Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:08, 12 September 2024

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

On 15 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from IIPM to IIPM (disambiguation). The result of the discussion was moved.

Disambiguation

I request editors to create pages for IndianOil Institute of Petroleum Management the nation's largest petroleum management government run institute. Indian Institute of Port Management, a similar institute run by government for management of ports Indian Institute of Plantation Management, and for plantation. I believe these institutions define industrial and service sector growth for India, and it's imperative we have wiki pages defining these institutions as they're being confused with The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Add to the list above Indian Institute of Personnel Management and Indian Institute of Project Management Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

German Wiki??

There's some anon ip which has placed a German wikipedia project page on the current disambig page. Is that allowed? (I mean, can the English wikipedia project have links to German wikipedia project links?) Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in this case we can just safely delete the link, since it's not to a real article. If you think about it, would a German article have a title in English? I'm not sure of the policy, but generally I'd say no, we should link just to the English page, with links to other languages in the sidebar like normal. This is clearly just vandalism though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Was thinking on the same lines. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on what is alphabetical

I have two queries if editors are interested in answering:

• Should IndianOil Institute of Petroleum Management be considered above the other Indian Institutes because it has "IndianOil" as its leading name?
• Should The Indian Institute of Planning and Management be considered with "The" in its name or without "The"?

Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that IndianOil comes after anything with "Indian" followed by a space. Usually "The" should be ignored, so I think where you have it now is correct. Those are the rules I learned working in an (American) public library many years ago. That's the typical method for American English--not sure if other areas use other rules. In trying to find a Misplaced Pages rule for alphabetizing, I discovered that disambiguation pages don't actually need to be alphabetized. I think in this case it makes sense, but it's good to know there are actual style guidelines for organization. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel Indianoil should be on the top. Let the India's largest coporation honor the first position and will be alphabetically correct too. Also IIPM School of Management should come last as its starts with Acronym.--Suraj845 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

I have protected this page from editing till the current disputes regarding the wording of entry descriptions are resolved through discussion or through dispute resolution. Abecedare (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wording dispute

I'll get the discussion started. I agree with Makrandjoshi that since there is a dispute that both positions should be included for balance. The phrase "unaccredited management institution" seems to cover both sides. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point. There is a wording dispute. It is unaccredited (has been in news for accreditation), and is not, IMHO, a "management" institute because it does not offer MBA or BBA courses. So to cover both sides, I put in "unaccredited" AND "management institute". Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

the wordings are not right. i'd give that the insti's courses are unacredited than the insti. And in wikiped its not what u think but what u can support using refernces ------- & there r many references dat mention iipm is a b-school

so it shd be b-school whos courses were unaccredited by acite ugc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.108.118 (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I will be hounded again by Makrand but I am taking the links provided here to show IIPM is referred as a b-school. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I agree it is a b-school and I have to second the opinion that IIPM's courses are unaccredited rather than IIPM itself unless other editors can show me verifiable sources that say otherwise. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to add that accreditation is a regular phenomenon, that is there is no permanent accreditation. So the sources which provide information about the institute being unaccredited should give current or more recent notices and not past notices.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation isn't permanent, but it is generally stable and requires action be taken (by the accrediting body and the institute) for it to change. If they were unaccredited a few years ago, then they are still unaccredited unless they have received accreditation since then. Do you have a source that says they are now accredited? If not, they are still unaccredited. IIPM has never sought accreditation; they state that quite clearly themselves. They would have to take the action of seeking accreditation (and have it granted) to no longer be unaccredited. The archived sources are perfectly fine, as has been explained to you elsewhere. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Let's try to get this discussion going again to see if we can reach consensus. Wifione, since you haven't provided a source saying that it's accredited, or even that its courses are unaccredited rather than the institute, can you accept saying "unaccredited" here, consistent with the main article? Makrandjoshi has already agreed to the compromise of "management institute," so I think we have consensus on that part of the wording. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add cross link

International institutes on political management I don't see any issues on building consensus on this issue as there might be no opposition. Adding the template in adv. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done As far as I can tell, International institutes on political management is simply a descriptive term used on a wikipedia disambiguation page, and there is no indication that such institutes are individually or collectively known by the IIPM acronym. We should not be inventing neologisms or acronyms on wikipedia. If you have sources that say otherwise, that can be discussed and consensus established. Abecedare (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all the entities listed go by IIPM

A lot of the entities listed here do not go by 'IIPM'. They should be removed. Indian Institute of Personnel Management is actually called NIPM as all the cites on that page indicate. Nor is there any place where I see Indian Institute of Project Management refered to as IIPM. Furthermore, IIPMSoM is called, well, IIPMSoM, so does not belong on the disambig page for IIPM. Nor do IIPMM or IPM belong here. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IIPM is a commonly used acronym for these institutes. So should stay.

Indian Institute of Personnel Management's importance is well recognised in India. It is well quoted "Institute%20of%20Personnel%20Management"&offset=15&max=136. You could create a new page for NIIPM or NIPM which you quote and then link the Indian institute of Personnel Management page to NIPM mentioning that the two entities merged later on.

Indian institute of Project Management has existed for a long time are just random links not verified. But you could develop the related page on project management on wikipedia rather than requesting it to be taken out of this disambig page.

If IIPM Som should not be here because it is IIPM SoM, then The Indian institute of Planning and Management would also unfortunately become TIIPM and therefore would not stay here. IIPM is about common usage. IIPM SoM is actually IIPM School of Management. The SoM is given only for simpifying another acronym (aka Chicago University GSB, Columbia GSB, Yale SoM). So it should stay.

I'm ok with IPM and IIPMM being removed but only think as a disambig page it might be relevant. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, of your six sources for the Indian Institute of Personnel Management, only two of those show the abbreviation IIPM. The other four don't use any abbreviation at all. What was their relevance to this discussion? You don't need to prove that the organization exists; nobody's contesting that. Makrandjoshi was questioning whether it's abbreviated this way. The two relevant sources would have been sufficient. You don't need to bombard us with peripherally related sources. Making us filter through things that don't actually support your arguments doesn't really help your case.

For the Indian Institute of Project Management, you provided a source that shows that the organization exists, but not whether IIPM is used as an abbreviation. Your second source, which is a copy of Misplaced Pages content, is not a reliable source. Do you have a source which shows that IIPM is an abbreviation for the Indian Institute of Project Management?

As for the others, it's really a question of whether we think someone might type "iipm" in the search box when they are looking for the other items. Honestly, I can see that someone might mistype IIPM when they mean IIPMM. I don't think it hurts anything to include those in this disambiguation page, as it's not too big. At some future point, if this was a much larger page, I might argue that things would need to be trimmed down. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian institute of production management

The Indian Institute of Production Management is not a government institution, as mentioned in this disambiguation link, but an institution set up with active support from the government of orissa. Can we change the title given to the institute as follows:

• Indian Institute of Production Management (IIPM), an educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India.

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 07:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see from the source that this should be the Indian Institute for Production Management, not of--do you want to take care of renaming that article since you created it? Since education is the third thing listed on that source page, I'm not sure it makes sense to emphasize that without mentioning the training and consulting. What about this as a summary instead? "Indian Institute for Production Management (IIPM), a training, consulting, and educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with the new title you propose. I'll rename the article tomorrow as I'm done for the day right now. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 11:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dear Administrators, Can the new summary for the indian institute of production management be changed to the following:

