Talk:EPA (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus for move; also, no particularly strong arguments or sources were presented to justify the move. Parsecboy (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

EPA (disambiguation) → EPA — EPA is important enough to be a primary dab page. — -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Comment. Applicable previous discussion (with controversial close) at Talk:Environmental Protection Agency. Please show evidence that the current redirect is not the primary topic. I've restored the redirect to its original target until one can be decided upon through this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support The primary topic of EPA arguably is not United States Environmental Protection Agency but rather Environmental Protection Agency, which itself is a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• That Environmental Protection Agency is a dab page is also a problem. The primary topic for Environmental Protection Agency is also the U.S. agency, and that article should probably be at Environmental Protection Agency, since that is the most commonly used and recognized name for that agency. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Current redirect is US-centric, but in the USA, EPA unqualified does mean the US agency. Best solution is for EPA to be a dab page. Andrewa (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support as per above US-centric reason cited above. --Natural R_X 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked over EPA (disambiguation) and all those other uses don't come close to the U.S. agency in usage. If you google for EPA, most hits are for the U.S. agency; no other use gets any kind of coverage. If the U.S. Agency is not the primary topic for EPA, then there is no such thing as a primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Although I agree with you and oppose this move based on the term's primary use, the caps are probably counterproductive. Dekimasuよ! 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Very strong oppose. The (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency is without doubt the primary topic here... I couldn't find a single hit without great effort for any other usage. Omnibus (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• support let's treat all the national Environment Protection Agencies alike and have them occur on a dab page. Users will then pick the one they are interested in.Jasy jatere (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem necessary to treat them all alike when one is referred to more often than all the others combined. That implies that all uses of "EPA" aren't, in fact, alike. Dekimasuよ! 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments after poll close

• Strongly oppose I'm against the US centric redirect. EPA stands for a variety of organizations. Googling is not the best way to know how EPA is used outside the US (Google is based in the US, isn't it?). And then again, Google search results for EPA provide a link to ENGLISH POOL ASSOCIATION at the TOP of the list. This is why I'm convinced that redirecting EPA to the US agency is very misleading and inconvenient for Wikipedia users outside the US. Denghu (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (second nomination)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The concerns about systemic bias are important and should be taken into consideration, but it seems the U.S. agency is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this acronym. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

EPA (disambiguation) → EPA – EPA is currently is a redir to the US EPA. As seen from the dab page there are numerous uses for EPA so the US EPA may not be the primary use for WP readers. Also, to have it directed to the US organisation creates systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Current EPA redirect is US-centric, while there are several similar international organizations that use the same acronym. +mt 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: see related discussion Talk:Environmental Protection Agency. +mt 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. No primary use. The discussion at Talk:Environmental Protection Agency seems to have grown quite complicated, but fixing this one is simple, and may give a lead there. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose strongly. The U.S. EPA is clearly the primary use of "EPA" -- more likely than all the other topics combined to be the one being sought when someone enters EPA in the search box -- of "EPA" as compared to all other uses (see #Page view statistics below - the U.S. use appears to be more than 30 times more likely to be sought than any other "EPA" topic). As to being US-centric, there is nothing at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or WP:D or WP:TITLE which indicates titles or redirects should be disfavored when their use is particular to some country. All that matters is likelihood of being sought relative to other uses of "EPA". At least some of the Support here seems to be primarily based on an anti-U.S. usage bias. At any rate, simply saying "no primary use" does not make it so. The page view stats here are telling. If I missed a use of EPA that gets more than 1,000 views per month, please add this to the list. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Page view statistics

• United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency has been viewed 32238 times in 201105. [1]
• Ministry_of_Environmental_Protection_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China has been viewed 831 times in 201105. [2]
• Scottish_Environment_Protection_Agency has been viewed 547 times in 201105. [3]
• California_Environmental_Protection_Agency has been viewed 532 times in 201105. [4]

These are not the page view stats of all potential uses of EPA (see EPA (disambiguation)), but I think it's a fair sampling which clearly indicates the U.S. EPA clearly meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Systemic bias

I added the {{globalise}} to the article because EPA {which is a redir to the US EPA) should be the dab page rather than EPA (disambiguation). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That template is inappropriate for a disambiguation page. Repeated discussions have not produced any consensus to move the disambiguation page or change the target of the redirect. older ≠ wiser 04:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)