WebCrawler is clearly distinguished from web crawler by having no space and a capital C. --Tim42 (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.