Jump to content

Talk:NRA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

How can the National Rifle Association be at the bottom of this list of links? I am guessing that at least among U.S. users, this is by far the most frequently-used meaning of this acronym. Perhaps someone could take a look at the relative traffic that the sites on this disambiguation page receive and decide whether the present order really makes any sense? Carl Wivagg (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the page accords with WP guidelines. Universal meanings first then country specific meanings with countries in alphabetical order (Republic of China correctly sorted as China in the list) and then within countries by alphabetical order. For what it is worth, my preferred use of the acronym is also way down the list. Seems OK to me.  Velela  Velela Talk   12:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flatly contradicts the 'most common English usage' principle, however. I'd be willing to bet that, in English, NRA is used to mean 'National Rifle Association' approx. 120 times more often than all the others on this list combined. Probably 95% of all queries to WP on "NRA" are looking for the American association. Therefore, NRA should RED to that page, with a disambig link there, IMO. But I don't care to argue the point other than to express my opinion here.Eaglizard (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that when you said in English, did you perhaps mean in the United States in English.....? Certainly isn't true in NZ, Australia or the UK and probably not in India, Singapore, South Africa.................  Velella  Velella Talk   23:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be true in NZ, etc, but it is true among MOST primary language English speakers who are not in those tiny little countries. Your thumbing your nose at NRA supporters by not giving the disambiguation after going to the NRA is just one more sign that leftist radicals control Wikipedia on any articles that they choose, and thus encourage people to start using other sources of information. I know I am getting sick of it and havent given money to Wikipedia since I started noticing it in regard to the Global Warming controversy. Strangle this site with your ideological nonsense if you want, but plainly MOST primary language English speakers dont think of anything other than the National Rifle Associationw when they put in a search for 'NRA'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.16.17 (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Something is up. The NRA should NOT be at the bottom of the list. This clearly was done, or at least in this case the rules maliciously followed, to make information on the NRA as difficult as possible to find by putting them at the bottom and referring to them as the National Rifle Association instead of the NRA (some people might not know what NRA stands for). When I searched for other acronyms there either wasn't much of an order or most popular at the top. 71.96.26.57 (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the national rifle association at the bottom?

[edit]

Whenever anyone says "the NRA", the National Rifle Association is almost always being referred to, not the National Restaurant Association (the other NRA) and certainly not any other option on the list. I know that other countries' views also matter, but I don't think that the vast majority of native English speakers associates "NRA" with anything else than the National Rifle Association. Indeed, National Rifle Association has been visited 33958 times in the past month (http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/National%20Rifle%20Association), while nuclear reaction analysis was visited 323 times (http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/Nuclear%20reaction%20analysis) and negative relative accomodation 498 times (http://stats.grok.se/en/201403/Negative%20relative%20accommodation). "National regulatory authorities" redirect to a different page altogether.

Therefore, I propose that the National Rifle Association should be listed on the top of this page, and maybe NRA should just redirect to it. Just like NSA redirects to the National Security Agency, even though that's a US term, and not an international one.

128.164.24.24 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this redirect to National Rifle Association? (2018)

[edit]

The NRA is in the news a lot, around the world, with increasing coverage in recent times. Wouldn't it make sense to redirect the page to National Rifle Association, and to turn this into an explicit Disambiguation page linked to by a hatnote from that page? Park3r (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Park3r: I agree, and since we are the only ones to have commented on this, I think a WP:BOLD move would be appropriate.- MrX 🖋 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Both criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are met. See [1] for comparison.- MrX 🖋 14:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to NRA

[edit]

