Talk:Venting

Requested move 20 August 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Venting (disambiguation) → Venting
Venting → Venting (album)

– Sorry about this, a RM has been forced by an editor who believes that the album qualifies per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but with a dozen basic uses related to 915 hits for "Venting is" in Google Books a 2005 only album by a Kentucky grunge band is not the absolute majority meaning of "venting" in mankind's history. The album doesn't even have a cover or sources and isn't clear why would pass WP:NALBUMS. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Sorry about this, but an article stable at this title for over ten years was unilaterally moved with no justification or evidence. See WP:TITLECHANGES. This is not about random word searches. According to WP:DISAMBIGUATION, this is simply about topics on Wikipedia called "Venting". "Venting" is an English word - it gets used in lots of sentences. That doesn't mean those uses are topics on WP. Surely if there were another candidate for primary topic for "Venting" someone besides In ictu would have spotted it sometime in the past decade. Dohn joe (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This just means that for 10 years anyone looking for greenhouse gases, soil, or industrial medical or chemical uses of "Venting" has had this in the way of their search results. And we have traffic from mislinks from Arc mapping, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Chimney Sweep Guild. Is it likely that such links expected an indie album to be sitting at venting?

This illustrates the problem, when we insert a trivial (and in this case non-notable) entertainment product in the search slot of a common English word we jam up the search engine, what is not to understand? And you didn't notice it in 10 years. But it was brought to your attention and you decided to force this RM, why? WP:MOVE allows common sense moves, and why are you opposing? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three mislinks after ten years is not an argument to move. It shows how rarely our editors, and probably readers, expect "Venting" to lead to anything at all. Consider this: if it were not for this album, Venting would still be a redlink. As for notability, see WP:NOTABLE. Dohn joe (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, Venting would be a redlink and the search function would find the other pages and the mislinks wouldn't have happened. That's the whole point. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for "venting" found 17,100,000 hits, mostly about venting off gases. Page wikt:venting in Wiktionary has existed since 19:39, 30 June 2007. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this is clearly not the primary topic. Indeed "venting" is a noun, and usually means the vent systems found in construction. WP:ASTONISHed that this has lasted 10 years without being changed. Per Anthony Appleyard, this album hardly registers. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's vacate the page and allow something more dominant to take its place. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can someone do up a page on the techncial meaning of venting? It's also important for the Wikiproject Sanitation. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The title is a vague term with multiple meanings, and the fact that the current article has been sitting at the current title for a decade just proves that the situation has probably been wrong for almost a decade. (It may have been the only topic in existence on Wikipedia by this name when it was created, but that situation is long gone.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Total Support per nom, this is a case for which Least was written.Pincrete (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clear absence of a primary topic. bd2412 T 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. There is much cleanup needed in the album-, band-, and song-name disambiguation department on Wikipedia. One step closer. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, because it's a generic noun derived from Vent which is also disambiguated, and it's common practice to combine these. There's no proof album is the primary topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2015 (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.