- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The "keep" !voters have presented a reasonable (if borderline WP:IAR) argument that having some mention of the primary auto-related meaning of "downshift" at the Downshift article will benefit readers more than having it redirect to the lifestyle article, as a literal application of disambiguation guidelines would require. Thus I have given roughly equal weight per !vote to both sides, and so the numerical majority holds. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Downshift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was recently created as the outcome of this RFD, however this is not a valid dab page. The first entry is a WP:DICDEF and the linked article doesn't say more than the dab page. The link in the second entry does not mention these fiction characters at all, so it doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION. That leave just Downshifting (lifestyle) which should move to Downshifting, with this title redirecting there. MB 23:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- MB, you could have just asked for the RfD to be reopened instead of revisiting the same issue in a new AfD? – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I concur with everyone else in the recently closed RfD that this term is better disambiguated. The dab page has at least two valid entries. One of them is Downshifting (lifestyle) (whose title is the result of a 2017 RM). The second one is for the shift of transmission into a lower gear. This is valid as well: it is significant enough for participants in the linked RM to believe it to have been the primary topic. But regardless, Wikipedia is expected to provide definitions of common technical terms (that's the whole purpose of a big corner of the encyclopedia!). The fact that this definition will be short does in no way mean that we should stop providing navigation for this term. Also, I don't see a primary topic here, at least with respect to usage: Downshift and Downshifting used to redirect to Manual transmission: in October they were visited 123 times, and in this period, the hatnote link to the lifestyle article was followed 62 times). I'm less certain about the third dab entry. There used to be a separate article about it at Downshift (Transformers), but it got redirect to an article that itself eventually got redirected to Transformers: Energon, which has a mention (and nothing more than a mention) of this character. – Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure why I was notified of this on my talkpage but not AjaxSmack who wrote most of it (and I have now notified on talk page). Courtesy ping to Sable232 who also partook in the RfD discussion, and TartarTorte who closed it. A7V2 (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I supported the proposed disambiguation page since it was better than the status qua (significantly so) due to the lack of discussion about downshifting at the old redirect target. But reading what the nom has said, I tend to agree. Even with the recent addition, this article consists of a dictionary definition with a link to an article that uses the term just once and is in no way describing what it is, a character who has a redirect that should be deleted, and isn't even mentioned at the suggested article, and a term which might as well move back to the parent, non-disambugated title. And then in the see also we have a redirect to an article where that term isn't mentioned. This page is certainly of highly questionable utility for aiding searches (which is what disambiguation pages are meant to be for). A7V2 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I don't really love how the page isn't completely within the rules of a DAB, but I think there still is the issue of someone wanting to find information about downshifting that isn't related to the lifestyle if this is deleted and Downshifting (lifestyle) were moved here. It might be best to change the entry from propulsion transmission to engine braking as that is more conceptually related to downshifting, but there still isn't a ton of information about it here. Fundamentally the issue seems to be that the concept of downshifting with relation to cars is one that probably fits somewhere in an encyclopedia, but is not included in wikipedia in a way that can be appropriately dabified. This is a bit of a WP:IAR argument, but it just seems like the way to direct people best where they want to go. TartarTorte 14:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - It doesn't fit the norm of a dab page, but it seems the most helpful solution for a reader searching the term. According to the article that existed at this title years ago for the Transformers characters, two come from the comic book series and one from a cartoon as a minor character, so there doesn't seem to be a single good place to link that entry to. --Sable232 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: I don't see anything in the dab guidelines precluding this dab page. MOS:DABMENTION was quoted above, but it only rules out the fictional character, not the other two entries. – Uanfala (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first entry fails MOS:DABMENTION as well. There is no article on Downshifting, and the linked article does not discuss it either. That article is about transmissions, and it assumes the reader already knows what (up)shifting and downshifting mean. There are several other articles that mention downshifting in the same way Double clutching (technique), Direct-shift gearbox, Heel-and-toe shifting, Motorcycle transmission, Engine braking, but none that provide real explanation. Linking to any of these is no better or worse. Note that shifting does not get you anywhere that talks about operating a transmission; there is no reason why downshifting must. MB 03:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The target article may (or may not) need to explicitly define (rather than just use) that term, but the dab page entry itself provides that definition and the article provides enough context for readers to learn about the mechanics of it. MOS:DABMENTION says
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.
I reckon that the main reason we disagree here is because you see this entry as not providing value to the reader, and I'd venture to guess that's because you assume that it represents an everyday meaning of the word that readers will all be familiar with. – Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is also frequency downshifting which is a notable topic but we don't have an article on it yet ... SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm sympathetic to the points made by the nominator, however, this page wasn't created by some random contributor. Its existence is due to the outcome of another process which was closed as disambiguate and that's a !vote which is neither counted nor refuted sufficiently in this process. That there is an opportunity to add Frequency downshifting in the future gives this da page more ground upon which to stand in the future. It is entirely possible somebody will write a downshift article as well. Wikipedia has only had twenty years to cover most subjects. BusterD (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.