• "Indian Institute for Production Management (IIPM), a training, consulting, and educational institution based in Kansbahal, near Rourkela, Orissa, India."
  ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 11:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Note that I have removed the wikilinks from your suggestion, since the entries are supposed to be the onlu wikilinked items on an disambiguation page. Other cleanup is also required on this page, but I'll desist from doing so while the page is protected. Any progress on the above dispute ? Abecedare (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's alright. You could perhaps do the cleanup you want to do. I'm sure it'll be alright, unless other editors have issues (I don't think they'll have, though). Wrt to the dispute, it is not resolved. I still say that the institute is not the one unrecognised or unaccredited, but its courses - although I've kind of avoided that discussion to get along with other points.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, you've mentioned this point about the courses being accredited rather than the institute repeatedly. Were you planning to provide a source or two to counter the ones I've provided here? So far your rationale has been that your understanding is this way based on previous discussions, but I haven't seen anything to back you up yet. Avoiding discussion isn't going to help us resolve the dispute. If you want to take this back to the main article to discuss there, that would be fine; it perhaps belongs there anyway. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, clearly, you've not read my arguments. All the links you keep giving are pre-court case links. In the court ruling, the court had asked ugc to remove IIPM's name from the unauthorised (fake) university list (which it did, ref main article). Therefore even the archived links you show are of no use as you need to give current dated post court case references. If you do have such sources, go ahead and show them. You could do that on the main article too. If you don't, do tell arguments in your favour.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You could also give any link you find now on the aicte or ugc site which refers to your pov. That'll help in sealing your argument beyond further discussion ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 05:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

So I need to find numerous sources, but you don't have to find a single one to back up your opinion? You really think that's the way to argue this? Fine, I'll play it that way--I have the sources to back up my statements. The court case says they can't call it a fake university, but that doesn't suddenly make it accredited. If you want to say it's accredited, then bring out your source that says someone has accredited their programs. I don't have to prove the negative; you have to prove the positive. If you can't provide a source that says they are accredited, then they are unaccredited. There's only two choices: accredited or unaccredited. There's no limbo in between where they aren't accredited but no one can say they're unaccredited as you're claiming. But, since you want a current source, here's the list of AICTE accredited institutions. Note that IIPM isn't listed. Here's the equivalent list from UGC. Again, IIPM isn't listed as a recognized institute. Therefore, they are unaccredited according to the current lists. I don't need a source that specifically lists them as fake; I just need to show that they are missing from the lists of accredited institutes. Now that I've provided links from the current AICTE and UGC sites, I assume you'll drop the argument as you said.

As for whether it's the institute or the courses accredited, for which I've provided multiple sources and you've provided zero, here's a few more. AICTE refers to "Approved Institutes" in their list of accredited schools. Note that AICTE approves the institute, never mentioning the courses, directly contradicting your repeated statements to the contrary. The UGC refers to recognizing colleges: "eligible colleges...5449 colleges have been declared eligible to receive central assistance...565 colleges are recognized...Regulations for recognition of colleges." Note that the word "courses" never appears there. Do you have any support for your claim that these organizations accredit courses rather than institutes, contradicting their own websites? If you have no sources to support the claim, please stop making the argument. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• WS, Your AICTE source is a source detailing which new technical institutions are allowed to start rather than of the accredited technical institutions (you'll realise that the MBA link within the source you provided has no MBA institute's name. Therefore, the link is obviously misread by you. Btw, the website is under construction). A common quick test could be to check out whether IIM Ahmedabad, India's top ranked institute, is there. It's not.
• Your UGC link is for those colleges that are eligible for funding. (A good test again would be to check IIM Ahmedabad's name). It's written out there "The University Grants Commission (UGC) provides financial assistance to eligible colleges which are included under Section 2(f) and declared fit to receive central assistance (UGC grant) under Section 12 (B) of UGC Act, 1956".
• This point could be helpful to us. If you see the AICTE Act on AICTE's website, you'll realise AICTE has the authority to approve new technical institutions and also to accredit current programmes. IIPM is not a new technical institution. But obviously it one time was. The act was started much after IIPM was set up. Therefore IIPM was not a new institution then perhaps. Still, it could have applied for accreditation. It didn't. But then, these are our arguments.
• I still have a consensus line for you if you're open to it "IIPM is a business school based in New Delhi, India, whose certificate programmes are not accredited." Do tell me what you think?▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You provided no source which backs up your claim that AICTE doesn't accredit schools and only programs, so your sentence doesn't tell the whole story and isn't supported by facts. How about "IIPM is a business school based in New Delhi, India, which is not accredited by AICTE or UGC"? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, not an issue with me for under good faith, though I don't agree with it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with this either, but it's a compromise I can live with. I doubt we would ever get to a consensus that made us both happy, but I'm glad we found one that we can both accept.

