Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 32

message: I've done dab-cleanup on S (disambiguation). I moved almost everything to a new article: S (symbol), which I meant to be a list, not a dab, but someone almost immediately tagged it as a dab too. Feel free to review my arguments on Talk:S (symbol), so that maybe some orientation can be derived for other single-letter dab cleanups. --maf (talk-cont) 08:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your rationale that it's a list and not a dab page. If S (programming language) hadn't existed, I would have left all the symbol meanings of "S" on the main dab page, which should have been renamed into List of symbols: S or something similar to make the distinction clearer. Yes, the "S" symbol needs to be disambiguated from the letter-S main page, but the resulting page would not be a dab page per MoS:DAB. On the other hand, I see where others not familiar with MoS:DAB in the strictest sense mistake a list for a dab page and tag it as such. In the end, a wrongly tagged list page is not something i would lose any sleep about. (This is also meant in reference for future cleanups of other single-letter ab pages where no single letters can be dabbed like the programming language.) Also, I've seen wiktionary (in this case wikt:S) as a place where symbols are explained/discussed, but I can't say that the symbol list should thus be removed from WP. – sgeureka t•c 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If it's a list of things that the symbol S may refer to, it's a dab. -- JHunterJ 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the symbol S may refer to many things, but the article S not, therefore (IMO) not a dab. From WP:DAB: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this same word or phrase is the natural title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title." (emphasis by me) An article about sulfur will always be called sulfur, and never just "S".  t•c 11:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I phrased it a little less summarily over at the page's Talk. Which I should have done first and left this section as just a pointer to that discussion.) -- JHunterJ 11:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the single-letter dabs don't fit WP:MOSDAB though ("* In <linked_context>, ... <main_link>" just isn't MOSDAB.  At a bare minimum <context> shouldn't be linked).  Most of the single-letter dabs may need to be cleaned up in the same way.  --Interiot 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single-letter dab cleanup

message: In disambiguation pages that are about verbs (for example Dig, Tug (disambiguation), Jump, etc.), should the verbs be included as one of the entries, like "The act of creating or expanding a hole," be in the first line "To dig is to create or expand a hole.  Dig may also mean," or not be included at all?  Thanks.  --Chaffers (talk)/(contributions) 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the verb has a page of its own (Jumping), then that should be included.  If it doesn't ("Dig"), then the entry shouldn't be there; that meaning will be handled by the  or  template -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- JHunterJ 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verbs 

message: In MoS:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, it says "People who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links [...] For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page, or a List of people named Title." Before I change something about this, I want to ask whether it is okay to remove "List of people named Title" from the suggestions. In :Category:Given names, there are only three articles named List of... , and in :Category:Surnames, there are five . (Out of those eight articles, two were created by me when I was still a new dab editor, and they look really silly to me now; when I fix their names I might as well fix the MOS.) – sgeureka t•c 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some of those List of... pages have likely been deleted. I am in agreement with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the first name Julie that resulted in deletion.  (WP is not a directory.) --Paul Erik 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that line when I was trying to remove the lists of people from the dabs (see my user page if you want pointers to many discussions); I would be happy to see it go, as long as the lists stay off the dabs. :-) See also  and Famous people with the surname Smith, some that weren't in the categories. -- JHunterJ 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Title (surname) is better because it encourages an encyclopedia article about a surname, rather than just a list. CarolGray 07:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "List of people named Title"? 

message: in this example:
Thingamajig may refer to:
In science:
*Thingamajig (chemistry), an isotope of chlorine 
*Thingamajig (physics), a kind of pulsar 
*Thingamajig (biology), an invasive plant used as ground cover 
In world music:
*Thingamajig (Qatar), a seven-stringed musical instrument 
*Thingamajig (Peru), a wind instrument similar to an aulos''
how is it decided that "science" comes before "world music" and not the other way round? cheers. 82.14.71.162 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the pages I have edited, I've normally ordered them by 1)notability of each section, for instance, if the chemistry section is going to be searched more often than the physics one, I'd place it first, and 2)the length of sections; if two sections are equally notable, I'd place the longer one first, by the rationale that more people will be hitting the DAB page for that section. PaladinWhite 20:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: deciding ordering of subject areas?

message: What is the appropriate format for entries about abbreviations? For instance, Seal lists
* United States Navy SEALs, special forces of the US Navy (acronym from "SEa, Air, Land")
Is this correct? Should the acronym be listed at all?
What about at Ram, at the listing for Radar Absorbent Material, acronymed as RAM. Which is more appropriate?
* Radar Absorbent Material, a material which absorbs radar waves
* Radar Absorbent Material, (RAM), a material which absorbs radar waves
* Radar Absorbent Material, a material which absorbs radar waves
I have seen all three used, and although the third seems intuitive, it seems to be discouraged. PaladinWhite 22:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third option probably shouldn't be used (There is no need to emphasize the link with bolding...). As for the other two options: It depends on how many acronyms are listed on the dab page. If there are just one or two of them, use whatever style you prefer. If there are four or more, I tend to split the acronym section off from the rest. Examples: EMU, INA, even EDA. Then it's obvious it's an acronym. – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if abbreviations make up a good part, or even the majority, of the entries? Should the abbreviation section then be sub-categorized just like a regular disambiguation page would be? PaladinWhite 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I used sub-sections for NET as an acronym. If you're unsure, trust your common sense. Whichever way you clean up a marked-for-cleanup dab page per MoS:DAB, it still looks better than before. :-) – sgeureka t•c 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of abbreviation entries on DAB pages 

message: Could an admin come over to the discussion page of UNCC and help myself and another decide how to proceed?  Thanks!
65.82.104.120 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNCC 

message: Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Tom's Cabin (disambiguation).  Could other editors familiar with the disambiguation concept please weigh in.  Thanks. -- JHunterJ 10:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncle Tom's Cabin AfD 

message: User:David Gerard recently made changes to the guidelines on wikilinks on the dab pages, mainly softening the language.  In the past, I believe we have wanted to have the default be one per line and understood there to be cases where this might not be useful and that would fall under the "break the rules" paragraph at the bottom.  I would prefer we keep it that way.  Why the change? (John User:Jwy talk) 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David is running about the MoS making changes to pages that suck, mainly making it possible for them to be read as guidelines, rather than clubs.  Why not?  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Redundancy is good for communication, though.  IMO. -- JHunterJ 10:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check for yourself: .  Part of the reason I brought the topic up here was that the edits didn't seem to completely reflect the changes. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluelinks