Talk:ALF/Archive 2

message: ::This is a response to Arkayne.
::The substantive issue is that Viriditas won't allow anyone to direct ALF to Animal Liberation Front. For some reason, a large part of the history has been deleted, so until it's restored, I can't show you examples, but he's been doing it for over a year.
::There are two candidates for the title ALF. One is the Animal Liberation Front; 1,140,000 hits on Google . The other is ALF (TV series), a former American comedy show that stopped broadcasting 17 years ago; hard to tell how many hits on Google, because it depends how you search, but here's one showing 462,000. 
::My argument is that ALF should go to the Animal Liberation Front, because they are a current, active organization; they are active in 35 countries; they are known internationally as the ALF in many different languages; they are regularly discussed as the ALF by mainstream newspapapers, governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, and counter-terrorist organizations.
::The television show, on the other hand, stop broadcasting 17 years ago; and it is only a television show that is probably never discussed in any serious way by reliable sources. I feel that allowing it dominance over, or equality with, a well-known international group that is the scourge of several governments, is to pander both to Wikipedia's Americo-centrism and its obsession with television, arguably two of its worst qualities.
::Arcayne, thank you for injecting some common sense into this dispute, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is anyone?  You are the one that keeps redirecting ALF to Animal Liberation Front against the consensus of multiple editors from the very begining.  The original edit history showed that.  And, as the Animal Liberation Front is not a primary topic, ALF should not be redirected to it.  This dab page was in place before you and I began editing it. And I don't think the edit history has disappeared for some reason; I think it's because you continually did "move over redirects", which to the best of my understanding, deletes the edit history.  So, you have been edit warring over this redirect against consensus for over a year.  I've merely been restoring the consensus dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you capable of discussing the substantive point, or must every post of yours deteriorate into personal comments? As I said above, many of the edits are now visible only to admins for some reason, so I can't give examples, but I know there was at least one other person you reverted who wanted it to be ALF. Anyway, stop attacking people, please, or I will request admin intervention. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show me the attacks in the above statement.  The point that you have overlooked, is that I have been continually restoring the original dab page that you keep redirecting to Animal Liberation Front.  Is that clear? —Viriditas | Talk 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first edit to this page was to revert me. You've also followed me to other AR articles. You know, something no one could help but notice is that whenever you get involved in a disagreement, the talk page turns toxic. Enough from you about individuals; stick to the issue or stop posting here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed SlimVirgin's addition of a header "More personal comments" over Viriditas's edit. Please do not re-add it, SV. It is a provocation and a violation of WP:CIVIL. I would recommend all of you take a step back and relax before trying to resolve the issue. The more you try to show that the other person is violating Wikipedia policy to further your arguments, the more the already uncivil environment will deteriorate and the harder resolution will become. Edit Conflict: Also, please do not remove my comments, SV. I'm guessing it was a mistake, but please be more careful in your resolution of edit conflicts. Viriditias, I seem to have accidentally removed your comment, sorry about that. It's been restored by SV. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your vigilance. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for explaining the substantive issue to me, SV; I kinda called it right, but wanted to make sure. Crum, I think the common DAB as primary is going to be what works best here, utilizing ALF (animal group), ALF (tv show) and ALF (comp language) showing on top with the rest lower down. While the Animal group is known in over two dozen other countries, I am not sure it is well-enough known to the general English-speaking world to warrant a primary direct, but instead a primary listing in the DAB page as one of the more notable uses, likely as the first one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Substantive issue

message: ::This is a response to Arkayne.
::The substantive issue is that Viriditas won't allow anyone to direct ALF to Animal Liberation Front. For some reason, a large part of the history has been deleted, so until it's restored, I can't show you examples, but he's been doing it for over a year.
::There are two candidates for the title ALF. One is the Animal Liberation Front; 1,140,000 hits on Google . The other is ALF (TV series), a former American comedy show that stopped broadcasting 17 years ago; hard to tell how many hits on Google, because it depends how you search, but here's one showing 462,000. 
::My argument is that ALF should go to the Animal Liberation Front, because they are a current, active organization; they are active in 35 countries; they are known internationally as the ALF in many different languages; they are regularly discussed as the ALF by mainstream newspapapers, governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, and counter-terrorist organizations.
::The television show, on the other hand, stop broadcasting 17 years ago; and it is only a television show that is probably never discussed in any serious way by reliable sources. I feel that allowing it dominance over, or equality with, a well-known international group that is the scourge of several governments, is to pander both to Wikipedia's Americo-centrism and its obsession with television, arguably two of its worst qualities.
::Arcayne, thank you for injecting some common sense into this dispute, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining the substantive issue to me, SV; I kinda called it right, but wanted to make sure. Crum, I think the common DAB as primary is going to be what works best here, utilizing ALF (animal group), ALF (tv show) and ALF (comp language) showing on top with the rest lower down. While the Animal group is known in over two dozen other countries, I am not sure it is well-enough known to the general English-speaking world to warrant a primary direct, but instead a primary listing in the DAB page as one of the more notable uses, likely as the first one. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to see sources showing that the others are actually used as acronyms. A couple of them still appear to be from the long made-up list. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop using the term "made up list" - this is a personal attack and does not assume good faith.  You _must_ know that it's inflammatory. You make your own case weaker by using such language.  By assuming good faith, and looking for the terms listed, it's easy to find where many have been used by reputable sources, and to show that the numbers of those uses are very low.  (Today's Google news sources show Alf being used for all of them but one, which is using ALF for Assisted Living Facility.) Dan Beale 10:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the ones that can be verified should stay in, whilst the ones that cannot be verified need to go bye-bye. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This section to discuss the substantive issue only, please

message: :Also, please do not continue to remove this section, like you did here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't recall removing it - must have been caught in an edit summary thing. I probably would have refactored them, as they were rather uncivil, and personal attacks. Bt, please stop that, will you? It's rather disruptive. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've removed thosecomments, since they had no constructive value to the discussion. Talk about the discussion, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of reliable sources

message: is to find articles that a title corresponds to, not list every possible meaning of a term.  If in doubt, only include entries with articles.  They're not meant to provide information on their own, just serve as a navigation tool.  Therefore references and comprehensive lists of meaning are out of place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's absolutely correct, and before SlimVirgin and Arcayne showed up to edit war, the stable version that meets your criteria could be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop these personal attacks for heaven's sake. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We understand, NG, but we are giving the editor who did that the benefit of the doubt that he just wasn't paying close enough attention to what was asked before plowing ahead. As for why we asked or them to be put here, there was concern that some of the DAB links being proposed weren't all that valid. Steps are being taken to ensure that they are. If I misunderstand what you are commenting on, please forgive me, and xlarify. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is this royal "we" and what are you referring to?  Consensus was achieved in the last Talk:ALF#Requested_move, and the version was stable until SlimVirgin did a series of "move over redirects" beginning on 9 June 2007  against consensus and was reverted back by several editors.     Furthermore, your neutrality is in doubt, because you showed up to this page to revert to SlimVirgin's version, against the consensus of the active editors maintining this page, who then promptly, and quite correctly reverted you .  I hope that I have provided an accurate summation of events.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry. Did you think I was talking to you? I was pointing out your error in putting citations on the actual DAB page rather than here, as you were quite clearly asked. I was also pointing out how you shouldn't be raked over the editorial coals for making a mistake, especially since it was pointed out to you by others, and you were taking steps to undo your mistake. You can say thank you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read for comprehension. No such "error" was made. SlimVirgin added rerferences back into the article after the consensus version had removed them, and she then proceeded to request more sources, and I supplied them. I hope that clears up your misconception. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you know that DAB pages don't have citations, so you know that adding them was a waste of time. Come on. Please stop arguing, and focus on the article. Learn. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been already explained several times, I added the references - in good faith - at the request of the editor leading this dispute.  It was not a waste of time. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already made clear that I don't care whether the sources were added to the dab page, or added here. I just wanted to see that we were only adding real acronyms, and that we didn't include the ones you earlier made up. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've made it repeatedly clear that I've never, at any time, made anything up, nor can you show that I have. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Which was the purpose of asking for sources, as some of the authenticity and/or notability were called into question. It worked, as some of theobscure choices added have since been removed. It was a mistake to add them to the Discussion page when the editor adding them was well aware that he had been asked to add them to Discussion, and not punish the reader by making some sort of WP:POINT. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of disambiguation pages 

