Talk:Environmental Protection Agency

message: I've decided to be bold and move the former contents of this page to United States Environmental Protection Agency.  There seemed to be a wide consensus to do this.  Lankiveil 12:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion 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. 
Environmental Protection Agency (disambiguation) → Environmental Protection Agency — Environmental Protection Agency should be a disambig page. —Alan Liefting 03:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - I don't see the real need to do it. I would reccomend switching the redirect to redirect to this disambig page, but I don't think this disambig page need to change titles. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Those actually called "Environmental Protection Agency" are quite few. Are we really better off moving the dab and having to retarget all of the more than 675 links to the plain title that intend the U.S. agency? Isn't a dablink sufficient? Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.
TheRandomEditor wants Environmental Protection Agency to redirect here; that would create a malplaced disambiguation page, which would be immediately solved by moving Environmental Protection Agency (disambiguation) to the simpler title. Thus, he/she is effectively supporting the request. Until now, it has been assumed that "Environmental Protection Agency" should redirect to United States Environmental Protection Agency, but that article has remained at a longer title, suggesting that its full name is not merely "Environmental Protection Agency". The same is not true of its Irish counterpart or its Queensland counterpart. Finally, the fact that links would have to be changed is not really a good argument. We should not be making decisions based on the convenience of the editors, but on which names best fit our established policies and practices This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this outcome; it is not "editor convenience" that is in question, but what readers will want to see if they type "Environmental Protection Agency" in the search box, and the incoming links are an indication of that per WP:DAB#Primary topic. Having to fix the 675 links is only a symptom of the problem that under this setup, when readers click on internal links, they will not get where they're supposed to go. Dekimasuよ! 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Dekimasu. Having a dab page sit between the original link and the intended destination just serves to hinder navigation for users of WP. As for correctness of names, that's already addressed by the fact that the actual substantive article is given the full correct title United States Environmental Protection Agency. If the substantive article had been named plain "Environmental Protection Agency", then there might be an issue of correctness, but as it stands this is moot. -- Hongooi 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with this outcome, if only because there was no consensus formed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose - I don't see the real need to do it. I would reccomend switching the redirect to redirect to this disambig page, but I don't think this disambig page need to change titles. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Those actually called "Environmental Protection Agency" are quite few. Are we really better off moving the dab and having to retarget all of the more than 675 links to the plain title that intend the U.S. agency? Isn't a dablink sufficient? Dekimasuよ! 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  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.</div>
TheRandomEditor wants Environmental Protection Agency to redirect here; that would create a malplaced disambiguation page, which would be immediately solved by moving Environmental Protection Agency (disambiguation) to the simpler title. Thus, he/she is effectively supporting the request. Until now, it has been assumed that "Environmental Protection Agency" should redirect to United States Environmental Protection Agency, but that article has remained at a longer title, suggesting that its full name is not merely "Environmental Protection Agency". The same is not true of its Irish counterpart or its Queensland counterpart. Finally, the fact that links would have to be changed is not really a good argument. We should not be making decisions based on the convenience of the editors, but on which names best fit our established policies and practices This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this outcome; it is not "editor convenience" that is in question, but what readers will want to see if they type "Environmental Protection Agency" in the search box, and the incoming links are an indication of that per WP:DAB#Primary topic. Having to fix the 675 links is only a symptom of the problem that under this setup, when readers click on internal links, they will not get where they're supposed to go. Dekimasuよ! 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Dekimasu. Having a dab page sit between the original link and the intended destination just serves to hinder navigation for users of WP. As for correctness of names, that's already addressed by the fact that the actual substantive article is given the full correct title United States Environmental Protection Agency. If the substantive article had been named plain "Environmental Protection Agency", then there might be an issue of correctness, but as it stands this is moot. -- Hongooi 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with this outcome, if only because there was no consensus formed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: There is a move request at Talk:EPA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move (second nomination). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA