Talk:NDIS

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]

Sorry, I still don't agree. Suggest taking it to WP:RM. After 10 days, it's not gaining any traction here. Iciebath (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iciebath - Your personal disagreement, and the fact that you have provided no evidence or reasoning, is not grounds for trying to block this motion and is disruptive behaviour. Also, you don't "take" conversations to WP:RM. Discussions about disambiguation or requested moves are held on the article talk pages, not on a central noticeboard. All relevant article talk pages have been notified of this discussion, and you are the only person who has an issue with this. Unless you provide any reasoning or evidence to the contrary of what I have highlighted above, continued objection and stonewalling may be better addressed through dispute resolution. Tim (Talk) 03:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a WP:RM is initiated, the discussion takes place on the article's talks page, not on a central noticeboard. Did you not notice that this is what happened when you initiated a RM at Talk:Oracle Health? By initiating the RM process, the discussion is more likely to attract a higher level of editor involvement.

The reason that FBI and NASA are set as the WP:Primary Topic I imagine is although US based, they are well known outside of the US. But a bit hard to be sure, as I can't see any evidence of either having been challenged. The disability scheme while probably the primary topic in the eyes of Australian readers, is likely to be unheard of in other countries.

You and I can go back and forth for months, but if neither of us changes our position, then nothing will change. So I would suggest dropping your disruptive behaviour accusation nonsense, and follow the process, i.e. initiate a RM and then after a finite period a decision will be made. Iciebath (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though we still are having difficulty reaching a consensus on which policy applies here. Can I ask, why do you think that the requested move processes in WP:RM would apply (or be practical), instead of the points in WP:DISAMBIG? I am not requesting any type of article move here, this is about setting the primary topic (the section in DISAMBIG that you have linked to). I'm also not sure what you're trying to say in the first two sentences, as what you're saying is basically a copy-paste of what I've said?

Additionally, if you have a look at WP:DPT - a rule of thumb is that it's likely there is a primary topic by usage if the top graph [in WikiNav] shows a single significant usage that maps to almost all of the incoming traffic and overwhelms all other usages. I've shown that this is the case, and most other metrics described in that guideline further support. Tim (Talk) 05:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo will only be changed if there is a consensus to do so. As it stands you and I cancel each other out so the status quo will remain. WP:RM is an appropriate place to take for resolution, WP:DPT stating: There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move. Iciebath (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not run on a system of voting - consensus and improvement occurs through meaningful, informed, and evidenced discussion. I'd recommend you have a read of WP:NOTVOTE - your !vote doesn't "cancel out" my !vote, it's about the reasoning on either sides. I'd also draw attention to the specific wording of what you've selectively quoted - that disambiguation is one possible outcome of a RM proposal, not that disambiguation is discussed through a RM. I'm not going to slap a giant RM template on the article to potentially "attract a higher level of editor involvement" when notices have already been placed on four different article talk pages and the change had been implemented for three weeks without issue until your objection. At this stage, as I don't see this being a productive forward discussion, I would request your participation at WP:DRN#NDIS. Tim (Talk) 13:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on a basis of consensus. Not a case of my vote cancelling yours out, but to enact the change you desire, you will need a greater level of support than attained thus far. Those notices on other talk pages didn't achieve much if nobody replied; not surprising nobody commented, as those pages were not going to affected. Had you gone and initiated a WP:RM as I had suggested three weeks ago, this would most likely have been resolved by now. Iciebath (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• NDIS → NDIS (disambiguation)

– Procedural listing, disputed primary topic, National Disability Insurance Scheme is asserted to be the primary topic for NDIS per discussion above. I was not a participant, but it seems like neither of the participants are actually going to list it. (including the other page in the RM mostly to notify that page as well, I don't think it's abbreviated often enough for an ACROTITLE?) Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with the mention of usage above is that they didn't look at lookups of "NDIS" itself.

All-time monthly page views shows it gets up to a few hundred views a month. It's generally declining in volume, and doesn't match the pattern of the traffic to the linked topics, which doesn't help explain why we'd need to short-circuit now.

Clickstreams (WikiNav) history does not render in the last few months, but before that it did:

There was no consistent advantage for the proposed primary topic there at all, so this sounds more like we're second-guessing reader intent for the acronym based on overall interest for the whole phrases. --Joy (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these great points, @User:Joy. I understand what you've flagged re: the acronym vs the target, but I believe that for the purposes of being pragmatic, the PageView analysis you linked shows an obvious prevalence of the insurance scheme that can be used to make reasonable inferences about the acronym. As a very rough and dirty look (and in my own exposure), it seems as though the NDIS (as in the insurance scheme) is quite commonly referred to solely by its acronym in journalism - [5]. Google Ngram also suggests that as the insurance scheme ramped up in the early to mid 2010's, there has been a dramatic spike in the prevalence of the sequence "NDIS", despite the critical decline to references to the technical specification. In regards to why now, I can't speak for why other editors that have previously contributed may not have put forward a proposal, but I would probably ask why not now? Tim (Talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because recent spikes in reader interest in one topic don't have to be determinative for organizing navigation. When I look the term up in Google Books, on the first page I get references to both of these topics as well as to "NDIs", meaning their search engine hasn't been made to short-circuit readers, rather it shows them ambiguity. I don't quite see why we'd want to risk inconveniencing say half the readers just because another half is on the rise. I'd set up the redirect once that other half actually becomes prevalent - when we'd actually expect an appreciable amount of readers to raise an eyebrow or be confused at seeing disambiguation after looking up the term. Right now, it doesn't seem like anybody is particularly surprised to see an ambiguous acronym require a navigation choice. --Joy (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your action @Alpha3031 - to confirm your thoughts, I am not proposing that National Disability Insurance Scheme be moved to NDIS. Tim (Talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the only reason I listed it as well was because it was an easy way to get the bot to also add a banner to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. No other reason, I just can't figure out a better way to advertise it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Though, come to think of it, I probably should have added the other one as well, if I were doing one. Oh well, if anyone knows how to do that please do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It takes a lot to assert a primary topic for an acronym, and I don't think we're there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]