Talk:YPG (disambiguation)

Primary topic

The primary topic that the term “YPG” refers to is People's Protection Units. So "YPG" should lead to that article (not to a disambiguation page), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Excluding redirects,

520 545 article pages link to People's Protection Units.[1]
People's Protection Units has been viewed 59,920 90,714 times in the last 90 days.[2]

111 article pages link to The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra.
The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra has been viewed 12,151 times in the last 90 days.

140 article pages link to Yuma Proving Ground.
Yuma Proving Ground has been viewed 4,550 times in the last 90 days.

13 10 article pages link to Yellow Pages Group.[3]
Yellow Pages Group has been viewed 1,632 1,584 times in the last 90 days.[4]

21 19 article pages link to Portage la Prairie Southport Airport.[5]
Portage la Prairie Southport Airport has been viewed 703 626 times in the last 90 days.[6]

304 146 article pages link to Phola language.[7]
Phola language has been viewed 477 306 times in the last 90 days.[8]

--Dervorguilla (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC) 00:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Portage la Prairie Southport Airport seems like the most omissible of these on a statistical basis. It ranks 4/5 for articles linking and 4/5 for times viewed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no statistical qualifier for "ambiguous". Either it's ambiguous and it gets listed or it's not and it doesn't. The IATA code YPG is that airport, so it's listed, even if it averages 0 hits for years. If it's truly "omissible", the airport article should be deleted or the non-encyclopedic information about the YPG code needs to be excised. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with JHunterJ. While that IATA code clearly isn't omissible, it doesn't stand in the way for another subject possibly being the primary topic, per WP:ACRONYMTITLE.
  @Dervorguilla: Note also that the popularity of a subject doesn't relate at all to how much a particular topic is identified by the acronym. What we need to measure is to which extent an acronym represents, and has been identified with a particular subject. While that may change over time, it seems to be clear beyond any doubt that YPG has become widely identified with the Kurdish militia, which is only occaionally referred to by one of its full name's English translations. --PanchoS (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes and yes. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Move, merge, or make dual revisions?

1. This article can be boldly edited so that it redirects to People's Protection Units (with hatnote), rather than disambiguates.

2. The YPG (disambiguation) article can be boldly edited so that it disambiguates, rather than redirects.

The "underlying conceptual or factual material" in this article can be copied to the YPG (disambiguation) article if the "words used to express [the] idea or convey [the] information" are original with the new author. CMOS, ¶ 4.5 ("Original Expression"). Is this correct?

If not, can this article's page history be moved or merged? Or perhaps just linked from the Talk:YPG (disambiguation) page? --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

Steps 1 & 2 represent a cut-and-paste move, so, no, you can't do it. Yes, it can be moved; see WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It may not be easy, JHunterJ. Compare WP:RM#TR and the CSD G6 request by PanchoS. Apologies, but it's too much for me to understand without help. --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dervorguilla: Yes, it's become quite complicated, partly due to the multiple cut-and-paste edits. The most important thing to preserve is substantial article history, so this page here – however it may be named – is to be preserved, while the page currently named YPG (disambiguation) doesn't have a substantial history, so can be CSD'ed if in the way for a move. What you need to achieve is moving this page here (not the Talk page of course) to YPG (disambiguation), and then creating a new redirect at this place. The three possibilities are:

• another CSD G6 request as mine wasn't outright declined
• a technical move request, though it might end up being declined
• a standard {{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=}}

As stated above, I agree with the move being the correct decision, and will support it. --PanchoS (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 December 2015

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: Move. There seems to be consensus that the article currently titled People's Protection Units is the primary topic of the acronym "YPG". However, as we had little discussion on the second half of the request - moving People's Protection Units to YPG, I'm going to leave that article as is and redirect YPG to it. If another result is sought, drop me a line, or we can open a second RM to settle that question. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

YPG → YPG (disambiguation) – And then move People's Protection Units to YPG; best discuss here properly whether People's Protection Units is a dominant meaning and whether to re-include The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra and Yuma Proving Ground. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment please do first whatever is necessary to fix/correct page history, but in terms of there being a primary topic for YPG, running "YPG is" "YPG was" in Google Books shows that there isn't. The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra and Yuma Proving Ground must be included on dab as must Yunnan Power Grid and the other "YPG is" hits in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia ambiguity, not Google Books ambiguity. Wikipedia isn't an acronym dictionary. Wikipedia articles that have no ambiguity with YPG are not listed on the disambiguation page for YPG. The encyclopedia articles could be updated if there is encyclopedic information about their being known as YPG, but that happens first, before the disambiguation page disambiguates them. See WP:DABACRONYM -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

True enough. Out of academic interest, I went ahead and put a few questions to Google Books. Since 2005, how many books have been published that describe...

