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: Not moved. After reading the discussion a few times, it's evident that no consensus has formed even after a relisting. Various alternate proposals have been risen but none have gained a significant enough traction to become the new title. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Scuba → Scuba (disambiguation)
• Scuba set → Scuba gear

– Rename Scuba set to Scuba gear per WP:COMMONNAME (overwhelmingly more common [1]). Redirect Scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus) to Scuba set, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; all the other disambiguation entries are derivative and obscure. Scuba diving could also work as the target, but the acronym properly refers to the gear.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If Scuba set is the primary topic of the disambiguation page, then "Scuba" should be the title of the article, not a redirect to a dab page. Scuba gear and Scuba set are sensible alternate names for that article, so would be reasonable redirects. It would then be perfectly sensible to have a dab page titled "Scuba (disambiguation)". --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move of disambiguation page so that Scuba can either house or redirect to the clear primary topic of "Scuba" as the abbreviation of Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. No opinion on whether the more appropriate target article is Scuba set or Scuba gear. bd2412 T 14:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on technical grounds. Scuba set and Scuba are synonymous, but in my experience, Scuba gear has a wider range of meaning, and includes scuba diving equipment other than the breathing apparatus and harness, so strictly speaking, Scuba gear should not redirect to Scuba set, but it may be the best option available at present. I would have no objection to using Scuba as the new title for Scuba set. with the appropriate redirect. However, as the current dab page indicates, scuba is also used to refer to scuba diving. To clarify:
  • Scuba may mean the breathing apparatus, or scuba diving,
  • Scuba set means the breathing apparatus and may include the harness and other components normally mounted on the harness, such as the buoyancy compensator and integrated weights, also some times called a rig, or scuba rig.
  • Scuba gear, or scuba equipment has a broader sense, and may include mask, fins, wetsuit, weight belt and other accessories used in scuba diving, some of which may also be used for other modes of diving.

  Therefore, the relative frequency of use is not relevant. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  A complicating issue is that scuba is no longer considered an acronym and is often given as an example of an anacronym. The usage of the word 'scuba' to reference simply the "self-contained underwater breathing apparatus" has loosened considerably of the past half-century, so that we now have usage which refers to the entire activity, as the comments in the section above illustrate: "People type in SCUBA looking for scuba diving, except for in very rare cases." That doesn't help us much in trying to decide what article should be found at the title Scuba, but – as the root word for a whole class of articles – I'm quite certain that it should be neither a dab page nor a redirect. --RexxS (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – even nom can't decide which of two articles he wants as primary for this ambiguous term. Disambiguation is good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. One thing is certain, the scuba set is not the primary topic. If anything is, it is scuba diving. It receives almost 10x the page views,[2] So it should probably be a primary redirect, but failing that, let's keep the dab page.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisting comment: Difficult. See #Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose does not seem to be a primary target. Both scuba set and scuba diving have valid arguments for being primary, meaning neither is. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal[edit]

It is suggested below that scuba redirecting to scuba diving would best serve readers' interests, and that seems to me to be consistent with most of what is said above. Does it have the support of others? Andrewa (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Perhaps we don't yet have a suitable article for scuba, but there's clearly something like a primary topic and it's clearly something to do with diving, or so it seems to me. Scuba diving and scuba set are obviously very closely related, and the other topics even taken together don't compete with either of these so far as either likelihood as a search term or long-term significance is concerned. So reader experience would be improved if we had a primary redirect to either of these articles rather than having the destination of the base name being the DAB as now. Very interesting. Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of bizarre situation at Talk:Human swimming#Requested moves 2, with the argumentation following circular path whether swimming (sport), pageviews winner, should get the prime spot over the more basic concept of human swimming or even more broader of aquatic locomotion, which got us nowhere in the end (and could be revisited). I think that scuba redirecting to scuba diving would best serve readers' interests, and I'm neutral on "scuba gear/set". No such user (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2017 (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.