Talk:TLS

Requested move

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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TLS → TLS (disambiguation) – propose Transport Layer Security is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per evidence below. Widefox; talk 19:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

By article popularity, Transport Layer Security is more popular than all the others combined
TLS has been viewed 1801 times in 201307.
- Transport Layer Security has been viewed 64523 times in 201307. This article ranked 3174 in traffic on wiki.riteme.site.
- GnuTLS has been viewed 959 times in 201307.
- Thread level speculation has been viewed 21 times in 201307.
- Thread-local storage has been viewed 2765 times in 201307.
- Transparent LAN Service has been viewed 270 times in 201307.
- others
- Total least squares has been viewed 1679 times in 201307.
- Tulane University Law School has been viewed 863 times in 201307.
- East Timor has been viewed 37696 times in 201307. This article ranked 9162 in traffic on wiki.riteme.site.
- The Times Literary Supplement has been viewed 957 times in 201307.
- Telstra has been viewed 8684 times in 201307.

The two closest are via codes (East Timor IOC code, Telstra ASX code) further diminishing their usage via this DAB (IMHO).

Google.com TLS and first hit is Transport Layer Security and topic is 40% of first page hits, with no other topic getting more than 1 hit
1. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security‎
2. The Times Literary Supplement | TLS
3. Transport Layer Security (tls) - Charter - IETF
4. RFC 2246 - IETF (Transport Layer Security)
5. Top Law Schools
6. Forum - Top Law Schools
7. What is Transport Layer Security (TLS)?
8. TLS Weight Loss Solution
9. Welcome - TLScontact TLScontact center - United Kingdom, France
10. Thüringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg

A redirect to the primary is not a factor in determining per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Widefox; talk 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – You're serious? TLS? A primary topic claim on a TLA that is this obscure is quite crazy. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious yes, but less strong a case based on usage per the guideline WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it is to be taken seriously but of course given any reasoned argument I'm happy to ignore all rules/withdraw. Is there one? This is no different from consensus on DHCP (disambiguation) (see talk page), or others like ITN (disambiguation) (actually ITN is different - more clearcut). Widefox; talk 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's IETF (disambiguation). I don't think general awareness of an acronym per se should be a factor at all in primary topic selection, only relative likelihood between terms - I'm sure obscure acronym redirects are uncontroversial. This is about "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic" it's WP:PRIMARYUSAGE not primaryawareness or notfornerds. Widefox; talk 11:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Dicklyon. This is suffereing from a large amount of WP:Systematic bias. It doesn't even come close to dominating the top 100 google results. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no. 1 in google does dominate. 40% of the first page supports that. It would be crazy to ignore the fact that "TLS" in Google gives us our page, we don't! Facepalm! We should give readers what they want per guideline (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), without dropping the ball due to (legitimate) concerns about systemic bias. Widefox; talk 08:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not even come close to having 40 results in the first page of results [1]. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's hard to imagine what Widefox is smoking to interpret the google search as supporting his primarytopic claim! Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the default first page is only 10 results, all listed above, I take it that's not disputed? Google TLS and our article comes up. Our pageviews being more important than Google. No smoking needed, although interpretation is another matter. Widefox; talk 10:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a well known term to the public at large. The first thing I think of is the Times Literary Supplement (which is also my first Google result).[2] --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Times Literary Supplement came to mind myself as a UK person, but it is viewed 65x less (google hit is the localisation bias of google.co.uk to .uk - www.google.ie, .de etc have #1 https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security‎ and the topic dominates). Widefox; talk 12:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: it's irrelevant how often the page Transport Layer Security has been read. What matters for this discussion is whether someone searching on "TLS" is overwhelmingly more likely to be looking for that article than for any of the other uses - including my personal "primary topic" for it, the Times Literary Supplement, which is known widely among a much wider circle than the tech-dominated editors of Wikipedia. PamD 13:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree PamD, it's only about "TLS" - is data available like http referer or server logs to inform us? Without, I'm assuming a correlation between acronym and full name. Certainly Times Literary Supplement is well known as TLS, although a UK bias, so doesn't get us away from bias either. I do take everyone's point about systemic bias BTW. Widefox; talk 10:58, 20 July 2013 (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.

Sort

Urhixidur The dab was sorted already per MOS:DABORDER "This might mean in decreasing order of likelihood as user's target,..." (using above). I've refrained undoing you again, can you discuss here please per WP:BRD. Widefox; talk 10:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather take it that the discussion above shows there is no clear dominant meaning for TLS, hence a plain alphabetical ordering is the way to go. Urhixidur (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]