Jump to content

Talk:IPA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ipa)

Proposal

[edit]

I propose we move this to IPA (disambiguation), and make this a redirect to International Phonetic Alphabet, since that's the most widely linked one by a long way. dab 12:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere/IPA is NOT a good measure of what to do, though: of course links will be fixed so that International Phonetic Alphabet is the most frequently referred to entry. This is because we have to use India Pale Ale|IPA and similar to get the same effect. The redirect also removes any connection to the disambiguation page, which would be useful for those looking for isopropyl alcohol or similar. If this doesn't get changed to a redirect to the disambig page, we require the link to the disambig page on International Phonetic Alphabet, which seems less desirable change! -- Karnesky 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup--I updated this before you replied. I don't think this is ideal. Links to disambiguation pages should be avoided in favor of redirect (unless there is one particular form that is common usage). As on my talk page, International Phonetic Alphabet doesn't pass the test. Someone more bold than I might want to change this to redirect right now. I'd prefer to fix the pages which link assuming they will be redirected to the alphabet first & then go back and redirect IPA to disambiguation. --Karnesky 02:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the disambiguation link at the top of "International Phonetic Alphabet"; any article whose title is disambiguated has one of those. It's only a problem to have links to disambiguation pages in the body of an article. IPA should continue to link to International Phonetic Alphabet. —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 06:18 Z
There is something wrong with that disambiguation link--there are more references to "IPA" referring to something other than "International Phonetic Alphabet." A majority of people seraching for "IPA" probably won't land on the page they were expecting. What's your argument for having it link to the alphabet rather than Indial Pale Ale, much less the disambiguation page? --Karnesky 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say the IPA TLA should go to the disambig page

[edit]

I think like most TLAs with multiple meanings the TLA itself should go to the disambig page. The reason is the user can then choose for themselves what they are looking for. I'll bet most direct queries here are people looking for India Pale Ale, and like me, are too lazy to type it out. I was going to be bold and just move it, but all the links here make that difficult or inadvisable. Any suggestions? Spalding 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there must be thousands, if not tens of thousands of links intended for the International Phonetic Alphabet, from pronunciation guides in various articles. A quick look at what links to 'IPA' shows many articles about foreign terms and linguistics topics, but not much evidence of beer. —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 03:55 Z
But that's surely because the beer ones are now directed to the spelled-out form. I'd tend agree with Spalding, because there's a more intimate connection between IPA and beer than phonetics - many people will use 'IPA' to mean a type of beer without knowing the origins (it can stand for India or Imperial, but refers to the same thing), whereas those using IPA for phonetics are likely to know what it stands for. --Cedderstk 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That alone doesn't support your argument. A Cedders points out, the current number of links merely reflects the current redirects/disambuations. Frequency on wikipedia doesn't therefore prove that the alphabet is the most common expansion of the TLA. Furthermore, it shouldn't be seen as a barrier to the move--bots can be used to fix the other links. --Karnesky 15:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPA should be a disambiguation page, not a redirect. Counting incoming links on wikipedia isn't a valid things to do - it only tells you about the contents of WP, not use of a term. This is not simply a number counting game. Given the number of uses, it makes sense to have the dab at IPA - what we don't want to do is send users to the wrong page especially for such a short article name. Thanks/wangi 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus for moving (only 58% support). --Dijxtra 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested change in redirect for IPA from International Phonetic Alphabet to IPA (disambiguation)