message: I checked the g-hits for many (not all) of the items, and came up with the following results (in K-ghits): TV (166), AR (132), Language (46.6), Liver (26.7), Album (18.8). The rest were lower. I got zero (0) ghits for the psychology item - maybe some tweak in phrasing will yield more. A dab is intended to provide easy navigation, and clearly it should allow easier access to the more notable terms than the obscure ones. I am not saying Google is the only way to measure notability, but it is a good starting point. I also think we need to vet the list to make sure all items are used as a bona fide acronym by published reliable sources. Crum375 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the last point, I think the disambiguated articles need to indicate that it's known as ALF; the dab page editors shouldn't need to check any resources beyond the articles to be disambiguated.  The article editors can reach their own consensus (through application of WP:RS or whatever) to determine the acronym's bonafideness.  -- JHunterJ 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed in principle, except that some of the linked articles appear to totally lack sources and would be instant candidates for AfD, so we have to do some minimal due diligence. I also added "Assisted Living Facility" (43 K-ghits) to the top 6 - I have googled all items now, and all the rest are lower. Crum375 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it will be of use to know have you precisely define notability. Knowing that might very well assist everyone else here understand what criteria you are utilizing. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Easy access to the most notable items

message: Here is another way to assess notability, based on Google news search, which should be more immune to Google-bombing, and even Wiki articles:
*Animal Rights: 2,100
*TV Show: 820
*Assisted Living: 338
*Liver: 111
*Album: 38
*Language: 11
I have only done the top 6 (by standard web-based ghits) so far - interesting results. Crum375 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, the entries aren't ordered by notability -- as far as I can tell, notability in Wikipedia is absolute: a subject either has it or it doesn't.  Dab entries, one the other hand, are ordered by frequency of use.  We tend to use the terms interchangeably, but (for instance), the guidelines for determining notability don't necessarily apply to determining frequency of use.  Google is a good exhibit for frequency, but of course not the only one.  I don't have another to offer in opposition though. :-) -- JHunterJ 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability isn't absolute on Wikipedia: BLPs, for instance, can be marginally notable, and titles are directed to the most notable, if there is one. It's only because some people are arguing that there is more than one "most notable" that it isn't being directed to one of them. As a compromise, we agreed to list the most notable ones at the top. I hope everyone will stick to that compromise, because neither side can have 100 percent what they want here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same search yields 102,000 hits for "tv" and ALF, not 820.  And, "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338.  Without constraining terms, acute liver failure and ALF yields 571 hits, not 111. Removing the word "album" from the string yields 58, not 38 hits for Moyet. Please don't skew the results of these searches by changing the search string. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, please watch your tone, and try to focus on the message, not the messenger. I provided my search strings, so as to avoid any appearance of 'skewing' - can you provide yours? Crum375 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went over this above. I don't see the need to provide links, because Google news is not used to determine navigation preferences on dab pages. This is a red herring. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The important point here is that, no matter how you search, ALF comes up for Animal Liberation Front more than twice as often as the second one. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not important to dab pages at all. —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion, in this case. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The MoS is just a guideline, and a widely ignored one. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't even support you. It says "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So because you ignore the MoS, we're supposed to as well?  And how is this supposed to support me?  Exactly what I am supporting?  There is nothing about Google news in the dab page or MoS dab page guidelines, so it doesn't support you.  And, the statement about "most-used meanings" does not mean, most used by Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does it mean then? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is used to create an order of importance, so it implies notability. But using Google news to determine notability has to be done very carefully.  And, Crum is mixing notability with frequency of use of the term ALF which presents additional problems.  Just because many sources refer to the Animal Liberation Front as "ALF" doesn't make it more notable, then let's say, "Assisted Living Facilities", which returns 22,200 Google news hits.  A search for "Animal Liberation Front" on Google news only returns  4,860  hits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, that's not how notability is assessed.  —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says it isn't? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly you don't say it is.  We have WP:N, we have the previously cited MoS which determines order of importance on dab pages based on notability of the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. This is really transparent. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. WP:N doesn't help us when we need grays. Crum375 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usage does not imply notability.  