Talk:Bend

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Primary topic for Bend?[edit]

Page view counts for various uses of Bend show that the city in Oregon is visited more than twice as often as any other topic named Bend. Only two topics get more than a dozen hits per day, and these are unlikely to be sought by the search term "bend" anyway (that's Bending and Bending (metalworking).

There is a strong argument to be made to move this dab page to Bend (disambiguation) and redirect Bend to Bend, Oregon) as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, but at the very least the city in Oregon should be given more prominence on the dab page, as that is what most people who arrive there are looking for. --В²C ☎ 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect sounds fine. With an at the top of the Bend article. Makes sense because Bend is a hot tourist destination as well as a desirable spot to move to so a lot of people do research on it as opposed to other "bends". Leitmotiv (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are lots of meanings, I don't see a clear PT per PT#2 and WP:ASTONISH. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of meanings, but most of them aren't searched for. WPASTONISH doesn't apply and is pure hyperbole to oppose a move. As for PT#2, I assume you mean "Not 'what first comes to (your) mind'"; bias doesn't apply. We're going strictly off of metrics. As I've said, most of the other articles aren't searched for. Therefore Astonish and PT#2 don't apply. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 in "Materials". In addition I'd point out the only 2 of the other WPs have the Oregon city as primary, despite probably not having the every day word, for example de:Bend, pl:Bend and vo:Bend. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and why is this discussion going on without a template? In ictu oculi (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a template below but maybe should go at the top. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a proposal. --В²C ☎ 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2018[edit]

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 not moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bend → Bend (disambiguation) – See above @Born2cycle:@Leitmotiv:@In ictu oculi: I still oppose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternate move - Redirect this to Bending as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT instead of the place in Oregon. The term, when used in roads and rivers, brings to mind that the road was "bent", as though it was initially straight, therefore the concept of bending has precedence._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close. This is a bogus proposal made by someone who doesn't even support it. --В²C ☎ 16:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was made due to the fact that it was noted that there was no template, I'm fine with the status quo but some have indicated it should redirect to Bend, Oregon, and one to Bending. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was no template because THERE WAS NO PROPOSAL. Duh. Making a proposal you don't support is highly disruptive. It's not even presented properly. --В²C ☎ 16:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was YOUR proposal. You DO realize that we can see it? --Calton | Talk 23:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as also per @Crouch, Swale: Oppose in section above --- thanks for having brought this discussion into the normal channel for automatic notifications and discussion. Best way to get outside eyes, and hopefully clarify and get back to editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This is a bogus proposal which presents no argument in favor of the move it is proposing and even opposes it. Thereby the outcome of this will be totally meaningless and useless. I, for one, reserve the right to make a proper proposal once this pointless one is dispensed with one way or another. Why you want to continue wasting electrons, disk space and people's time by starting this and keeping it open now is beyond me. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - This gives everyone including you a change to voice opinions on it. I thought I was doing you a favour by starting this on you're behalf. If you have evidence that you would have presented at a later discussion why don't you just post it now. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I oppose opposing anything opposing this nomination, and move to Vinegar Bend Mizell. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A small US city of 70K population is not an appropriate primary target for "Bend". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose and speedy close. Nominator does not even support the proposal. The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 19:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it does not seem to meet any one of the two major aspects of a primary topic: usage and long-term significance. It is not clearly dominant in Wikipedia visits, and it is even frequently outperformed by one of the articles in "other uses". Btw, I do not find it particularly troubling that the nom does not support the move: it is not common, but procedural RMs are allowed and even provided for at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting in a requested move (with a footnote explicitly providing that a nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position), nor does WP:RM#CM require the nominator to support the move. If anything, if anyone supports the move, they should bring their reasonings here, because any future RM filled right after a previous identical one ending as "not moved" is not likely to succeed. Impru20^talk 21:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Impru20's reasoning.

Thereby the outcome of this will be totally meaningless and useless
Nope. Wider audience, explicit and actionable question, room to provide actual arguments: I can see why you would consider it bogus, because it won't let you filibuster yet another obsession in a small corner of Wikipedia without notice. So yes, there will be a binding result unless you can come up with something NEW and compelling to overturn whatever consensus results. --Calton | Talk 23:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, reserve the right...
Nope, not your "right". If you have "strong arguments", make them now where people can see them, instead of bogus Wikilawyering over process. --Calton | Talk 23:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Impru and Calton, this was even taken to ANI where it WP:BOOMERANGed but yes I don't see what's wrong with such a nomination per the note provided above. I think this is going to be a WP:SNOW for redirecting to the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and to add to the top of the page, which this appears to be mixed with, to think Bend, OR is the primary topic for "Bend" is laughable at best. Everyone knows what "bend" is, very few know about the small town in Oregon, and this fact should be obvious to anyone not associated with the town. Zxcvbnm's proposal is interesting and a valid option, but I don't see the necessity. As for making the link to the city more prominent, that sounds like you are trying to promote the city. Our guide is WP:MOS, not the tourist bureau. I'm also not crazy about RMs where the proposer is opposed, as that seems to be a bit WP:POINTy and wastes time, so I would discourage doing that very often. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 1 September 2018 (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.