[edit]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support.. A count of google hits show that a majority of pages with "IPA" refer to something other than the alphabet. --Karnesky 15:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—some good points are made for the change, but I still think the linguistic application is much more broadly useful. It is practically part of Wikipedia's infrastructure, as the International Phonetic Alphabet is widely used and the article widely referred to.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-13 16:02 Z
  • Oppose for the same reasons as presented by Mzajac. The vast majority of incoming links to IPA are in fact links to International Phonetic Alphabet. Nohat 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (See also my comment below).[reply]
  • Support--when a disambiguation page offers some 16 alternatives, singling out one to be the primary page is rarely a good idea. In response to Nohat: Since IPA redirects to International Phonetic Alphabet, it's unsurprising that the vast majority of links are not mistakenly trying to get to another page instead. Nareek 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't agree with the principal you state: singling out the primary page is a very good idea in a great many cases where there are many disambiguated articles, as in the diverse examples beaver (34 dabs),Sheffield (24), EU (17), spoon (17), GPA (12), and DOD (11). —Michael Z. 2006-09-13 18:50 Z
    Comment I disagree with both of you. The number of disambiguated articles has absolutley no bearing on whether it should be the primary page. The primary test should be: If someone was performing a search for a term, is it more or less likely that they landed on the page they expected to. All the articles you linked to pass that test. IPA does not. --Karnesky 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that it's never a good idea--just that as the number of possible searches increases, so do the chances that people will be looking for something other than the most commonly used term. It is true that you can guess without looking what you'll get if you click on any of Mzajac's examples--which the average Wikipedia user probably would not, confronted with "IPA". Nareek 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe IPA is not as cut-and-dried as every single example I gave, but what evidence do we have that International Phonetic Alphabet is less likely to be intended by an editor linking the abbreviation IPA than any of the other alternatives? (what a reader expects is moot, because they are clicking a link with a predetermined target, not deciding they want to read about the Independent Pilots Association when they click a link in an article about beer) —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 01:05 Z
What a reader expects is not moot & it is arrogance to assume so. Readers may search for IPA & may be led to the wrong page by an editor who used the link to refer to something other than the alphabet. While MOST editors do check that their links go where they think they go, not all do (and "readers" may be "novice editors" who would make that mistake) & we should make it easy for those editors. Disambiguation isn't that hard & there are editors and bots that do it for us. --Karnesky 12:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Indeed IPA most commonly refers to other things. Voortle 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Karnesky & Nareek. It may be handy for editors to be able to use IPA like this, but not for readers. To readers, IPA may have multiple meanings depending on context like most TLAs and unlike, for example, BBC which is extraordinarily unambiguous. The same convenience to editors might be better provided using a template that extends the existing {{IPA}} to include a link to International Phonetic Alphabet. --Cedderstk 00:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Disambiguation for an abbreviation should be dealt with by a dedicated page that comes up when you type in the abbreviation, rather than have it redirect to one particular meaning that then has a dedicated link to the disambiguation page. The exception would be if one particular meaning was so prevalent that the vast majority of users would be looking for it. British Broadcasting Corporation satisfies this criteria for BBC, whereas International Phonetic Alphabet does not for IPA. --Cuddlyopedia 06:19 UTC, 14 September 2006
  • Oppose per Mzajac. I didn't find any other decidedly important item in IPA (disambiguation) which would justify the change. Who of the supporters will volunteer to fix all the links to IPA if the change is accepted? Don't fix if ain't broken. Duja 06:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per Duja, bad idea. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, per Michael. Stefán 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. At first, this looks like it might be a reader/editor distinction, but I actually think that this change will indirectly hurt readers. For the readers, India Pale Ale is the most common option:
    • Google: ipa, "pale ale" - 509,000
    • ipa, "international phonetic alphabet" - 171,000
    • ipa, "isopropyl alcohol" - 110,000
But within Wikipedia, nearly all the links go to IPA:
    • Inbound links to "India Pale Ale" on Wikipedia: 132, including links to redirects.
    • Inbound links to "International Phonetic Alpahet": I gave up counting after several thousand.
If we move IPA to International Phonetic Alphabet--and update all existing links with bots--we'll still have editors making new links directly to IPA. So we'll wind up with thousands of articles linking to the disambiguation page, unless somebody keeps a "no direct links to IPA"-bot running. Thinking it over, this seems like a net loss to readers and huge pain for editors. -emk (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However with the templates updated, this should no longer be an issue. Use the template and get the entire entry formatted in the correct manner. Vegaswikian 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which incoming links would those be?
The ones I'm going to type in the future. -  AjaxSmack  07:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments

Has Wikipedia yet prepared a page similar to WP:RM called WP:RFCR?? Georgia guy 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked & didn't see anything. I figured that the process should be roughly the same. WP:RM has occasionally been used for change of redirects, so I think I'll list it according to those guidelines. --Karnesky 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that if this change is made, then the vast majority of people who click on an "IPA" link next to a pronunciation in an article will get to the disambiguation page, and have no idea what they were really looking for. The vast majority of incoming "IPA" links are links next to pronunciations: there are thousands of such links spread all throughout Wikipedia. In my estimation, most people who come to the IPA page have no idea what it is that they are going to be looking at other than it may begin to explain the pronunciation they were looking at. If they come to a disambiguation page, they will almost certainly NOT find what they are looking for. So, whoever makes this change should also be willing to back to every incoming IPA link and pipe it to International Phonetic Alphabet, as appropriate, and there are thousands. I think, in this case, the practical disadvantages of a move outweigh any theoretical advantages. Nohat 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what bots are for? --Karnesky 01:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are bots supposed to differentiate whether this is supposed to be a link to International Phonetic Alphabet or something else? Nohat 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since IPA currently points to the alphabet, if we change ALL occurrences, there'd be no more mistaken links than there are now. A lot of the occurrences are in a predictable pattern such as "[[IPA]]: {{IPA|text}}." A regex bot can replace this to use "{{IPA2|text}}." This would be a good idea even if there was no consensus for the change. --Karnesky 05:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be much less hesitant to change it if there weren't already thousands of incoming links. If all incoming links to IPA can be fixed, then I would not oppose the move anymore. But my opposition remains as long as there are incoming links to IPA. Nohat 06:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since entering "[[IPA]]" in an article puts in a link that currently re-directs to International Phonetic Alphabet, anyone who intended a link to some other page, for example the Insolvency Practitioners Association, would have entered, in this case, [[Insolvency Practitioners Association|IPA]]. Thus a simple automatic replacement of [[IPA]] with [[IPA|International Phonetic Alphabet]] should correct all the links without introducing other errors (or am I missing something?). --Cuddlyopedia 06:35 UTC, 14 September 2006
I analysed the "What links here" (WLH) for most of the articles listed here. Discounting the Pale Ale (which has plenty of links, but is unlikely to be searched using "IPA", only the Institute of Public Affairs has a dozen; others are almost orphaned. While I'm aware that the supposed measure of relevance is Average Joe's expectation rather than WLH count, I fail to see the so significant importance of other items that would warrant the change. I do foresee, though, the technical difficulties for Wikipedia editors. At the risk of violating WP:AGF, is perhaps this entire deal the result of someone's mislinking of IPA expecting to find something else, and then coming here to prove a point? Duja 13:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it unlikely to search for the Pale Ale by typing IPA? (At the risk of thinking you do violate WP:AGF:) What point to you think is trying to be proven? The fact that you were able to analyze the links suggests that someone with a manual disambiguation-assistance bot (which shows context & displays options of what to disambiguate to) should be able to fix things. Also: If there are currently a significant number of articles which link to IPA which DON'T refer to the alphabet, I think that would be a very strong argument to redirect IPA to a disambiguation page rather than to the wrong term. --Karnesky 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of accusing myself even further :-), I meant the point of "I'm lazy to type Pale Ale, let's try just IPA. Whoa, this is something Greek to me! I have to read the dab notice and click twice more! Oh my, oh my, it shouldn't be like that!". Doesn't using "IPA" when searching for "Indian Pale Ale" look a bit too ignorant optimistic that there ain't more important things in the Universe than beer? If e.g. a lazy Australian wants to shorthand University of South Australia, should he bitch about USA redirecting to...?
As for the suspected mis-links to IPA when the phonetics is not intended, point taken. We might never know though... — it's not exactly a simple thing to check. Duja 15:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not build a straw man here. Of the first hundred google hits for "USA," every single one is referring to the country. A similar search for IPA shows a roughly equal number referring to the beer and the alphabet. This isn't meant to be an objective measure of your subjective relative "importance" of beers and alphabets, but is meant to demonstrate that there is more than sufficient use of the acronym referring to other things. I don't have an opinion of the ignorance/optimism of our users, but will note that people HAVE "incorrectly" searched for & have even incorrectly linked to "IPA" when referring to something other than the alphabet. --Karnesky 17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed the phonetic alphabet and the beer style are equal in prominence, then the use of IPA in so many convenience links as part of the encyclopedia's infrastructure helps tip the balance for the status quo. —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 01:10 Z
If I was arguing to point IPA to the beer rather than the alphabet, this might be a good argument. But the fact that they are equal in prominence & the fact that there are other not insignificant expansions suggests a disambiguation page is the right thing to do (see AA or AAA or numerous other short acronyms). --Karnesky 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another reason for using a bot to switch IPA tags to International Phonetic Alphabet and then making IPA redirect to the disamb page: I have no doubt that there are a good number of people who have no idea what those glyphs are that sometimes appear that are labeled "IPA." If those links all went to International Phonetic Alphabet, they could mouse over the link and their question would be answered. As it is, they have to click on the link and then click back to get a basic explanation. Nareek 18:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several arguments here that IPA should redirect to what a reader expects it to stand for, and others that it should redirect to the most common expansion. I think the correct answer isn't exactly either of those. Links to IPA are created by editors, who typically have a little knowledge of Wikipedia. It's also relevant that incorrect links are likely to be corrected pretty quickly, so a novice editor watching the page will learn that IPA doesn't point to something else. So it's not worth putting too much energy into arguing the finer principals of where the abbreviation "should" redirect.