They are two, distinct creatures. Usage verifies, confirms, and supports notability, but it is not the sole criterion, nor could it be. —Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Useage correlates fairly well to notability, and is easy to gauge. So we rely on it in lieu of something better. Crum375 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Undue weight. For WP:N, usage applies to the topic, not to the acronym.  A skewed search for acronym usage does not make the topic more or less notable; it only shows that some media outlets are using it, whereas a comprehensive search of all search indexes would show that terms like "Acute Liver Failure" are just as widely used in their appropriate books, journals, publications, etc.  The "Animal Liberation Front" doesn't even exist as an organization, so its notability isn't based on anything real or tangible, like a disease or a brick and mortar group, but instead, is solely based upon and exemplified by public relations - unlike the other listings on this dab page, the Animal Liberation Front is uniquely obsessed with increasing the frequency of their name in the popular media by engaging in acts of terrorism and then claiming that the "Animal Liberation Front" is behind it; in fact no such group exists. As the page itself says, it is "a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action on behalf of animals."  And their agenda is to get their name in the papers.  That's why the notability of this organization is highly suspect -- it is not notable through actual usage, but through manufactured notability.  Most people, if you ask them, have absolutely no idea who the Animal Liberation Front are, and have never heard of the term. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority." —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Undue weight is most assuredly relevant here, especially in the context of notable dab entries, many of which are more prominent than others. The order of importance on the dab page is not reflected accurately as a result. —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I would disagree. NPOV, of which UNDUE is a subset, applies to presentation of different points of view in an article, where we need to be sure that our presentation  fairly presents the various opinions on a given topic. Here we are talking about an indexing or navigation function, and all we want to achieve is least average effort by our users. So we need to predict how many will look up a given acronym, and make sure that the most likely searches will take the least amount of time. Pure efficiency issue - nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Crum375 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has everything to do with NPOV; significant dab entries are being placed out of order of importance because you and Slim are claiming that a Google news search supports reordering; it does nothing of the kind.  The search is being manipulated to give undue weight.  I can alter the results simply by removing the acronym or a string, and this is not what the MoS dab page regarding "most-used meanings" implies. Finally, the fact that the Animal Liberation Front doesn't exist as a real group, but exists solely to get their name in their papers, as opposed to the other groups which are either real, brick and mortar organizations or legitimate concepts, technologies, and places, shows that there is undue weight being placed upon a non-existent organization.  Topical searches of Google news show "Animal Liberation Front" coming far below other terms like "Acute Liver Failure", which receives at least 306,000 hits on google alone, far more than the Front, and somewhere around  25,900 hits with the acronym.  Clearly, this is undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, you are not following. NPOV is a policy that applies within a single article. It does not apply when comparing apples to oranges on dab pages. There, the only issue is efficiency of access for the average user, not NPOV. Crum375 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."  I hope that clears things up for you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not apply to the sequencing of indices of different articles - there are no 'Points of View' in a dab - it's only a navigation tool - and our job is to make it as efficient and as easy to use for the average user as possible. This is not NPOV at all, as we are not comparing points of view. Crum375 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why collation solves this problem.  You and Slim did not want collation, hence you have a NPOV dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't an NPOV dispute just because you say there is one. This has nothing to do with NPOV. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has everything to do with NPOV, as I have explained several times previously.  —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Viriditas, who other than you says this is an NPOV dispute? You haven't made a single edit to that policy or its talk page, so you can't claim any special expertise that the rest of us don't have. Please show us which section, or which argument, or which person backs you up. Don't say UNDUE, because it doesn't. Don't say you have already explained, because you haven't. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained this many times on this page.  I'm not explaining it again.  You can keep claiming that I haven't explained it all you want.  Skewing search results to support your position is intellectually dishonest. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, you've made this accusation before, higher on this thread. I explained to you my rationale, and I included the search strings for transparency. I also asked you for your search strings and rationale, which I have yet to receive. So before accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please provide the requested information. Thanks, Crum375 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave them to you in plain text without URL's.  I can easily add the markup and such, but it's a red herring.  