Talk:EA (disambiguation)

message: this page was in japanise but now it is in english—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.20.10 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese

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.
*Support;  like most acronyms, it has no clear primary topic. I see  was a dab page originally. --Una Smith (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, The very first version of the page that was formerly at EA and is now at EA (disambiguation) a redirect to Electronic Arts. It stayed that way for six months until it was changed into a dab page. That page was moved to EA (disambiguation) on 23 April 2006, and EA again became a redirect to Electronic Arts. Not that ancient history really makes all that much of a difference in determination of primary topic though. Inertia is a poor substitute for evidence. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  These page moves and redirects make my head spin.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Never heard of it.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never heard of one of the largest video game companies in the world? Publisher of the Madden NFL series, Need for Speed series, etc.? TJ Spyke 05:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of them either.  I expected Electronic Arts to be about a college major in, um, Electronic Arts.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The name came from the fact that the founder of the company wanted his workers to be treated like artists (which they are) rather than as just replaceable cogs like assembly line workers (which is how Atari was treating its employees). Kinda hard to imagine you've never heard of them even if you don't like video games, especially if you ever watch football or almost any TV in August (when Madden commericals air almost nonstop). The Madden Bowl also gets tons of coverage on ESPN every year. TJ Spyke 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 30 January 2009

message: Short acronyms having many possible meanings should normally be dab pages. In order for one particular use to be deemed a primary use (i.e., such that it displaces the dab page to "xx (disambiguation)"), the case needs to be overwhelming that it is the most commonly used instance of the acronym. To get a feel for this, I looked at all 260 of the two-character acronyms beginning with a vowel, including both lower-case (Xx) and upper-case (XX) variants. Some of the lower-case examples are words in their own right, and do not affect the argument. The dab page may be at either the lower- or upper-case variant, with a redirect from the other. Again, this makes no difference. The only examples where the dab page is not at either of the acronym pages are:
* A
** AD -> Anno Domini
** AI -> Artificial Intelligence
* E
** EC -> European Commission
** EU -> European Union
* I
** II -> 2 (number)
** IQ -> Intelligence quotient
* O
** Om -> Aum; OM -> Om (disambiguation)
** OQ -> National Order of Quebec (N.B. only 2 entries with blue links in the dab page)
** OX -> Orient Thai Airlines (N.B. lots of entries in the dab page, but only the only other upper-case entry is for a postcode)
* U
** UF -> University of Florida (N.B. only 6 entries in the dab page)
** UK -> United Kingdom
** UN -> United Nations
** US -> United States
** UV -> Ultraviolet
Were it not for the protracted argument about the naming of Aum, the dab page would almost certainly be at OM. Apart from OM and the dab pages with only a trivial number of entries, these are all obvious cases of primary use, and familiar to all educated adults. Not so with Electronic Arts, which is familiar only to video game enthusiasts, and to the usual groups of stakeholders in the company. Even among those familiar with the company, there must also be some doubt about whether they regard it as the primary meaning of the acronym.
I recently cleaned up all the incorrect mainspace links to EA, leaving only the two correct links. This removes the main practical objection to the move raised in the previous move request above. I think the way is now clear, at last, to move this disambiguation page to where it belongs, namely EA.
--NSH001 (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further explanation 

message: *Oppose — The primary usage for EA is Electronic Arts. People looking Electronic Arts are more likely to just put EA than the full name, due to the company advertising themselves as EA. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 19:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey August 2009 

