Talk:UPI (disambiguation)

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move, per long term significance. An argument was made to instead put Unified Payments Interface at the primary, but garnered no support. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The wikinav data is difficult to interpret (it would have been a lot easier if the dab page was at the base title). However, article popularity, long-term considerations, and results of web searhces clearly point to the news agency not being the primary topic here. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The news agency is clearly the primary topic, certainly with long-term significance and globally well-known. The other is a recent and narrow acronym (which frankly I never heard of until now), known only in one country, and basically unheard outside of it. Numbers mean nothing in this context - anything in India is always going to have several magnitudes larger by sheer population size of that country. Walrasiad (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't live in either India or the US and I hadn't heard of either topic until now. My web search results are dominated by the Indian payment system (including in a lot of results in Western media), with only a single mention of the American news agency on the second page of results. You know, the argument that you're essentially making is that we should ignore numbers when they relate to a populous country like India, but not ignore them if they related to a country like the US, which is.... also very populous. – Uanfala (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always ignore numbers in RMs, especially if a proposal has no other argument going for it. They are usually thoughtless. Numbers are never particularly informative, and especially distorted when related to geographically-specific issues, and especially in populous localities. I am as stern with US as with India. UPI, however, is not geographically limited to the US. It is a world news agency, with a global reach, which happens to be American-owned. Walrasiad (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine primary topics without any numbers then? And if world reach is the determinative factor, then among the dozen or so topics listed on UPI (disambiguation), there's at least one more that's global: Intel Ultra Path Interconnect. How do you decide that the news agency is primary over the technical standard. – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply. I ask myself whether the numbers might simply reflect local people looking up a local thing. So I look up external sources and references, to see if it is referred to as such outside that locality. If I don't find many, then that's a pretty good indicator the numbers are entirely uninformative. It is merely locals looking up local stuff and meaningless for the rest of the Wikipedia audience.

News agencies are easy. I grew up in Africa, even in remote towns and villages, we knew about UPI. It was in every daily newspaper everybody read. Walrasiad (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you looked up the Unified Payments Interface, and then the other seven or so topics known as UPI, and found that none had any non-local sources and references? – Uanfala (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yes. Other UPI acronyms are pretty much narrowly local or technical. Walrasiad (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Sorry for the long string questions: tour initial comment made it seem your were coming from a

what first comes to mind perspective, but your subsequent comments suggest you must have done a lot of research before !voting here. However, you have apparently missed a lot of obvious refs: among 9 results on the first page of a Google search for "UPI" [2], 8 are about the payment system, and these 8 include a page on the website of a British payment company [3], articles in Quartz [4] and Forbes [5], as well as our own Wikipedia article. So half of those hits are in non-local publications. – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• The first thing I thought when I saw this is to check where we point AP, and we don't short-circuit that to the Associated Press, so I'm finding it hard to justify this primary redirect. Likewise, a Google Books search shows their style guide as the first result, but all other results on the first few pages are scattered and not significant coverage of the assumed primary topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UPI&action=history indicates this was short-circuited without an apparent rationale in 2006, and barely touched since, so I'd say disambiguate it, putting the news agency at the top, and watch the statistics over the next couple of months to see what the readers actually do. We don't have WikiNav data for UPI right now, but https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=United_Press_International indicates the hatnote is the third most clicked link in the article, which is suspect, even if it's just 68. Page views for the redirect indicate 656 views, so the ratio might be ~10%, which indicates it's worth a check. --Joy (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don’t see any evidence that the payment service is frequently sought with UPI. Anyway, currently, anyone searching for the news service with UPI is taken directly to the article they are seeking, while those seeking the payment service are one click away (thanks to the hatnote I just modified). Everyone seeking any other (obscure) use of UPI is two clicks away (hatnote link click to the dab page plus one more). If the proposed change occurs then everyone searching with UPI will have to go through the dab page. That’s worse for the news agency, neutral for the payment service, and better for the obscure uses. I think WP is better the way it is now. —В²C ☎ 13:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for repeating something form higher up in this thread, but if you search on Google for "UPI", all but one of the results on the first page will be about the payment service, and in each of those it will be referred to using the abbreviation. See also the immediately preceding section. – Uanfala (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then redirect UPI to the payment service. My main point is sending everyone searching with UPI to the dab page is a net disservice. —-В²C ☎ 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirecting to the dab page is the established practice in this situation, as described at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#No primary topic. the wub "?!" 11:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware, and believe it's a mistake. I call

  WP:IAR to make WP better. Do you want to follow the rules for the sake of following the rules, or improve WP? --В²C ☎ 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose
  WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to that instead. No clue why it goes to United Press. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Can you please explain your claim, as opposed to posting in such a flamebait style? This is not consensus-building. --Joy (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It gets around 10x the pageviews of the next most popular topic. Also, I don't know how that is flamebait. I was just stating a fact. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposal was to disambiguate, and then you opposed that and went further, without providing a rationale. It struck me as needlessly confrontational, I would have found it more appropriate to agree with the proposal because it's a prerequisite for going further like that. --Joy (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how going ahead with moving the disambiguation to main would be a "prerequisite" for anything. UPI's target should simply be switched from the supposed primary topic, which was changed one day at random by an IP editor, possibly with a bias, to the original one, but no move is necessary.

  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we don't need to make needless in between discussions when something is already obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's not obvious, because WikiNav data does not indicate that most people want that other meaning as primary topic. Let's try not to base discussions on what is "obvious"... --Joy (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, am I missing something here? The Payments Interface article is also the leader by far in Wikinav data. Showing that most people both want to click on the article and are interested in reading it. It is indeed quite obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The link posted above, [6] says that there were 489 or 382 views of the disambiguation page, which in turn led to 241 views of the Unified Payments Interface. That means 63% or 49% of people who saw that list chose that item. Now, that's after clicking the hatnote. Where UPI points right now is described at [7] which is sadly smashed together with the rest of that page's traffic, but still. We can see there were only 68 clicks in the same period on the hatnote. At [8] we can see 656 views of the "UPI" redirect. That would be about 10%. None of this is overwhelming, which is the standard set by

  WP:PTOPIC. Rather, it seems rather indicative of ambiguity. --Joy (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose holy cow educational significance, UPI has been around for a long time and is a bedrock cornerstone of journalism in the world Red Slash 20:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clear primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at minimum redirecting to the DAB page. The pageviews have a significant enough gap where I would probably support redirecting to Unified Payments Interface as well, though I'm not entirely sure how to use pageview analysis in a situation like this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]