 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Project for a Participatory Society
editI just edited the politics section of the disambiguation page with the "Project for a Participatory Society" item. I justify the statement that there are several such organizations with the same name with the following URLs: http://www.ppsuk.org.uk/, http://web.archive.org/web/20090418193230/http://radicalblogs.org/lpps, and http://www.iopsociety.org/spain/blog/talking-about-iops-and-spain-with-oliver (search for the string "PPS"). JonsonMaclean (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
PPS from Eurostat site
editPPS definition from Eurostat Abbreviations and acronyms page, i.e. P letter. I was reading a study, puzzled about the PPS acronym, searched it in Wikipedia. but not found. At the end, after some searching, found the linked description page. --Robertiki (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have to say looking at that web page it looks more like a blog than an actual reliable source, but I'm not really going to examine it. As things stand, the purchasing power parity article doesn't even contain the term "purchasing power standard", much less the abbreviation "PPS", so the guidelines for disambiguation pages suggest it shouldn't be here (MOS:DABMENTION and MOS:DABABBREV). If the term does belong on the parity article, please add it there with source included. I guess I can leave it here while you sort out the main article, although you really shouldn't have reverted me per WP:BRD. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is the European Commission official website. In all it's documents it uses the PPS acronym instead of PPP. I did not know that they were the same until writing Purchasing Power Standard a redirect landed me on the Purchasing power parity page. Either they are the same or the 2005 redirect is wrong. Your choice. If you google-search "pps european" the first three hits follow the acronym I added. I feel strongly about the revert because of the relevance of the source. But may be, as a European, I am biased :-) --Robertiki (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's not my choice. It's between you and the other editors on Purchasing power parity. Please re-read my above reply. It needs to get added to the parity article. I understand what you're saying about the redirect, but it still needs to be added. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not about taking sides (between you and the other editors), it is about consensus. If you feel that some reference to PPS should be added to the PPP article, do it. --Robertiki (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- PPS source. --Robertiki (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- You've gotten almost all of this backwards. First of all, nothing about the phrase "between you and the other editors" implies taking sides. That's your bizarre interpretation. I'm telling you to work with whatever editors may be tending to that article, yes, to ideally reach a consensus. Second, I don't feel that "some reference to PPS should be added to the PPP article". I'm challenging you to do so because as things stand right now your entry doesn't belong here, per the very simple guideline that I've already linked to: MOS:DABABBREV. Have you bothered to read it? It's really short. And since the entry fails that guideline, I'm removing it again. At first I let it slide that you ignored standard WP:BRD practice and re-added the entry, in the interest of just having what I thought would be an easy conversation, but for some reason that hasn't happened, so I'm reverting to the version that doesn't violate the guidelines. If you get your abbreviation to stick over at the mainspace article, feel free to put an entry back in here. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's not my choice. It's between you and the other editors on Purchasing power parity. Please re-read my above reply. It needs to get added to the parity article. I understand what you're saying about the redirect, but it still needs to be added. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is the European Commission official website. In all it's documents it uses the PPS acronym instead of PPP. I did not know that they were the same until writing Purchasing Power Standard a redirect landed me on the Purchasing power parity page. Either they are the same or the 2005 redirect is wrong. Your choice. If you google-search "pps european" the first three hits follow the acronym I added. I feel strongly about the revert because of the relevance of the source. But may be, as a European, I am biased :-) --Robertiki (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)