But my point is that IPA should point to what an editor is most likely to assume it points to, when he is creating a link. At this time, I would submit that the only significant minority who is likely to mis-link IPA is novice Wikipedia editors writing about beer. There will always be a number of random "IPA" links created which intend to link to one of the other sixteen disambiguated articles, and this will never change, no matter what IPA redirects to. But the majority of knowledgeable editors now know that IPA redirects to International Phonetic Alphabet, so there is no problem with the current situation, and furthermore it is extremely handy for the creation of hundreds of links there.

What a reader expects "IPA" to point to is only relevant when they type a URL (not, in this case, when they perform a search). I believe typing a URL is unusual for a reader new to Wikipedia, and the top-of-the-page disambiguation link is there to work around this potential pitfall.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 01:00 Z

If the editor has knowledge of WP, the IPA2 template will work be preferable in 99% of cases & the editors should be sophisticated enough to make the correct expansion in other cases. Editors only assume IPA points to the alphabet because it does so now. And not all editors assume that anyway! Disambiguation is easy. Much easier than fixing links that redirect to the wrong thing. I'm really not seeing the downside of the change, save for a one time cost of disambiguating ~1800 pages. --Karnesky 13:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That search link is somewhat misleading. If they type "IPA" in the search box & press "go" (or enter, as it is the default submit action), they are taken to the alphabet page. --Karnesky 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely what a reader expects to find when they type "IPA" into the search box and press "go" is relevant. The disambiguation rules are designed to prevent people from often having to click through a number of screens to get to where they are going. If there's an obvious meaning for an acronym, like BBC or USA, even people who are looking for something else are unlikely to get the wrong page by mistake, but IPA is far from being so universally known that that's not going to happen. In my everyday world, if you say "IPA", people are likely to ask if you mean Institute for Public Accuracy or the Independent Press Association--neither beer nor alphabets will even occur to them. Nareek 15:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And now, some more wikilawyering on my part (gosh, I'll get myself disgussed):
From WP:DAB#Primary topic (emphasis mine of course):

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

Duja 15:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is the very thing we're attempting to gather now. Others might place the emphasis this way:

When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)....

Which is to say that "reader" trumps "editor." (despite Michael assertions to the contrary. Still others may place the emphasis thusly:

Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

The alphabet is not the clearly dominant expansion of IPA. --Karnesky 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there objections to immediately beginning to "disambiguate" (for lack of a better term) articles that link to IPA to the intended expansion? This isn't intended to be a WP:POINT (which is why I want to check first), but especially to fix pages that are incorrectly linked to the alphabet.--Karnesky 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've disambiguated ~1700 links to IPA. This process wasn't that bad & I think WP is better for it. In most cases, I was able to use Template:IPA2, which improves readability and consistency. There were a couple dozen or so links (~1%) which pointed to something other than the alphabet (mostly the beer, but not always). I don't think this number is that low, given that IPA currently redirects to the alphabet. I am still very much in favor of changing the redirect. The only disadvantage that I see is the quick and dirty use of the TLA on talk pages--in actual articles, templates take care of the heavy lifting. The advantages are that there'd be 0% misdirected pages & that it would be consistent with the relative infrequency with which the expansion is to the alphabet outside of Wikipedia. --Karnesky 20:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

What?

