Talk:AFP

Requested move

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.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

AFP (disambiguation) → AFP — the original AFP page already was a disambiguation page —Ewlyahoocom 08:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey

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 The vast majority of the links to AFP intend the news agency Agence France-Presse. Ewlyahoocom 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh? Look at links in Main space. --Una Smith 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support The purpose of any disambiguation page is to help editors find the correct, unambiguous page and link to it. Rather than fixing links, Ewlyahoocom turned a perfectly good disambiguation page (AFP) into a redirect to Agence France-Presse. That's not cool. --Una Smith 15:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Agence France Presse has fewer incoming mainspace links than alpha-fetoprotein, to use Una Smith's example, and there appear to be no primary topic. -- JHunterJ 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  Note that Agence France Presse is a redirect. The article is at Agence France-Presse, and by my count it's 77 for Alpha-fetoprotein, and 445 for Agence France-Presse (Although I don't have the tools to check what text, if any, may be pipe-linked). Ewlyahoocom 19:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying that -- I had misread the incoming links. I'm not ready to change my position though. Off-wiki sources (like "define:AFP" on Google) do not show a marked preference for a particular definition either. -- JHunterJ 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I think AFP is most commonly Agence France Presse. 132.205.99.122 19:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  Based on what? -- JHunterJ 03:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Well it's not Alpha Fetaprotein. AFP is referenced in tonnes of news articles as the wire service source, which means boatloads of articles in various papers across the globe, and TV and radio news, everyday, not to mention internet articles. 132.205.99.122 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  I agree that it's not Alpha Fetaprotein. It appears to lack a primary topic, which is why the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ 00:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: It's apparent that there is no overwhelming predominant use for "AFP", so all links to it should be to a disambiguation so they can be resolved.

—EncMstr 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Agence France Presse does not appear to constitute Primary Topic, nor does anything else. Verdatum 18:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

This article AFP should redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agence_France-Presse with a disambiguation link to AFP (disambiguation). What do you think? --Click me! write to me 02:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (Polls not opened. Opinions are welcome)--02:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)~~

No, AFP should not redirect to Agence France Presse, at the inconvenience of editors of all other pages to which "AFP" applies. I request that AFP (disambiguation) be moved back to AFP. --Una Smith 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the problem with the redirect isn't obvious to everyone? The purpose of a disambiguation page is to accumulate ambiguous links, so that editors can go back later and look at "what links here" and fix all the links in a batch. I just did that for AFP. Many of the links I fixed did intend Agence France-Presse but not by a vast majority, maybe not any majority. Making AFP a redirect to Agence France-Presse solves nothing. The redirect might make it easier for some editors to be lazy at other editors' expense. That is because if AFP is a redirect yet continues to accumulate ambiguous links (as can be expected), then future editors who want to do the disambiguation will have to pick out the ambiguous links from the convenience links (links to AFP chosen deliberately as a shorthand for Agence France-Presse). Normally, all mainspace links to a disambiguation page should be temporary, waiting for an editor to fix them. Convenience links are convenient for anyone only if they are permanent; if they are intended to be temporary too, then making AFP a redirect serves absolutely no purpose. --Una Smith 05:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:AFP

Stop redirecting AFP to Agence France Presse (or whatever it is called). --Una Smith 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Check the links to AFP. They all intend the news agency. The dablink at the top of that page should help any reader who arrives there by accident. Ewlyahoocom 01:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not "all intend the news agency", and even if they did then it would be proof of nothing more than lazy editing. --Una Smith 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Many, many cancer-related and other medical pages used to link to AFP because AFP is one of the oldest and most often used markers for tumors and for prenatal testing in pregnant women. But a long time ago I went through the medical links to AFP and fixed them all so that they point correctly (unambiguously) to alpha-fetoprotein. That left mostly links to AFP that should link instead to Agence France-Presse and several other AFPs. I have now cleaned up all those other bad links too. --Una Smith 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal links should not lead to disambiguation page. If AFP is used as alpha-fetoprotein, we need to link them directly to the article. NOT doing this would be lazy editing. --Kushal^t 02:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. So, Kushal, you would oppose making AFP a redirect to just one of the (currently) 24 topics to which AFP can refer? In other words, you would support returning AFP to its original function, a disambiguation page? --Una Smith 16:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

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.

Air filled porosity (orchids: growing media)

Someone who knows more about how to edit Wikipedia than I do should add "air filled porosity" as another entry under AFP disambiguation/definition (as it relates to horticulture--orchids in particular). 24.106.207.222 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2019

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. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

---

AFP → AFP (disambiguation) – so that AFP be redirected to Agence France-Presse. Agence France-Presse is a major news service like BBC, NYT and Reuters that people from all walks of life in different countries see in the news every day. None of other topics are comparable. Roy17 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Weak support – Newspapers and news broadcasters around the world, large and small, get their news from AFP or Reuters and cite them as their sources. Articles on Yahoo start off with "Washington (AFP)". Images on BBC are tagged with "AFP". Newspapers in other countries such as Poland [1][2], Spain [3][4], Iceland [5][6], France [7][8] tag their articles and images as being from AFP. Since pretty much anyone who reads international news is likely to see "AFP" very regularly, Agence France-Presse is most likely the primary target for the largest number of readers. Other somewhat likely targets might be Australian Federal Police or Atypical facial pain, the rest seem less likely to be commonly referred to with the initials. The main use in having the disambiguation page here might be to prevent it from accumulating ambiguous incoming links. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support as primary target per Thjarkur. Sharper {talk} 00:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a major federal government law-enforcement agency of a G20 nation, the Australian Federal Police is just as notable as Agence France-Presse and its article frequently gets more views than the media organisation. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • When comparing with other topics listed at AFP (disambiguation), it's not just a question of which topic is more notable or gets more views. We need to consider how often each topic is referred to by 'AFP'. If you do a google search for site:bbc.com AFP you'll find a mix of articles referring to the news service, the police agency, and a smattering of other topics. However, the articles primarily refer to the news agency as "AFP", whereas they refer to the police force as "Australian Federal Police" (and then will sometimes lapse into using the abbreviation after introducing the full name). It seems to me that "AFP" is the bona fide WP:COMMONNAME for the news agency in English language sources, whereas this is not true of the Australian Federal Police. In some cases, articles use the name "AFP" to refer to the news agency without even providing any further qualifiers (e.g. "AFP news agency") or giving the full expanded name. Example. Colin M (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:NOPRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. No primary topic here, I'm afraid. Agence France-Presse may be significant, but it's just not that well-known in the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

AFP is not well known in English world? Seriously? It's a major supplier of news articles and stock photos to the entire world, literally churning out lots of content every minute. For example, Yahoo news has 4.5k results for AFP, but only ~20 for Australian federal police.--Roy17 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I said "well-known in the English-speaking world". I didn't say "lots of references internationally". Different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.