message: Re WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the proper comparison is not the claimed primary topic vs the dab page, but rather that topic vs other topics.  Above, someone notes Electronic Arts was viewed 8000 times in July;  well Eastern Air Lines (a defunct airline with the code EA) was viewed 11163.  A dab page should be viewed almost never, and in my experience dab pages are viewed less often when they occupy the ambiguous base name and all incoming links are disambiguated.  That is the ideal.  If the dab page occupied , there would be no need for a hatnote about it on Electronic Arts.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Electronic Arts brands itself EA. Eastern Air Lines did not brand itself EA. How do you "experience" dab page view frequency? If elimination of hatnotes is the ideal, then no primary topic should occupy the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is of no concern here what any company "brands" itself, and within the article Electronic Arts EA can be used to mean Electronic Arts.  The question is, is Electronic Arts the primary topic of "EA".  Clearly, it is not.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience concerns disambiguating incoming links to dab pages, and seeing the result in number of page views.  That EA (disambiguation) is getting hundreds of page views per month tells me an excessive number of readers who end up on Electronic Arts do not intend to be there.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not getting hundreds of page views per month. The "excessive number" is the thousands of readers reaching the page they want (Electronic Arts) from the "EA" redirect, and that's the "excessive number" that would be impeded bu ignoring the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una is right, it is getting hundreds of hits a month; so far (up to 23 August) it has received 548 hits this month. --NSH001 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but EA is getting thousands of hits: 5,960 this month. The current setup inconveniences hundreds of viewers, but if the situation is reversed, thousands will be inconvenienced (roughly 10 times as many). Station1 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at the traffic stats for Ea (small a), and it reports exactly the same figures as for EA, including the same figures for each day. Obviously a bug somewhere. I'm about to go to bed now, but maybe someone could investigate this further? --NSH001 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The program does not differentiate based on case. However Ea redirected to EA (disambiguation) prior to 25 Feb, and since EA (disambiguation) got a small fraction of the hits of EA/Ea, the hits on Ea are relatively insignificant. I do favor redirecting Ea to the dab page, though, or moving the dab page to Ea as suggested in the previous proposal. Station1 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it picking up EA, or Ea, or is it aggregating the two? Or is there really a bug somewhere? In order to interpret the stats correctly, it is important to know this. --NSH001 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Another query: do you know if it is attempting to avoid double-counting on redirects? It obviously counts hits on the redirect page, but does it then count 1 on the target page, or does it count zero to avoid double-counting? If the latter, then that would make a significant difference to the interpretation of the stats. Thanks. --NSH001 (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Getting 548 hits this month is not getting "hundreds of hits per month" -- look at the previous months (104, 80-odd, 80-odd). Of course the hits on the dab page went up when the proposed move was proposed -- and that has absolutely no bearing on the determination of the primary topic. Sheesh. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: JHJ, the dab page was at EA for most of those earlier months, so not surprising that EA (disambiguation) gets very few hits in that period. Station1 even pointed this out to you, and you thanked him for it. The effect of this discussion is minimal in comparison. Sheesh indeed. --NSH001 (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: As mentioned above, the dab page was at plain EA from 25 Feb to 28 July so looking at those months is meaningless. Dab page hits were in fact in the high hundreds before Feb. But the important point is that they were a small fraction of the 10,000+ monthly hits on EA/Ea, indicating that 90% of the people landing on EA did not want something other than Electronic Arts. Station1 (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incorrect comparison.  The correct comparison is page hits on Electronic Arts vs page hits on all other articles to which  could redirect.  --Una Smith (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both correct; they just tell you two different things. The former tells you that most of the 10K+ people clicking on EA wind up where they expect to be; the latter is an indication that Electronic Arts is primary use of the abbreviation on WP. Station1 (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Page view stats do not tell us where readers go from the dab page.  All we can do is estimate where they go, and to do that we can look at the page view stats for each article listed on the dab page.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Electronic Arts was viewed 53,050 times in July (not 8,000). Nothing else is close. Station1 (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una Smith was mis-stating my count of the hits on "EA" (not "Electronic Arts"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Page view stats for 2009 and page view stats for 2008 show the page views for EA (disambiguation) declined by an order of magnitude during early 2009, during the time the dab page had the page name  and its links were disambiguated.  That tells me the incoming links to  did need to be disambiguated.  Page view stats for July 2009 and August 2009 show the effect of moving the dab page from  back to EA (disambiguation):  estimating by eyeball, it appears the daily number of page views is 20, so about 600 per month.  Readers don't visit a page with "(disambiguation)" in its name by accident, so those 600 page views per month reflect readers who we know are not on the page they want.  To me, that is a rather high cost of one article's "branding".  --Una Smith (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If 600 users have to click through Electronic Arts to the dab page and then to the article they want (current set up), those 1200 clicks are better than the 10,000 clicks of 10,000 people having to click through the dab page to get to Electronic Arts (proposed set up). The cost is not high, and it's not a cost of branding, it's the cost of primary usageness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would so many readers pass through the dab page?  Where would they be coming from?  What is the basis for this speculation? --Una Smith (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the proposal is to put a disambiguation page in their way. They'd be coming from "EA" in the Go box (and from the return of not-broken direct links to EA from articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: arbitrary break 

message: *Support as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the next highest traffic page with an EA acronym? If you're talking less than 10% than I would be more inclined to support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. You can use http://stats.grok.se/ to investigate. Since I know it is less than 37%, the actual number between 1-37% wouldn't actually change the primacy of the video game's traffic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *Maybe EA should not the primary topic of Electronic Arts, EA has several initial-isms on the article. ApprenticeFan work 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Right, EA has several initialisms on the page -- that means that there's ambiguity that needs to be resolved. No one disagrees with that. The question is, is one of those several initialisms a topic that the Wikipedia readership primarily intends when they use "EA" (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)? If the answer is yes (and it appears that it is), the disambiguation page continues to exist, but at EA (disambiguation), so that EA can redirect to the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

text: An individual editor's anecdotal experience or awareness of the primary topic is not one of the criteria for determining a primary topic though. You might be surprised to discover that the primary usage is a meaning with which you are unfamiliar, but your surprise shouldn't make it difficult to believe the evidence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *I was still trying to counter the arguments put forward in earlier discussions such as "Kinda hard to imagine you've never heard of them even if you don't like video games, especially if you ever watch football or almost any TV in August (when Madden commericals air almost nonstop)."!  But in fact having now read more carefully the results of your experiment, I'll withdraw my opposition. It does indeed appear that the world of WP readers is more skewed towards Americans and videogamers than I'd have thought.  But, I suggest that Ea should still redirect to the dab page. PamD (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: *:Thanks for that strike, PamD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: WP:MOSDAB says "When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article:" and gives an example where the bolded first word is the redirect at Danzig leading to article at Gdansk.  So our first word here should stay at EA, going via the redirect, and not be piped as EA. PamD (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line - don't pipe 

message: This is just a dump of ELs in case someone decides to fight over the inclusion of the article.
https://www.eaglobal.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/EffectiveAltruism/search?q=EA&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
http://effective-altruism.com/ ("EA blogs")
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9124145/effective-altruism-global-ai
http://wiki.effectivealtruismhub.com/index.php?title=Effective_Altruism_Wiki
etc. K.Bog 08:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effective altruism sources 

message: EA (disambiguation) ---> EA because not everybody fans Electronic Arts' games and stuff. Others who want something that's EA and type it into the URL but get redirected to Electronic Arts may be kinda confused because they haven't heard of Electronic Arts before. Besides, though 95% of searches for EA are about Electronic Arts, it is NOT the primary topic for EA. Barracuda41 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2019