Talk:Comm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was move, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 22:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

comm (Unix) → comm – unnecessary disambig

[edit] Survey

Add your comment per Wikipedia:Straw polls
  • Weak support. The term looks familiar enough but Google and dictionary don't reveal other significant meanings. If someone digs out another meaning of "comm", I'll withdraw the support. Duja 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I could not see any other use of that name either. However there are many companies that use this in their name like A-Comm, D-Comm, Z-Comm and this is a common abbreviation for communications. Also, it is common for unix commands to be listed with the (Unix) dab. So my thinking is why change it? Nothing links to the current redirect, so its not like a common error. Vegaswikian 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It's common for Unix commands to be listed with " (Unix)" because they often require disambiguation, not because people think it's easier to find or makes more sense. ¦ Reisio 04:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know that. But at what point does it make sense to make a name of that form the standard? Vegaswikian 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Never, according to current (and long-standing) naming conventions (aiui, anyways). ¦ Reisio 08:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because it's a reflexive redirect. --Lox (t,c) 17:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.