This entire discussion is a red herring because the search criteria is bogus. —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give them to me with the exact URLs you used - that provides maximum clarity and transparency. And then please explain the rationale. We can only compare our results rationally if they are in the same format. Thanks, Crum375 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's a red herring and a complete waste of time.  And, I already gave them to you in plain text at 00:38, 12 June 2007: "The same search yields 102,000 hits for "tv" and ALF, not 820.  And, "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338.  Without constraining terms, acute liver failure and ALF yields 571 hits, not 111. Removing the word "album" from the string yields 58, not 38 hits for Moyet."  This was one example.  Google news results do not prove notability; they are in fact contradicted by Google web results, which show the Animal Liberation Front to be less notable than Assisted living facilities and Acute liver failure, terms that make extensive use of acronyms, but are not covered as much on Google news because those things are not non-existent, activist organizations that exist solely to generate sensationalist media buzz through terrorist acts; Assisted living facilities (956,000 ghits) and Acute liver failure(306,000 ghits), are real, notable concepts and ideas that have greater significance and greater notability, which explains why their Google hits outnumber the Animal Liberation Front (262,000 ghits).  —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's perfectly straightforward and clear: "Assisted living facilities" gets  1,150,000 ghits , "Acute Liver Failure" gets 306,000 ghits , and "Animal Liberation Front" gets only 265,000 ghits .  Acronyms are used extensively for all three groups, regardless of how you measure acronym usage in Google news, which does not represent an accurate count.  There are thousands of uses for ALF as Acute Liver Failure in the medical literature.  Most importantly, many of the Ghits for the Animal Liberation Front are on non-notable websites, whereas the hits for Assisted Living Facilities and Acute Liver Failure are highly reliable.  It's obvious that you are using Google news to skew the notability requirement. —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, this section is specifically about the news search measure. Clearly you'll get different results if you search the web at large, which is more prone to Google-bombs and wiki articles. In addition, by leaving out the acronym, you are not telling us the likelihood that the readers will visit this dab page. IOW, we specifically need to know that the acro is being used, otherwise they won't come to us at all. Remember our goal is to allow the average reader the easiest and quickest access to his/her article, given the acronym. Crum375 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a subjective criteria.  We know the acronyms are used, and we know that they are in use.  We also know that the sole purpose of the non-existent animal rights group, Animal Liberation Front, is to use the media in order to get attention for their issues, so every news story represents some kind of terrorist action, threat, trial or action they have taken.  This doesn't make use of their acronym notable; it merely means that the group is actively using the media for attention. On the other hand, real, established concepts and ideas, like Assisted living facilities and Acute Liver Failure, do not use and manipulate the media; rather these concepts are notable for being notable in and of themselves, and their ghits outnumber the Animal Liberation Front in the thousands, with reliable websites and publications.  The notability for these things is significant.  Assisted living facilities are notable for their presence as established institutions, and Acute Liver Failure is notable in the medical community as a liver condition that is discussed in thousands of reliable sources and treated in real medical facilities.  On the other hand, we know that the Animal Liberation Front's main purpose is to use terrorist tactics to get media coverage for their issue du jour; it's a fleeting, ephemeral activity.  Issues come and go, members are rarely caught or named, and the publicity is fragmented, as is the nature of anonymous activists who belong to a group that "doesn't exist".  In other words, the real notability lies with real things, substantive institutions and scientific ideas that are not subject to the vicissitudes of newspaper editors and "if it bleeds it leads";  No.  The ebb and flow of terrorist activity within the animal rights community may be notable for them, since they are only trying to get the word out through their acts of violence, so surely they consider these things notable.  But in the real world, after the newspaper has been read, and the days events forgotten, the Assisted living facilities are still here.  Acute Liver Failure is still here, still a problem, still omnipresent in the world of human affairs.  Where is the Animal Liberation Front? —Viriditas | Talk 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget Animal Rights, OK? Let's assume all you have are a bunch of entries with acronyms, that need to be prioritized. We are looking for a rational and objective way to do it. We have two easy ways: use ghits on the general web, with both the topic and the acro, or use google news archive search, again with both the topic and the acro. Why the acro? because we need to know the reader will come to the dab page - no acro, no dab page visit. Both tools, general web and news archive, are just tools - they are limited in what they can do, but they are objective. Of the two tools, I personally feel more comfortable with the news archive search, because it is fairly immune to google-bombing and wiki hits, and in general emphasizes real usage, which I think correlates better with the odds that a reader will come to the dab page looking for the main entry. Bottom line: we have two tools, both need the acro, both have known limitations, but they are objective. If you have other tools you think can better predict our traffic flow here, let's have them. Crum375 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another measure of notability

