Talk:First contact

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Request move to First contact (disambiguation), to move First contact (anthropology), the primary topic, here. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose: to many First contact (science fiction) comes first; to many astronomers First contact (astronomy) comes first. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• First contact → First contact (disambiguation)First contact (disambiguation)
• First contact (anthropology) → First contact

– The "anthropology" definition is the only real world example of first contact that has actually happened. The concept of First contact in sci-fi, while common, is fictional, and reality should take precedence over fiction. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose "reality should take precedence over fiction" isn't a consideration when determining WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, as time goes on and there are fewer uncontacted cultures, the long-term significance of that meaning will diminish. In practice, I certainly hear the astronomical transit meaning and the sci-fi meaning far more often. WP:NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose unconvincing nom based on reality over fiction which has no weight. The previous nom and this lack common primary topic evaluations like "more likely than all others put together", or longevity, so without such an argument, it's a bit in the dark. (as an aside, worth little/nothing for this discussion, Google has Star Trek: First Contact for the term.). Widefox; talk 16:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

So I've cleaned up the dab and put that high up as stab in the dark most likely, with the non media neatly together. Alternatively, those three could be put at the top as "commonly" or such. Widefox; talk 16:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose, per above and public understanding of the term. The science-fiction usage will be understood as primary by a significant portion of Wikipedia's readers, enough of a portion to justify the disamb. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:15, 7 February 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.