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. There is also consensus to move CRIME back to CRIME (security exploit) (and while I'm at it, uncontroversially move FREAK to FREAK (security exploit)), which I will perform shortly. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BREACH (security exploit) → BREACH – move over redirect, unnecessary parens - MOS title, same as CRIME Widefox; talk 22:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Widefox: To most people, a BREACH is a breach, and the disambiguater should be kept for clarity. (Likewise, to most people, a CRIME is a crime, and page CRIME should be moved back to CRIME (security exploit) for clarity.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the caps is mainly a stylism, not a true acronym. Likewise revert CRIME back to CRIME (security exploit), FREAK to FREAK (security exploit). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that these CAPS words are usually accompanied by surrounding text, such as "FREAK exploit" or so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per In ictu oculi. If we're going to move it, Breach (security exploit) would seem to be preferable. And I agree with Anthony that the CRIME move should also be undone. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2016 (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.

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: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• BREACH (security exploit) → BREACH
• CRIME (security exploit) → CRIME
• FREAK (security exploit) → FREAK

– Unnecessary disambiguator. The previous move above does not make sense. Either these exploits are considered the primary topic of the undabbed allcaps titles, in which case they should be moved, or they are not, in which case the undabbed titles should be retargeted to disambiguation pages Pppery 23:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. It would be ridiculous to redirect BREACH (etc.) to anything other than this article. Anyone searching with BREACH is obviously looking for this topic. The disambiguation is totally unnecessary for disambiguation, and there is no other reason based in policy, guidelines or conventions to add the parenthetical stuff. Well, I suppose one can argue it makes it more "recognizable", but that argument applies to every title on Wikipedia. For example, not everyone knows who Emma Stone is; that title would be more recognizable at Emma Stone (actress). And, yet, consensus does not support such moves, for very good reasons. The "it makes it more recognizable" argument is not sustained by reason. --В²C ☎ 23:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. Disambiguation is unnecessary. PaleAqua (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - these are not acronyms but "backronyms" . However having said that DROWN attack presents an apparently more WP:NATURAL and more elegant solution to WP:CRITERIA. A WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to FOO attack would fail readers how? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter if they are acronyms or backronyms or initialisms. Someone typing "breach" into the Wikipedia search box gets the breach article as the top result. It requires typing "BREACH" to find this page and that is true regardless if this page is at BREACH or if there is a redirect to this page from BREACH which would have still likely needed per WP:NOTBROKEN. WP:CRITERIA not only include natural and precision but also considers conciseness. PaleAqua (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest disservice caused by adding parenthetic descriptive information to a title when it's not needed for disambiguation is that it normalizes adding parenthetic descriptive information to titles when it's not needed for disambiguation, which is a huge problem because it's an unsustainable practice with no basis in policy, guidelines or conventions for very good reasons. --В²C ☎ 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per CONCISE. Rebbing 19:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current state of affairs provides instant clarity, although a non-parenthtical alternative e.g CRIME vulnerability (or attack, or similar nomenclature) might be better. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 23:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Unless there are challenging topics using similar uppercased terms, time to remove extra disambiguation then. George Ho (talk) 05:17, 14 March 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.