Talk:Echo

Page title

Shouldn't this either be the main page for Echo (with an Echo (disambiguation) page) or the tag changed to Echo (acoustic), as phenomenon is rather undescriptive? ~ trialsanderrors 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also what's up with having the sound sample in ogg format? isn't that a little obscure?

I believe ogg is used because it is open source (public domain) and does not require a licensing fee. It is used in other places on Wikipedia.Dmine45 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

House of Leaves

Did whoever wrote this article get most of the main text out of the novel House of Leaves? The bit about "having 'seen' a space" comes straight out of the book.

Duck quack

The article states:

The actual reason for the myth is that the wave of a duck's quack is almost identical to an echo. It echoes, but it is not very obvious.

This makes no sense. An echo "wave" is almost identical to the sound that is being echoed (which is why it's called an "echo"). So any sound will be practically identical to its echo sound. | Loadmaster (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it makes no sense. AFAIK, a duck's quack can most certainly echo if there's a surface for the sound to bounce off of--the probable reason for the myth is that there often was no such surface. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: move. There is consensus and adequate demonstration that this is the primary topic of "Echo". -- tariqabjotu 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Echo (phenomenon) → Echo
• Echo → Echo (disambiguation)

– An acoustic echo is the primary meaning of the term "echo" and Echo (phenomenon) is the page that describes an acoustic echo. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as Binksternet said, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – no evidence has been given in favor of a primary topic claim on this highly ambiguous term. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Evidence of being the primary topic:

  May 2013 page views: Echo (phenomenon) = 9066, Echo + Echo (disambiguation) = 6398 + 183 = 6581.

  Inbound links in article space: Echo (phenomenon) >100, Echo + Echo (disambiguation) = 9.

  Now, granted, this isn't conclusive because 1) the information above is a loose approximation for "relative importance," not an absolute measurement, and 2) I haven't demonstrated that the sum total of all other "use" of "echo" is less than the "use" of "echo (phenomenon)." Doing so would be very impractical to prove and since it's an approximation it wouldn't necessarily give the correct result. If you have a method of determining "primary-ness" better than soliciting consensus, I'm all ears. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - an echo is an echo is an echo. Any sentence where that can be said is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. However the grok.se links added by nom do add additional support. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support – the acoustic phenomenon is the clear primary meaning. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was prepared to go along with this as common sense. But a closer look at the page traffic statistics tell a very, very different story. I have only gone a fraction of the way through the list of ambiguous entries on the dab page and it is clear that the phenomenon does not qualify as primary based on usage. To avoid interrupting the !vote here, see summary in the discussion section below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs) 13:06, 12 June 2013
• Support. The acoustic phenomenon is clearly what most people would expect to find under this name, regardless of how many people are actually looking to read such an article. Powers ^T 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You stated my position but more clearly. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Powers puts the point perfectly.MrStoofer (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the stats provided by Bkonrad below. The mythology usage alone is sufficient to keep the dab at the base name. The Support !votes above with "per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" alone as their reason need to be expanded after examining the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: stats are as of 12-JUN-2013 for last 90 days

• Echo (phenomenon) 26608
• Echo (mythology) 37367
• Echo (command) 16916
• Echo Protocol 10823
• Echo (Marvel Comics) 25242

Although somewhat surprising and perhaps reflecting a systemic bias in the Wikipedia readership, it seem clear that the phenomenon is not much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term per the usage criteria. older ≠ wiser 13:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, we make exceptions for certain common words like "apple". I think "echo" is another good candidate for such an exception, under the principle of least surprise if nothing else. Powers ^T 22:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is that fortunate? Don't you think most people who type in Apple end up not where they want? People are often making primary topic claims based on the numbers. The discussion of what should happen when the popularity numbers don't match your idea of what is more "important" suggested that we should not claim a primarytopic in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's fortunate because it makes it easier for our readers to respect us as an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 00:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Dickylon: I agree, primary topic is about more than numbers. I honestly had no idea what "Echo (mythology)" even referred to, and had to visit the article to learn that apparently it was the name of a Greek mountain nymph. I suspect I'm not alone in this, and that if one could grab a hundred random users and ask them what "echo" meant, one would likely get a hundred responses for the phenomenon, and none saying, "Why, Echo was a mythological oread, of course!" The phenomenon really does seem like the better-known and more significant subject, and I think the proposed change properly recognizes that. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And where is the evidence supporting such a basic claim besides anecdotes and hypothetical speculation? The usage statistics don't. Google doesn't (the Echo (mythology) article is the only wikipedia article in the top ten results from Google. older ≠ wiser 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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.