[edit]

Haha, I never thought that the change of the redirect would pass! Look at the things on this disambig page other than the International Phonetic Alphabet: they are all stubs, and one thing is about a card game, oh my God.....I won't fight it though. </rant> The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am confused, IPA is currently redirecting to the wrong place. Nareek 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Order of Lists

[edit]

This discussion is essentially independant of whether IPA should redirect to this page or not.

I have done a fairly thorough analysis of the ordering of the items in the top list (i.e. those not in organisations). I based it on google results all taken on 15:00 29 Mar 2008 GMT. I appreciate this isn't a perfect measure but it's better than the previous random ordering, and I didn't do it blindly (see notes below). The order in this table is the new order I have given the terms. The hits is for number of hits for a google of the term in quotes. "First page" is the page where the term first appeared in a google for IPA (most matches were organisations), ignoring the wikipedia match.

Term Hits First page
International Phonetic Alphabet, 246,000 1
India Pale Ale 575,000 2
Isopropyl Alcohol 898,000 >10
International Players Anthem 123,000 >10
Integrated Planning Act 29,900 >10
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 26,700 >10
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis 25,200 >10
Interprocedural analysis 24,700 >10
Invasion, Planeshift, Apocalypse 6,220 >10
Intelligent Process Automation 2,280 >10
Intermediate power amplifier 2,120 >10
IP Address 54,400,000 >10

Notes:

  • Ale vs. alcohol (places 2 vs. 3): although isopropyl alcohol has more hits than the ale, I believe google pagerank tells us that the main reason for this is because the ale is often referred to as "IPA" without expansion rather than because it is less popular. In fact I would have ordered all the rest according to pagerank for "IPA", if they'd appeared further up the list.
  • Alphabet vs. ale (places 1 vs. 2): The above point applies here as well, and indeed probably even more strongly. In addition the alphabet is of interest to anyone in the international community, whereas ale of chiefly European and to some extent North American interest (in fact, it's probably mostly of note in the UK); snce wikipedia is meant to be international, this gives additional weight to this argument (although the previous point is still the main reason).
  • All the rest: the first point still applies, but since they don't appear within reason in a google for "IPA", number of hits is all I have to go on for possible interest.
  • IP Address: obviously this is the most popular term (at least, on the internet it is). However in 20 years in computing (including working with other others across the globe) I've never heard an IP address (which is already an abbreviation!) shortened to IPA. If anything, it sometimes gets shortened to "an IP", even though technically IP is the protocol. I was a little dubious about even leaving it on the page, but I guess it's possible some communities call it this.

I tried to clean up the organisation section a little, given that the top term (Illinois Psychological Association) was the amongst the least significant, but I have to admit I wasn't nearly as thorough. I mostly moved the international organisations to the top and the regional ones towards the bottom, with the final one (the prohibition organisation) one that doesn't exist anymore. If you make changes to the order of either section, please be sure explain why here. Thanks. Quietbritishjim (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the numbers are interesting, they don't even back the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which I've set per MOSDAB and put these common items into the bulk of the dab. Widefox; talk 16:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:IPA

[edit]

Shouldn't the Wikipedia phonetic charts be included as well?--Anthonzi (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2018

[edit]
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: consensus to move the disambiguation page to the base title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IPA (disambiguation) → IPA – As much as about every one of my edits is about the phonetic alphabet in one way or another, I don't think the majority of visitors expect to see International Phonetic Alphabet when they type "IPA" in the search box and hit Enter. Especially the abbreviation must be used as short for India pale ale much more often now than it was 12 years ago when the proposal above was made. And even back then, a majority, albeit not an overwhelming one, supported the move.