Abecedare, I believe this was the dispute that led to the full protection. Now that we've come to an agreement on this dispute, I think the protection could be lifted. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested change

{{editprotected}}

Dear Administrators, can the line on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management be changed to the following?

"The Indian Institute of Planning and Management is a business school headquartered in New Delhi, India, which is not accredited by AICTE."

Thanks, ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, yikes this page is a problem. Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). Valuation of topics should not be done on this page. Link and define. Here you are adding statements, that within all reason require sourcing and referencing, and thus belong in the article. Declined for now. I note btw, that this addition is not the only that would have this problem, there are a few problems already on the page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did some cleanup, I propose we start with this: Talk:IIPM/sandbox. Please make suggestions, be civil etc. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DJ, the changes you've made seem alright to me. But would suggest waiting for other users for at least three to four days, this being the eve.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the idea of not even touching how controversial the Indian Institute of Planning and Management is; not even mentioning that it's been the center of multiple investigations and isn't accredited just seems to be a way of pretending the issues don't exist. But, I suspect there isn't enough support to include any of the controversy here, and I'm willing to let it go and just leave it in the main article. Certainly anyone who clicks the link to read more will have plenty to learn. Therefore, I'm willing to accept the changes as is. Overall the clean-up looks good. These are definite improvements to the clarity, and cutting out the extra links is needed. Thanks for getting this done. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is how disambiguation pages work. They are not articles, they are waypoints. Making them shorter will force more people to read the article however, so I think that might even be the best approach here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Protected request

{{editprotected}}

Dear administrators, can the new disambiguation page be made exactly as shown in Talk:IIPM/sandbox as per the last change made by User:TheDJ? Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 08:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting IIPM to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management

According to Disambiguation_page#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F, if there is a well known primary topic related to an ambiguous name, then the name should redirect to the primary topic article. And we should have a link to the disambig at the top. Criteria suggested for determining primary topic are 1) whatlinkshere 2)article traffic statistics 3) google searches. On all 3 criteria, Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management overwhelmingly thumps the other uses of IIPM. Also, an interesting note - almost all the pages for alternative uses of IIPM have been created by a single person - User:Wifione. Anyway, there is nothing to show that any other use of IIPM comes even close to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. So I propose that the link for IIPM redirect to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. And at the top of the Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, we provide a link to this disambiguation page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with acronym usage in india to be a judge of that. However, I do think that unless it is as familiar as NASA is in terms of acronyms, it probably won't matter much if IIPM is a redirect, or the dab page. If you can gather some mention statistics or something, I'd be willing to look at that though. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. For whatlinks here, for Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management, we the inward wiki links are substantial. Even if we discount the mentions from noticeboards and talk pages, there are at least 4 other articles linking to it. For IndianOil_Institute_of_Petroleum_Management that number is 1. For all other IIPM's, zero articles linking to it. And each of the other articles has been created by a single person - wifione.
2. Google searches. I went back as far as 50 search results. 47 of these were about Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. However the splogs issue (which I detail later) can cloud this number.
3. Search in google news, an indicator of the mentions in reliable secondary sources. Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management - lots and lots of frequent mentions. The others, hardly, if any.
4. About article traffic, the other articles have been created only recently, so the time frame is not enough to form a judgment. But even there, the traffic that Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management gets is more than the others.
5. And finally, here is something interesting, when taken in conjunction with the fact that user wifione has been going around creating IIPM pages which no one else seems to be interested in editing, and many of which have been nominated for deletion. A lot, which were just synthesized acronym pages, have already been deleted. And all of wifione's edits on the Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page or the related ad controversy page are geared towards removing information that criticizes the isntitute or adding information that praises it. Despite wifione's efforts, the IIPM article mentions information that is critical of the institute, albeit in an NPOV way with valid cites from RS sources. And if you look at some other facts and connect the dots, well, you can see the picture that emerges.

Now go to google blog search and enter "IIPM". And just look at the results. Splogs upon splogs upon splogs, all saying nice things about Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. Splogs linking to each other. All have the name "iipm" in the URL. All created by people with similar names - pankaj or sonu. And even more interestingly, almost all blogs created or updated during what will be working hours or office hours in India. If you connect the dots, it is clear what the splogging campaign by IIPM is all about. Manipulating google search to push all negative information to latter pages. And it is working. A lot of the splogs are steadily moving up the search results and pushing back sites which criticize IIPM.

However, one search result that can not be pushed back is wikipedia, because of its high google page rank. So whenever someone searches "IIPM" on google page, the IIPM page is going to be in the top results. Until recently, it pointed to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. So people searching for information on the institute went to the article and found balanced information, including criticisms and controversies. But now that this disambig page has been created, eventually, a google search for IIPM will lead to this page. And it has already been populated, by one single individual wifione, with a bunch of other IIPM's of questionable notability, and which no one else has ever had the inclination to create pages for or update. If you know the basic of web usability, you know this adds to the search costs for the average user. It is likely that several people searching, instead of looking on the IIPM disambig page for Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management among all the other IIPM's that wifione has created and will create (created a new one only in the last couple of days), will just move to the next search result. The next search result, due to the incessant splogging, is likely to be one that praises IIPM.

One more point. Ever since the disambig page was created, one page that started appearing in the google search for IIPM was the redirect IIPM_Advertising_Controversy. Not surprisingly, in the last couple of days, wifione first tried to get the article deleted and then tried to get the redirect deleted, without informing anyone on the article's talkpage that he/she was making the nominations. Both requests were obviously denied. But this eagerness to get the acronym "IIPM" out of the title, if not delete the article altogether, is interesting.

1. Like I said, it's all about connecting the dots, with the splogs, the splog-infested search results, and this eagerness to dissociate the acronym "IIPM" from any wikipedia article about Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. And the fact that searches in non-sploggable google results overwhelmingly link IIPM to Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. In my humble opinion, it is pretty clear. Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Woah. Makrandjoshi, Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. I'll refrain from responding on all other statements and stick to the issue of whether we should keep IIPM disambiguated primarily here or redirect it to another article. I do believe that Indian Institute of Planning and Management is not necessarily one that qualifies to be a primary article (in the true sense, say, like NASA). One example, a google search for Indianoil institute of petroleum management throws up some 70 odd thousands of links. Irish Institute of Pensions Managers similarly some 80 odd thousands of links . You did mention that many of the IIPM pages I've created on this disambig page have been deleted and/or have been nominated for deletion right now? If you have any diffs, that'll be helpful as I don't recall any. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ 19:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, you are actually disputing that many IIPM pages you created have been nominated for deletion or deleted? Go to your talk's 2009 archives and count the number of speedy deletion messages on it. All either with the acronym IIPM, or then related to books or phrases that IIPM's Arindam has appropriated. Then there was your attempt to list the page International_institutes_on_political_management over here too, which was thwarted. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this kind of fingerpointing. It is not relevant and it's not useful either. If you have a beef with someone, take it to WP:ANI with all the diffs that such fingerpointing requires. I'd like to stay on topic here. What I have seen of the external mentions in google and bing, the difference in volume of mentions between especially the Irish Pensions Managers and also IndianOil vs that of Indian Institute of Planning and Management has not convinced me yet that IIPM should primarily direct at the Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Mentions in Misplaced Pages are much less useful, especially at these low volume levels, because our writers have a systematic bias (where things as pensions managers are the victim of). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, TheDJ. I defer to your judgment on this. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Makrandjoshi's 4th point, above (article traffic), enough time has elapsed to make a sensible assessment of that. In the last 30 days, 2504 readers have visited Indian Institute of Planning and Management. In the same period, 1537 readers have visited all other "IIPM" articles combined.

In case the above traffic stats have been affected by interest generated by the arbcom case, here is a comparison of the November 2014 traffic:

• Indian Institute of Planning and Management: 2377
• All other IIPMs combined: 1620

Regarding Makrandjoshi's 1st point, "what links here", excluding redirects and disambiguation pages:

• Indian Institute of Planning and Management: 15
• All other IIPMs combined: 19

So, using this evidence and Makrandjoshi's other points above — particularly the Google search information which is as true today — and based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

and

Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion (but are not considered absolute determining factors, due to unreliability, potential bias, and other reasons) include:

• Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
• Misplaced Pages article traffic statistics or Wiki ViewStats traffic statistics
• Usage in English reliable sources demonstrated with Google web, news, scholar, or book searches...

Indian Institute of Planning and Management is the primary topic, and "IIPM" should redirect there. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep as is with no primary topic. 2.4k vs 1.6k isn't even twice as likely, let alone "much more likely" as I would personally expect the bar for initialisms/acronyms to be quite high. Popularity is one aspect, and the other is long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As the proposal doesn't address that aspect, I'm doubly more inclined to keep as is. PS, as the article proposed as PT is protected due to long-term advocacy, I would personally place even less emphasis on raw pageviews. I also suggest redrafting this proposal per below (and avoid the personal attack AGF issue this time) Widefox; talk 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural Comment A requested move would be the correct procedure for a primary topic decision. In the meantime I've cleaned up the dab and sorted by putting this article at the top (WP:MOSDAB details how we can sort ab or whichever is most useful). Widefox; talk 01:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC) (corrected Widefox; talk 09:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm not really following your first point, User:Widefox. WP:MOSDAB says
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic
(Indian Institute of Planning and Management is about ten times more likely than any of the others to be the target topic)
and more likely than all the other topics combined
(it is more likely the target than all other topics combined)
—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
So, doesn't Indian Institute of Planning and Management satisfy the usage criterion?

Would you please point me to the personal attack? I wasn't aware I'd made one and will delete it if you can point it out for me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, to reiterate - it is less than 2x more likely than everything else put together. So a reader coming here is almost as likely to want another article (60% to 40%). The nom doesn't convince me it's a strong, clear PT. The nom doesn't address long-term significance at all. (Another way of looking at it, it isn't obvious like NASA, EU, UK. Many of our initialism dabs don't have PTs.)

The PA / WP:AGF issue was in response to the nom's statements. I do suggest starting a requested move (which given the background here is exactly the correct way to propose this PT. Widefox; talk 21:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding, "it is less than 2x more likely than everything else put together", the guideline says a topic is primary if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined" and "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic" to be the target. Indian Institute of Planning and Management meets those criteria. Are you saying initialisms are an exception to the guideline? If so, is that explained in a policy or guideline somewhere?

As for long-term significance, the guideline doesn't insist it comes into play, but if you think there's an issue, by all means raise it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

