Jump to content

Talk:NDIS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed primary topic - NDIS to National Disability Insurance Scheme

[edit]

Hi there. I am proposing that the previous primary topic for the term "NDIS" is restored to point to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Not only is this scheme an extremely major government program in Australia and subject to frequent international discussion, but page view statistics (here) and Google trend data (here) shows it is consistently and significantly more popular than Network Driver Interface Specification (stub, short article) and National DNA Index System (which is actually a redirect to Combined DNA Index System). Ping @Iciebath - re: your reversion of the primary topic redirect. Tim (Talk) 04:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again @Iciebath - just a heads up that I'll be restoring the redirect from NDIS to National Disability Insurance Scheme now on the basis of WP:SILENCE. Happy to engage in a discussion down the track if you feel otherwise. Tim (Talk) 04:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NDIS is the primary topic in Australia, but Wikipedia has a global audience. Restoring per WP:STATUSQUO. If you feel it should be changed please seek a consensus via a WP:RM. Iciebath (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iciebath - While I appreciate your intent, coming along three weeks later after a silent consensus and reverting without discussion could be seen as status quo stonewalling. Nonetheless, I feel like clarity is required around the disambiguation process - notably, to let you know that WP:RM is not the relevant process here. The relevant policy on disambiguation pages and processes is WP:DISAMBIG, which states that a topic is the primary topic where there is a clear difference in either usage (i.e., what is it that most people who search "NDIS" are looking for) and/or long-term significance (i.e., is a world-regarded national disability care scheme more significant in the long-term than the Network Driver Interface Specification). I'm not even going to entertain the hypothesis that the title National DNA Index System is worth consideration here considering it is a blank redirect.
While, to me at least, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is by far the obvious primary topic, let's apply the methodology from WP:DPT:
  • WikiNav: the disability insurance scheme has 4.2k monthly page views, versus 648 for the technical specification - for every one visitor to the tech spec page, there are almost 7 visitors to the insurance scheme page. Clearly, the insurance scheme is the more popular topic. [1] [2]
  • PageViews: again, the disability insurance scheme is significantly more popular with almost 5x the average daily visitors. [3]
  • Use in English literature: I have already provided the link to the Google Trends page, but for good measure, here's also the Ngram data - the insurance scheme is roughly 67x more frequently mentioned in literature. The tech spec was more cited in 2010 before the insurance scheme emerged, but has been consistently declining since. I'll also point out that I set Google Trends to world-wide search activity, not just Australia. Heck, Google Trends says there isn't enough search activity for the tech spec to show more specific data. [4]
  • WhatLinksHere: there are 148 links to the insurance scheme vs 179 to the tech spec. I acknowledge that the tech spec has more inter-wiki links, but a quick look at the source articles shows that more publicly significant articles refer to the insurance scheme then the tech spec. For example, significant primary pages, History of Australia, Disability, Prosthesis etc, link to the insurance scheme, whereas most source links for the tech spec are historic, specialised articles like WinG or Pcap, many of which I suspect would struggle to meet WP:GNG (but that's tangential).
Also, on the idea that just because the insurance scheme is specific to Australia, it therefore must not be a potential primary topic is flawed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have FBI as a redirect to the US government agency because it could also mean the UK industry group. Or we wouldn't have NASA pointing to the space agency, because it also means the National Archives of South Africa. Something can be a nation- or region-specific topic, and still be the primary topic for the initialism.
Please let me know if there is some significant evidence to the contrary that is consistent with WP:DISAMBIG that I have missed. Tim (Talk) 10:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]