Talk:Fallout (disambiguation)

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

Fall Out[edit]

Fall out small case goes to Fallout. But Fall Out capital O is not likely to be intended for Fallout. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 June 2024[edit]

It has been proposed in this section that Fallout (disambiguation) be renamed and moved to Fallout.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Fallout (disambiguation) → Fallout – the Fallout redirect is to be deleted to make way for the move.

– I am here after finding this disambiguation page on top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Popular pages for April '24 with ~2.8 million views, which is a bit too much to ignore.

Page history shows this was moved based on Special:WhatLinksHere/Fallout (which is an indication of editor behavior, not necessarily reader behavior, and WP:RF), and anonymous users tried to move it twice now (but a long time ago).

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Nuclear_fallout for April shows the by far the most popular outgoing clickstreams from there are to the hatnotes, outpacing the next identifiable clickstream by orders of magnitude.

Honestly the main reason I'm even raising a discussion here instead of just moving this is that nobody seemed to complain since 2010. This seems to imply that either navigation was fine, or that the threshold for modifying it was too high.

Page view statistics for the popular topics indicate the latest spike is because of the recent reader interest in the TV series. This latest thing also being based on the franchise in turn contributes to the notion that the long-term significance of the franchise isn't ignorable compared to that of nuclear fallout. --Joy (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (and I've added the TV show to the hatnote) - the "popular pages" is almost certainly bot-driven, but for many years the video game franchise has been comparable in traffic, and with a contemporaneous TV series of this name it is clear there is no primary topic. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There's no 100%-clear primary topic for the term itself; the safest bet is to move the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Nuclear fallout" is still the primary topic by longterm significance, even the Fallout series is so named because it's referring to nuclear fallout. Simply, there is no reason to conduct a move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm the reason is that we have tangible proof that way too many readers are not being navigated well. Likewise, we don't have much of a rationale for why nuclear fallout is the primary topic by long-term significance for the term "fallout" alone. Providing all these readers with a clearer list would allow us to at least measure where the reader interest really lies. --Joy (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "nuclear fallout" page has the franchise as the first link in the hatnote, as it should. People are still only one link away from their destination regardless of whether they go to the disambiguation or the page on nuclear fallout. So I am not sure what is insufficient about this setup. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not great because we link the franchise, now the TV series, and don't even link the video game which is the topic with persistently high reader interest historically. It's a lot of clutter at the top of the article instead of a normal separate list. --Joy (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support clearly not primary by usage for just "Fallout". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clear primary topic by long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Zxcvbnm who said basically stated all thoughts I had on this. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943 maybe you could also help clarify these thoughts :) For example, why should the fact that the entertainment topics were named after nuclear fallout matter to the extent of keeping a primary redirect? WP:DPT says Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Readers looking up the term "fallout" in the encyclopedia are not necessarily looking for an etymological explanation, they're looking for a compendium of knowledge about this term. This includes the dictionary definitions as well as all these various works about it. Indeed, even in the realm of dictionary definitions, nuclear is only one of those - there's other notable fallouts like volcano, figurative, etc. The sum of the knowledge about the term "fallout" seems to be significantly larger than the article we currently short-circuit readers to.

And we do that short-circuiting despite the apparent wishes of most of the readers. To continue doing that, we need a stronger rationale than this. --Joy (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, the majority of the alternative meanings for "fallout" exclusive from Nuclear fallout seem to be loosely based on the concept of Nuclear fallout. (I see your stance goes against this, but I would believe that whoever is looking up this term would not be surprised to arrive at the current article.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]