message: JHunter, can you say why you feel this belongs here, and also with the names, but the other names don't belong on this page?  SlimVirgin (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are known as simply "Alf", they belong here.  If they are not (for example, if they have a last name), they don't. It the usual dab rule, no different when applied to people. -- JHunterJ 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would they belong here if known simply as Alf, and not on the list of names? When you say it's the usual dab rule, do you have a link to the rule? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:D, WP:MOSDAB. 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.  I'm at a loss, really -- this is the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation; what else would usually get dabbed, if not pages with the (disambiguating phrase) behind the disambiguated title? -- JHunterJ 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going by the MoS, it says that most commonly used items should be placed at the top. The most common use of ALF is not Alf and Alfhid. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. And it's not at the top. -- JHunterJ 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be anywhere near the top. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's also a problem with that article, which needn't directly concern us here, but it's worth bearing in mind. When I first read it, I thought that Alf should redirect to it as the oldest use of the name. But then when I looked for sources, I realized I was thinking of a different Alf, and it's not completely clear this one exists as described. There is only a primary source for it, and I see someone else has raised the same issue on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion needs a break.  All of Crum's results are hopelessly skewed, and if one goes by order of importance by MoS guidelines, ALF comes much, much lower on the scale per Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no 'skewing' - the acronym is needed, per my reply to you above, and let's stay on one thread please. Crum375 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely skewed, and that's not how we determine notability.  Order of importance on dab pages, or notability, refers to the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is saying that apart from you? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is saying we determine notability the way you are skewing it? —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't answer a question with a question. You keep telling us how to determine notability, but you don't say where you're taking your opinion from. Unless you can cite something in support or mount an argument, which you haven't done yet, it remains your opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is us? I've established that your criteria for notability is in question, not my own.  You invented one using Gogole news and a skewed topic/acronym search which does not reflect actual notability, but in reality distorts it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As an example, I can go into the medical literature and get thousands of references to ALF as acute liver failure, does that make it more notable than the TV show?  Notability exists independently of usage, and the dab page orders by notability, in which case, Animal Liberation Front would appear close to the bottom. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we are assuming is that people look up entries and acronyms based on their notability. That correlates fairly well to their appearance in the news, which correlates to the Google news search. Is it perfect? of course not. But nothing ever is. Crum375 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? Please stop just posting guideline names without saying what you mean. First, they're only guidelines, and secondly, they don't back up anything you seem to be saying anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, please try to be more civil. Your behavior is creating a disruptivbe influence in the discussion. Either be polite or step back fromt he article. You won't appreciate the third choice. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I explained it in the above section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply above - UNDUE does not apply. Crum375 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, please see my reply to your reply; it most certainly does apply in terms of prominence, which is the inherent criteria for dab order. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way does it apply? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It applies in many ways, many of which I've repeatedly explained in the previous section.  One, in terms of NPOV.  Why is one topic more notable than another?  Two, in terms of significance.  How is a group that does not exist more significant than a group that does, or a real medical disease, or an NGO?  Three, in terms of notability.  Google, Google news, and related discipline indexes do not make Animal Liberation Front as notable as you are claiming it to be.  You are appealing to a skewed acronym search that shows usage, but does not show notability. Removing the acronym from the search term, places the notability of the Animal Liberation Front much farther down on the scale. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No confusion whatsoever.  I explained in full, my response in the above section.  Crystal clear, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, you are really missing the point. See my response elsewhere - NPOV only applies within a specific article not when comparing priorities on dab pages. Crum375 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Viriditas, you're posting about this unnecessarily in multiple sections, then when asked to explain something, you point to a previous non-answer in another section, in order to confuse people. I've watched you do this before. All it achieves is that people get annoyed with you, and you look bad because you have to post more often than is sensible; you've already posted to this page 164 times, more than twice as often as the next poster. It's not going to make the issues go away, so I hope you'll change your approach. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've explained things several times in multiple sections.  —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never done that, because I think it's inane. Please show me some diffs if you think otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alf and Alfhid

message: Night Gruy, regarding your edit,  the reason I added "when engaged in direct action" is because lots of people think the ALF is a group with membership, when in fact it's  just a rallying cry, in effect. Is that clear enough without mention of direct action? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of ALF

message: ===SlimVirgin's===
Just to be clear, by every measure, the Animal Liberation Front is the most common use of ALF on Google, Google News, and Google Books. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Search engine hits

message: Just to be clear, by every measure, the Animal Liberation Front is the most common use of ALF on Google, Google News, and Google Books. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin's

message: SlimVirgin claims that "by every measure, the Animal Liberation Front is the most common use of ALF on Google, Google News, and Google Books." This is clearly not the case. Sorted by count. —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with SlimVirgin's search results

message: *"television" ALF: 25,600
*"alien" ALF: 11,100
*"animal liberation front" ALF: 2,100 
*"Alien life form" ALF": 176 
*"American Legacy Foundation" ALF: 103  - sorry, the data you are proffering is under dispute. When it is agreed upon by a current consensus, it will be re-added. Until then, please do not remove my comments. Thanks. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google News

message: By agreement above, everyone is on the same page that there should only be one dab page.  the Alf page and Talk:Alf page redirect to different places.
Step 1 is, let's fix the name space problems and move this page, and talk page to Alf.
Step 2, make sure all the relevant existing other dab pages are referenced.  I think that is only Alf (name).
Step 3, is to list the disambiguation terms.  At ~10 terms or so, it's nice to divide the terms by something, either subject matter headings (Dan), or by whether it is a noun vs TLA (Sam).  After some basic headings come in, sort them alphabetically, not by importance, percieved popularity, or some external criteria.  Don't use pipe text to hide the disambiguation titles.
Step 4, is to argue about the inclusiveness of the terms.  That's happening now.  Take a step back please, and take care of readers before taking care of your own passions.
Any admin can take care of Step 1.  Step 2 is probably already done.  Step 3 should be alphabetized for now, and creation of headings later.  For a way out of the argument on step 4, I suggest first being inclusive.  Dabs exist for user convenience.  Any reasonable claim for inclusion should be entertained. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Step 3 is by perceived popularity, according to WP:MOSDAB. Breaking them up into subjects, when the list is long enough to warrant that, doesn't mean that the most commonly sought meanings shouldn't be at the top. -- JHunterJ 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors.  I believe there is consensus for this format. —Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense for Alf to redirect to Alf (name). This dab page should be ALF, as most or all of the acronyms are ALF or A.L.F. I have no problem with headings, but whenever I introduced some, I was reverted. My only concern is that the most common ones be at the top so they're easy to find. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the top few entries in notability/useage must be on top for easiest access. The rest can be broken down into subjects. The idea is to make the average trip for the average user as quick and easy as possible. Crum375 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose.  All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes. —Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're pretty much on your own in insisting that the common ones not be at the top. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I ask you to please avoid referring to me and just address the topic?  Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have become the topic with your behavior. It's like watching someone commit wikisuicide, to be frank. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please control yourself.  Just use this section to discuss the topic.  Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's look at my disruptive behavior, here:"I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors. I believe there is consensus for this format...Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose.  All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes."  I don't see anything disruptive there, but I do see a lot of attacks and accusations from Slim after I asked her to control herself.  Is that too difficult to do? —Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, you provide us bogus numbers and refuse to explain them; we spend hours trying to get you to provide an explanation. You then say you've answered, but refuse to provide a diff with the answer. You claim that SlimVirgin deleted the history, and keep defending it, and finally admit that your claim and explanation are wrong. You add non-notable entries galore, just to create clutter. At some point, this kind of behavior will have to stop, or you will have to stop editing on this site. Crum375 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting story, but no, I don't see the truth in any of what you claim.  Could I ask you to get back on topic please? I'm just interested in getting back on track here.  As I said, "I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors. I believe there is consensus for this format...Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose.  All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes." —Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your behavior issues are unrelated to this specific issue. A dab page must ensure expedited trips for the most common visitors. The way to do that is by ensuring that the highly notable or most used entries and acronyms get the most prominent spot, i.e. at the top. The rest can follow. Crum375 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common visitors could be people looking for many different things, from King Alf, to ALF the alien or the television show, to perhaps the programming language, or even the Alta airport.  Some might be looking for information about Acute Liver Failure, the American Liver Foundation, Assisted Living Facilities, or even IEEE standard 1603.  To best serve the interests of the reader, collation helps give the page order, and navigation is assured simply by scrolling up or down.  Furthermore, placement issues are solved.  As an active editor, I appreciate collated dab pages, as that is what I have come to expect from a reliable reference work. Notability, importance, and hot issues in the media change (as Yom explained succinctly) so we should insure that we have one foot in the past and one foot in the future.  Collation helps everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we need to prioritize them by expected traffic volume, which logically would be correlated to notability and use. Then we take the top few, give them quick access at the top. The rest can be broken down into categories and listed below if there are a lot of them. Crum375 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expected traffic volume, while a noble and lofty goal, can only be estimated.  And then, we must take into the account the actual notability of the terms, not the sensationalist use of acronyms in the media, or its proliferation through non-notable websites. That is why the importance of the topic is far more important than media usage of an acronym. Usage cannot accurately be determined (Yom addressed this point).  I would like to see what other controversial disambiguation pages have settled on as a solution, however I am partial to collation because it is intrinsically neutral and does not impose an arbitrary guess as to usage of a term, which changes like the wind.  We must think about the future, not just the present. —Viriditas | Talk 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Step 1