Talk:Pipeline (disambiguation)

On 2 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Pipeline to Pipeline (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was moved.

Mechanical analogy

This analogy seems to be rather contrived and superfluous:

A mechanical example of a pipeline is a washer/dryer system for clothing. Instead of having one unit that both washes and dries, we have two units that together form a pipeline (the output of the washer enters the drier). If washing takes 1 hour and drying takes 1 hour, the pipeline allows us to finish a full load of laundry every hour, compared to every 2 hours if you had a single (non-pipelined) unit that washed and then dried. It still requires two hours for an item of clothing to complete its wash/dry cycle of course.

Can this be replaced by a better example of a real mechanical pipeline? Anyway, perhaps it should fit better in an article "Mechanical pipeline"?
Jorge Stolfi 02:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Explain example

fetch -o - http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Pipeline |
sed 's/[^a-zA-Z]/ 
/g' |
tr 'A-Z' 'a-z' |
sort -u |
comm -23 - /usr/share/dict/web2

Could the steps be explained briefly? Is it not better to combine the 2nd and 3rd line? - Patrick 10:36 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Patrick 23:37 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

Art pipeline

Perhaps it makes sense to add item Art pipeline to the article (Special:Diff/871134424). 87.241.196.145 (talk) 05:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never. Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was added before, but deleted using wrong rationale. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 17:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline → Pipeline (disambiguation) – Pipeline transport is the main concept, to which Pipeline should redirect to; the secondary concepts are titled in analogy with the main concept. fgnievinski (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Pipeline indicates that there is no primary topic by usage, because the outgoing traffic is scattered across a variety of topics, and the eponym isn't even at the top, though that could be because of weird section sorting. I'd say we move it to the top, and then revisit the reader interest after a few months to see if navigation changed to indicate this primary topic by usage. If you want to argue long-term significance despite usage, there needs to be an actual argument laid out. --Joy (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but also move pipeline transport to pipeline as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why? Friendly reminder to all: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Why is pipeline transport's status as "main concept" worthy of WP:PTOPIC? --Joy (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The longterm significance criterion. Computing, art, drug and sales pipelines are terms based on the usage of pipes to transport fluids. Pretty much everything else is too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly the eponym, and it might even be what first comes to mind when one says pipeline. But can we really say that the long-term significance of it is so large that it overshadows all the other uses to the extent required by WP:PTOPIC? I've mentioned the recent statistics above, and we can also have a look at the history of this article - it indicates it's been a disambiguation page since this series of edits in December 2004, and before that it was something of a broad-concept article ever since the initial revision from July 2001. So for two decades, we've explained this ambiguity to the average English reader, and there apparently haven't been any complaints to this effect up to now. I don't think we should make this large of a change based on just assertions. --Joy (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I certainly think it. And that's ultimately what !votes are - an opinion. I've registered mine, so we shall see what others think. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and move per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Do we also move the article currently at pipeline transport to pipeline? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support pipeline -> pipeline (disambiguation) and pipeline transport -> pipeline, per nom and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.