I propose the moving of this page from NRA (disambiguation) to NRA on the basis that the current move from last year is too US-centric and does not meet the internationalisation of Wikipedia. It makes no sense to disambiguate an acronym, especially one which is used by many different organisations. Americans are not the only users of English on Wikipedia, nor the internet for that matter, and coverage should reflect this. UaMaol (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at NRA. The part of that argument against any acronym as a PT is invalid, as we have many precedents - see WP:MOSDAB for examples and how we style them. As for the value of having this particular one would need a more thorough argument (see PT link), as there's also many country-specific topics with acronym PTs. The NRA is internationally known, may be less so than CIA, FBI, NSA etc, but arguably similar, needing a stronger argument to change from the status quo IMO. Widefox; talk 17:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There are a dozen-plus organisations just called "National Rifle Association of...". Whilst I don't have a problem with the disambig having the NRA of America at the top (although possibly with a disambig link as well - "NRA, usually National Rifle Association (disambig), most commonly National Rifle Association of America". It is terribly US-centric (WP:GLOBAL) to have NRA as a REDIR to the article for the US entity. Within much of the English-speaking world, "NRA" means "National Rifle Association of <speaker's country>". I would note that WP:EN seems to be the only wikipedia to do this - pretty much every other language has the disambig page at NRA. It is also very unusual to point a Three Letter Acronym directly at a single article. Looking through the list of Nxx combinations, the only ones I can find that point straight to articles are NRA and NBA - both point at US entities. Everything else seems to go to a disambig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmers (talk • contribs) 08:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2024

[edit]
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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 15:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NRA (disambiguation) → NRA – The disambiguation page was moved from NRA to the explicit DAB in 2018 based on the BOLD consensus of two editors, with "NRA" redirected to National Rifle Association (of America) as "Primary Topic". Primary Topic-ing a Three-Letter-Acronym is not unheard of (e.g. NBA) but it is very unusual and requires exceptional evidence. It certainly requires more than:

The NRA is in the news a lot, around the world, with increasing coverage in recent times. Wouldn't it make sense to redirect the page to National Rifle Association...

This is basically "What first comes to mind" and represents a Systemic bias violation, which should be reconsidered per WP:GLOBALISE.

Wikinav shows that a clear 35% of traffic to "NRA (disambiguation)" comes from "National Rifle Association", and 75% of outbound traffic is to National Recovery Administration. This suggests a non-trivial number of users are being erroneously sent to "National Rifle Association" via overzealous redirects.

Pageview stats show that "National Rifle Association" very narrowly has the highest monthly avg over the past two years, but is not consistently the most-viewed article (in June 2024 "National Rifle Association" had 12800 views, second to "National Revolutionary Army" with 15300).

National Rifle Association is top, but not overwhelmingly so - far less than the next two articles combined. The current redirect does not fit with the normal considerations for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

The current redirect clearly does not satisfy WP:PT1 for Usage since it's usage does not reliably exceed other topics even individually, much less "all the other topics combined".

It might be argued that it qualifies under WP:PT2 for Significance, but the pageview data indicates this is probably a US/anglophone-centric projection since the next two topics are Chinese and Russian in origin. Even within the US, the dominance of the National Rifle Association is context-specific since other orgs have major local significance - e.g. the National Restaurant Association is known as "the other NRA" in Washington DC lobbyist circles and is nationally significant, even if it gets fewer column inches in the NYT. Likewise, other National Rifle Associations (in the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand) are variously referred to as "the NRA" locally.

Perhaps surprisingly, there really isn't enough here to justify "National Rifle Association" (of America) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "NRA".

Hemmers (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, the statistics on latter are already pretty clear: all-time monthly views of both show that any outsized interest in the American NGO has long waned, and nowadays it looks more likely that a lot of people who navigate to NRA end up clicking the hatnote.
For the statistics on the former, we have to check the clickstream archive:
clickstream archive snapshot for the recent months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:
  • National_Rifle_Association NRA_(disambiguation) link 138
clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:
  • National_Rifle_Association NRA_(disambiguation) link 171
clickstream-enwiki-2024-04.tsv:
  • National_Rifle_Association NRA_(disambiguation) link 182
Most of the time these numbers are completely comparable, so this is quite suspect, we should change back to a simple list format to be able to verify this. (Support) --Joy (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

post-move

[edit]

We now have a full month of stats:

  • daily pageviews of NRA show a change in pattern, a roughly 3x growth - we've seen this effect before, when we change our navigation, search engines take that as a hint to learn things differently
  • WikiNav for NRA shows 851 incoming views and 664 clickstreams to five identifiable destinations: 495 identified clickstreams to the old primary redirect target (~58% / ~75%), 170 filtered (not identifiable because of anonymization), 94 to Roosevelt era agency, 47 to Chinese army, 14 to Russian army, 14 to Australian gun sport body

--Joy (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:NRA&oldid=1251156409"