Talk:ABC News (disambiguation)
Firstly, has it been established that the American "ABC News" is the primary topic for this name? Certainly, readers in Australia or Albania would be more likely to be looking for the "ABC News" in their own country. Others in the Asia-Pacific region, too, receive broadcasts from the Australian "ABC News". It may be that the presumption of the American "ABC News" being dominant is not from a WP:WORLDVIEW perspective. Unless there is a primary topic, ABC News should be a disambiguation page.
Secondly, if the American "ABC News" is the primary topic and remains in its current place, it seems that the disambiguation page is redundant as there are only two other possibilities, which could instead be accommodated with this hatnote:
- Having reviewed this further, I realise two things:
- The article on the American ABC News has already moved several times: ABC News (created 14 September 2003) → ABC News (USA) (moved 3 June 2006) → ABC News (7 June 2006) → ABC News (United States) (30 August 2008) → ABC News (31 August 2008) → ABC News (America) (10 January 2010) → ABC News (11 January 2010) → ABC News (US) (14 April 2011) → ABC News (22 April 2011). It seems that there have been discussions with some support for moving the page although the prevailing consensus (by a narrow margin in latter cases) has been to oppose a move. Nonetheless, circumstances may have changed in the past few years (e.g., following the launch of ABC News 24) so the issue may again be up for discussion.
- The number of "other" cases of "ABC News" on the disambiguation page have fluctuated over time. At one point, the Australian was the only one, which should have obviated the need for a disambiguation page at all. A link to ABC News (Philippines) was unexplainedly deleted, so I have restored it (even though the name is defunct, the link still exists). As long as there remain more than two other "ABC News" articles listed in the disambiguation page, then the existing hatnote in the ABC News article makes sense (rather than listing them all). However, if it is reduced to just one or two, then it seems the disambiguation page would no longer be needed. —sroc (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)