YPG, the Syrian Kurdish group? 25 13 (verified).

YPG, the telephone-directory publisher? 11 (in passing) 0 (verified).

YPG, the airport? 0.

YPG, the language? 0.

The Army facility? 6 2 (verified). The peptone glucose? 3. The power grid? 2. The benefits guarantee? 1 0 (verified). The Britten symphony? 1.

I've no idea whether this data compilation is particularly helpful, though. --Dervorguilla (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 09:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Oppose - A case has not been built here. Please show why one meaning would deserve to be primary. --Midas02 (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

606 article pages link to People's Protections Units; 179 article pages link to the three other listed topics combined. In the last 90 days, People's Protection Units has been viewed 92,100 times; the others, 2,080 times. The first meaning deserves to be primary because it's more likely to be the topic sought than all the others combined. Compare WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, I have altered my vote based on your comments. I also appreciate Bkonrad's comment. It is a fact that any three-letter combination is rather ambiguous. However, there are only a few items listed on the dab page, and an internet search almost exclively delivers results related to the Kurdish group. Additionally, the article is very heavily wikilinked, although that's in part due to templates. But there is still a considerable difference with the other articles mentioned. My recommendation would be to make the article primary until the dust settles over the Syrian conflict (if ever). --Midas02 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. While evidence does indicate People's Protection Units is a more prominent topic than other entries on the page, the evidence is not convincing that it it the primary topic for "YPG". There is no easy way to determine how many people viewing "People's Protection Units" sought the page by looking for "YPG". This string of three characters is ambiguous, and unlike entities such as FBI or GDR, the Kurdish group is not a readily recognizable entity for most English speakers. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You can estimate how many by using article-traffic statistics. In the last 90 days, 1,603 people viewed Yellow Pages Group; 644 viewed Portage la Prairie/Southport Airport; and 316 viewed Phola language. A total of 7,562 people looked for "YPG"; so between 4,620 and 7,357 of the 92,067 people who viewed People's Protection Units can be estimated to have sought the page by looking for "YPG". --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

• Oppose – I don't see a strong case for a primary-topic grab of this TLA. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Since July 2006, interest in the search query "YPG" has correlated almost perfectly with interest in the search topic "People's Protection Units" (and not at all with interest in the topics "Yellow Pages Group" or "Portage la Prairie Airport").

Do take a look at the trends graph, Google Trends - Web Search interest: ypg, People's Protection Units, Yellow Pages Group, Portage la Prairie/Southport..., phola - Worldwide.

Google Trends is mentioned at WP:SET. Here I'm using it to find out which topic has the highest correlation in popularity with a given query. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support (own request).

  

  Google Search trends graph

  This search-trends graph shows the popularity over time of Google search term "YPG" and Google search topics People's Protection Units, Yellow Pages Group, Portage la Prairie/Southport Airport, and Yuma Proving Ground.

Interest in the search query "YPG" from July 2013 to the present correlates almost perfectly with interest in the search topic People's Protection Units. It does not correlate significantly with interest in any of the other three topics shown (nor in Phola, not shown).

Compare WP:NC, "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

--Relisting to generate a more thorough discussion and a consensus. PanchoS (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment while there doesn't seem an overwhelmingly strong case being made for the acronym (rather than the article name), there is a clear case based on usage in articles currently. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the long-term usage is unclear for this candidate, so an overwhelming case should be made, else any decision may be revisited. A move of the article to a parenthetic title would be my suggestion until an overwhelming case is made including longevity per WP:10YT . Widefox; talk 14:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

IF the current usage is clear AND "the long-term usage is unclear", we can close the discussion. No one can make a legitimate claim that any particular topic is primary with respect to long-term significance. So, no one can make a legitimate claim that there's a conflict between terms.

"In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic."

YPG thus becomes one of those "many other cases" - and the "clear" current-usage topic becomes the primary topic.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicates that there's no need to make an "overwhelming case" here (or even achieve a strong consensus). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support for information provided about the topics actually ambiguous on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.