60%:40% just isn't that strong IMHO. From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic." - you seem to imply usage is important and anything else is optional. That is at odds with PRIMARYTOPIC. PRIMARYTOPIC is explicit... "However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics: ...usage...and...long-term significance" . This nom doesn't address both. The burden is on the nom to make the case, which is currently unconvincing IMHO. (as for my minor point about initialisms, that is my personal opinion based on my experience, which includes writing the initialism primary topic example in MOSDAB. As an uninvolved person in this page, my opinion is as good as the next). Widefox; talk 20:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest getting more opinions by following the correct procedure with a RM, regards Widefox; talk 20:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The 60:40 appears to be the Indian Institute of Planning and Management vs all other topics combined, not just that it is 50% larger than any of the individual ones. If it were just 50% larger than some there individual ones, there would still be a case for it being the primary topic; since it's with respect to all other topics combined, it's a very strong case. In most situations it would be obvious and unchallenged. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes 60:40 is the candidate vs the rest. A 5% swing and it's 50:50. If these were article titles rather than initialisms I'd concur although I'd personally favour a larger error margin. As the ambiguous term is an initialism, these aren't even the stats on the ambiguous term usage at all, but the article views. There's no evidence of usage of the ambiguous term - so unless highly correlated, that 5% swing isn't much error margin. I do not know, and this nom doesn't address this, so in it's absence I'm not convinced. (I know it would be useful to have a clear cut answer for evaluating the history of this dab but these PT discussions seem to be quite subjective, for instance the current one at Talk:'Tis the Season had 1/4M daily views vs tens (99.99%:0.01%) and an obvious long-term significance but still doesn't seem clear-cut to !voters.) Widefox; talk 09:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DGG, do we really have to take this to some board, or invite others to opine? Doesn't this clearly meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and so can't we just move it? Sorry, I don't know the rules around disambiguation pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole - the correct procedure has been detailed several times above but not (yet) followed. A controversial move. Widefox; talk 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you're wrong in your understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - as I and DGG have explained above - and wrong when you imply the correct procedure is to start a RM. WP:RM says "A title may be subject to dispute, and discussion may be necessary in order to reach consensus, see below: § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. It is not always necessary to use the requested move process in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." This is an informal discussion on the article's talk page and I see consensus for the move. I'll be moving this to the title that conforms to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a day or two. If you have a problem with that, open a RM discussion and ping me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested_moves#CM "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". It is contested. You know that.

An admin will have to perform the move. You are not an admin. There is no consensus here for the admin to refer to.

The burden is on the nom to reach WP:CONSENSUS for a controvercial move that is contested (RM or not). Dismissing other opinions as "wrong", or controversially closing yourself doesn't engender consensus building. Widefox; talk 15:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Procedural Comment #2 Anthonyhcole as you are an involved editor in the Wifione case, I formally request that you follow consensus procedure and start a RM and gather input from uninvolved editors. DGG, please can you comment about how appropriate a normal RM would be. Widefox; talk 13:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

on this topic, I'm just an editor like any other editor, not an arb or even acting as an admin, and my view is merely my personal opinion about the issue at hand. If agreement cannot be reached, an RM is probably necessary; anything about this topic requires caution. In practice, WP process gives a considerable amount of power to one person who strongly opposes something; whether this is a good thing generally is another matter, about which I have mixed views. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

TheDJ wasn't convinced either. Ambiguous term usage rather than article popularity would convince me. This isn't NASA (caveat - maybe it is well known in India?). Widefox; talk 21:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

SUPPORT redirect to Indian Institute of Planning and Management as Primary Topic, and move of this page to IIPM(disambiguation) or similar name. In my opinion 62% of the page views going to Indian Institute of Planning and Management would, under normal circumstances, be borderline-ish for assigning it as WP:Primary Topic. However given the Arbcom findings of abuse here, and the banning of the accounts that developed this page and other disambiguation target pages, we have the opposite AGF. It's not clear to me that "IIPM" is a genuine acronym that people commonly use to search for all of the other disambiguation targets on the page. This suggests to me that the 38% for the other pages is a misleadingly inflated number, and that Indian Institute of Planning and Management probably is the clear Primary topic for IIPM. If anyone wants to make this change you have my support. If this goes to Requested Move discussion, this comment can be copied there, or anyone can put a link to the RM on my talk page. Alsee (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2022

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: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

IIPM → IIPM (disambiguation) – Indian Institute of Planning and Management appears to be the primary topic; of the remaining entries one is at AfD and the others are dubiously notable at best. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. See the Wikinav data : the proposed primary topic may get more clicks than any of the other entries, but it's still only a small fraction of the total visits to the dab. – Uanfala (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2023

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: moved. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann 06:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• WikiProject Disambiguation pages