It looks like some opposed in part because it would have been arduous to fix the existing links, but not only is that not a valid reason for opposition (we can always use a bot or AWB and the number of the links is less than 500, which is not a lot), but keeping IPA a disambiguation page helps because it will prevent editors from inadvertently linking to it when they mean India pale ale (in fact I just fixed 18 such cases) or anything other than the alphabet (if they do, they will get a notice from DPL bot). Moreover, having [[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]] in lieu of [[IPA]] helps editors know and make sure where the link is intended to direct. Nardog (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I don't see the point unless we had some sort of evidence that people are really more likely, or even equally likely, to search for "IPA" in the hopes of an article about a type of beer as opposed to an article about the International Phonetic Alphabet, especially with the IPA increasingly finding its way into classrooms at a pre-tertiary level in recent times (in Europe, at least). And those that do can quite easily click through to the disambiguation page and find the link to India Pale Ale - or indeed just try searching for the unabbreviated term.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 02:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is difficult for a three-letter acronym to have a primary topic, and even more so when there are so many options from which to choose. bd2412 T 02:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and BD2412. The beer meaning is vastly more common in public parlance, but I'm still not sure that makes it the primary topic, but the the linguistics meaning will dominate in non-pop-culture sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, Google Trends shows that searches for the alphabet prevailed against the ale 12 years ago, but since around 2010 it has been neck and neck. Isopropyl alcohol trumps both, but I wouldn't imagine it's more commonly referred to as IPA than the ale or the alphabet. Nardog (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose : I agree with NardogNewbiepedian, with the additional point that (curiously) it is not entirely clear what IPA stands for: strictly it is the International Phonetic Association, rather than the Alphabet, so in a sense the "IPA" title is even more correct than spelling it out. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread above. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that all the more reason to make IPA not a redirect to the article about the Alphabet? And although there may be contexts in which "IPA" is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the organization or the alphabet, they are clearly two separable entities and so we have separate articles about them. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2018 (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.

clickstreams data

[edit]

@Nardog here's the data that I used to support the recent ordering edit:

  • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 5353
  • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 3821
  • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 526
  • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 228
  • clickstream-enwiki-2020-11.tsv:IPA FreeIPA link 58
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 7959
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 6219
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 411
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 238
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-08.tsv:IPA .ipa link 54
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6969
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 4258
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 377
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 215
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-09.tsv:IPA 3-Indolepropionic_acid link 38
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6915
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 3651
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 361
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 222
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-10.tsv:IPA .ipa link 30
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6808
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 3389
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 387
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 227
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-11.tsv:IPA .ipa link 55
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6269
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 3814
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 335
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 173
  • clickstream-enwiki-2023-12.tsv:IPA .ipa link 50
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6852
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 2940
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 424
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 225
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-01.tsv:IPA .ipa link 77
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Alphabet link 6315
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:IPA India_pale_ale link 2758
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:IPA Isopropyl_alcohol link 370
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:IPA International_Phonetic_Association link 240
  • clickstream-enwiki-2024-02.tsv:IPA .ipa link 48

--Joy (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe 3.5 years as "consistent". Besides, what is the PAG basis for sorting entries like this? It also makes the alphabet and association separated, which I find unnecessarily confusing. Nardog (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In every one of the monthly stats I checked, it was the same order, that was the consistent part. An alphabetical sorting may make sense for a long list, but for a list of only 4 entries it's not necessary, no reader is thinking "hm I'm looking for India... and not Intern... and therefore because d is before t in the alphabet I'm going to look in spot #2 instead of #3" - it's so short that everyone just skims the links in all four entries and most of them quickly find what they want. As we know that most reading begins from the top and goes down, it makes sense to put the most commonly sought topics in that order. --Joy (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then can we move the association back to the body? Its pageviews pale in comparison to the other three. Nardog (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that follows. The reason I moved it there is that readers apparently found it in the body despite it not being in the top list, or even atop its own list, yet it consistently attracted essentially comparable interest to isopropyl alcohol, which was. If we should make a smaller top list, then alcohol should go, too, but in turn then both of those items should be at the top of their sections, and those sections should be one after the other. Maybe we could then move the science section ahead of organizations, to avoid having to scroll through the whole laundry list of insignificant organizations to get to the alcohol. --Joy (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing both the alcohol and the association seems fine with me (while they're clicked more than the rest of the list, they're about an order of magnitude below the top two), but people do seem to keep adding them back. Alternatively, nesting the association as in this version from 2013 (!) is a lot more readable. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, please feel free to choose whichever options appeals most to you. --Joy (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the latter (making the organization subordinate), the alcohol gets many views (and it is in fact "commonly referred to"—unlike the organization, which I suspect gets more views than it deserves because of banner blindness). Nardog (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing people have done is add an explicit section heading for the common meanings, presumably to address any such banner blindness? --Joy (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPA&oldid=1243830689"