Talk:FDR (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

Requested move 29 June 2019

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

A bot will list this discussion on the 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

FDR (disambiguation) → FDR – I'd like to see if there would be consensus in the community for moving this disambiguation page to the base name FDR, which at the moment is just a redirect to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I feel that there are other uses that are no less important than Roosevelt's initials. Whereas Roosevelt was no doubt a very important American president from a hundred years ago, False discovery rate (FDR) is a key concept in modern science. And FDR is also an acronym for several other important things - just go through the list in the disambiguation page and you'll see. This is why I believe the disambiguation page should be at FDR. I was wondering what you guys think and if there'd be consensus to make this move. Thanks, Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose various historians refer to Roosevelt more than anything else by this initialism. Searches on Google and Google Books are full of results on him. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Definitely many results about Mr. Roosevelt. But a quick search on Web of Science gives 38,269 papers about false discovery rate. And these are scientific, peer-reviewed papers, published in scientific journals. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Support per False Discovery Rate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, if you were citing the contents of the article with those initials as your reason for your vote, that's pretty clever. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The Franklin D. Roosevelt article is viewed about 11,000 times per day, about 25 times as much as False discovery rate. That's too lopsided. It is clear that Wikipedia readers are much more interested in Roosevelt, and he also has high historical importance. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But how much of that traffic arrives via the redirect? Dr. Vogel (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my cleverness, per Google Ngram I must oppose this nomination. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the question is not whether Roosevelt is a more popular topic than all the other meanings of FDR combined (which is probably true) but whether nearly 100% of people who type FDR are looking for Roosevelt. Obviously more people know about and search about Roosevelt than about false discovery rate, simply because there are more people who have heard of world events than people who know science.

To put this in terms of conditional probability, the question is not whether:

P(Roosevelt)>>P(otherthingsthathavethesameabbreviation)

but whether:

P(Roosevelt\mid FDR)>>P(notRoosevelt\mid FDR)

,

which would be a very strong claim, and according to the Sagan standard, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If there isn't sufficient evidence to support that claim,

there isn't sufficient evidence to keep the disambiguation page not at FDR. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – terms this ambiguous should be disambiguated, not redirected to one topic. See Dr. Vogel's analysis, which I agree correctly describes the current situation as extraordinary. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]