Talk:DEA (disambiguation)

---

I'm going to make this a redirect to Drug Enforcement Administration when I get home in a couple of weeks. I shall also create DEA (disambiguation). 65.95.162.136 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) (this is user:-b, way too lazy to login, I'm hitchhiking and vacationing, damnit.)

I'm not sure that this is a good idea. It seems to elevate an acronym that is popular in American culture at the expense of acronyms that may be popular elsewhere or in technical fields. Ketone16 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, I'm not opposed to testing the waters by trying it and seeing whether anyone complains. Ketone16 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By now more and more internationsla are using wikipedia in English, please redirect DEA to the disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.80.245.202 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

DEA → DEA (disambiguation) — I propose that the primary topic for DEA should be Drug Enforcement Administration and that a redirect should be put into place; the current DEA article can be moved to DEA (disambiguation). Comments? Ketone16 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Support without reservation. None of the other pages on this dab page get many hits at all, and DEA is a very common acronym for Drug Enforcement Administration. On another note, the dab page could use some serious clean-up. —Zach425 ^talk/contribs 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment if you do this, any redirects to DEA ought to be redirected at DEA (disambiguation) Josh Parris 11:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Support and redirect DEA to DEA (disambiguation). --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That redirect would be incorrect and would defeat the object of the exercise! The idea is to move the disambiguation page to DEA (disambiguation) so that DEA can redirect to the Drug Enforcement Administration! PamD (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Perhaps not as well-known outside the States as the FBI, but certainly as well-known as the IRS. It's only when we get down to the likes of the IRT that the dab becomes the primary target. Incidentally, I assume the proposal also applies to dea (lower case). I would support the change of that redirect, as well, if it's necessary to do so. Tevildo (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• CommentOppose — First fix up the dab page, then consider this request. --Una Smith (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — I don't think that fixing up the disambiguation page should be a prerequesite for choosing a primary topic and putting redirects in place. This discussion is about moving the disambiguation page to the proper article, which is DEA (disambiguation). The disambiguation page needs to be fixed up regardless of whether or not this move goes through. Ketone16 (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Convincing evidence is needed that Drug Enforcement Administration is the primary topic, above other candidate articles that belong on the dab page. Other contributors have raised the dab page as an issue. --Una Smith (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • One other contributor mentioned the state of the disambiguation page, but did not suggest that cleaning up the page should be a prerequesite for the move. You have advanced no argument as to why cleaning up the page should be related to the move at all. The disambiguation page should be cleaned up regardless of which article inclues it, so the move is irrelevant. Regarding whether Drug Enforcement Administration should be the primary topic, do you support or oppose? Another contributor has suggested that Drug Enforcement Administration receives, by far, the most number of search engine hits resulting from "DEA" of the entries on the disambiguation page. Do you disagree? Ketone16 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Now I see that you changed your comment to an "oppose" vote. Is your opposition due to problems with the disambiguation page (which have nothing to do with the move) or to the choice of Drug Enforcement Administration as the primary topic (which is entirely relevant to the move)? Ketone16 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Also, the one other contributor who mentioned the state of the disambiguation page supported the move without reservation. Ketone16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
        • The proposal is to put a certain article in place of the dab page at the ambiguous base name. The question is not if that article should be the primary topic, but rather is it the primary topic? --Una Smith (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
          • That is a quibble over semantics. What I should have said is that this is a discussion that deals in part with the question of whether Drug Enforcement Administration should be designated the primary topic for the DEA disambiguation page, presumably because there is a consensus among editors that it is the primary topic (although of course there is no objective way of determining that, so I'm not sure why you insist on that wording). So, if you'll permit me to summarize, you 1) began with a comment that the disambiguation page needs to be fixed up, 2) changed your comment to an "oppose" vote and added a vague objection about the identity of the primary topic being unclear after reading my comment that fixing the disambiguation page should not be a prerequisite for moving it (and again you did not provide a reason why there should be such a prerequisite), and 3) added a quibble over semantics (over a choice of wording that should be understandable to any native speaker of English) in lieu of addressing the question of why fixing up the disambiguation page should be a prerequisite for moving it and addressing the question of what primary topic, if any, should be designated. Are you just being an obstructionist here? If fixing up a page were always a prerequisite for administrative actions such as moving an article or adding redirects, then those actions would never be accomplished in a timely fashion and users would not be able to find content in the most efficient manner. Do you want every article to be of "featured article" status before anyone moves it, regardless of whether it should be moved? Also, five editors (-b, Ketone16, Zach425, Labattblueboy, and Tevildo) presently support the suggestion that Drug Enforcement Administration should be recognized as the primary topic for the DEA disambiguation page. Can you suggest a better candidate for the primary topic designation (or provide evidence that there are several candidates of comparable strength and thus none should be designated the primary topic) or are you going to continue to obstruct this process? Ketone16 (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.