Talk:Ace (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I do think flying ace belongs on this page, but I don't think it belongs in the people category, considering "people" seems to be referring to actual individuals, not a generalized class. WhiskeyJuvenile 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It pretty clearly needs to be mentioned since it is commonly abbreviated 'ace'. I am addind it to the top since it doesn't fit into any of the subcategories. Eluchil404 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning and/or merging

There's a lot of stuff here that seems to fall out of bounds of an "Ace" dab page. I don't think anyone is going to expect just plain "ace" to lead them to any of:

...yes, they all have "Ace" in their title, but WP:MOSDAB is pretty explicit that that in itself isn't a valid criterion for inclusion on a dab page. None of these, to my mind, would be ever known as just "Ace".

Also, right now there's also an ACE dab page -- my thought is that these should be merged, but if not, there are several entries here on "Ace" that should be removed or moved to that page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also note many entries could be moved to Aces as well. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice Aces -- and there's a separate ACES dab page, too! Having all of these as one page would seem to be more useful for readers and easier to maintain for editors. Is there any reason why all four (Ace (disambiguation)/Aces/ACE/ACES) shouldn't be merged?--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If all four pages are merged and properly sorted, do you want to keep all the articles? Flibirigit (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for megamerger

I am going to do a draft page located at User:Flibirigit/Ace for combining all the pages. Please feel free to leave any comments here. Flibirigit (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Thanks for taking all that on. My sense is that the scope here is a bit too wide, and I agree with User:NapoliRoma's comments above; the examples cited should not be included in the new page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging is a good idea, mainly because readers can easily type "ACE" when they really mean "ace" etc. Abtract (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice there are alot of acronyms in all four of the current pages. If all of those acronyms are kept, they need to be in either the ACE or ACES subsection. Flibirigit (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not divide it into ACE and ACES subsections; I'd integrate everything into one page, otherwise it's not really that much of a merge. If I'm looking for something named "ACE" I might not even be aware that it was an acronym, so having the major sort be whether its all caps or not doesn't seem to be the most functional way to go about it.

My preference would be to have the major categorizations be functional (people, technology, sports, etc.), with sorting within those sections in the way of any dab page (first by whether the page is actually named Ace/Aces/ACE/ACES, then alphabetically).--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Abtract has made a draft version at User:Flibirigit/Ace. Any comments? Flibirigit (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, other than a comment and a question:

• It still contains all the dubious "Ace" entries mentioned above;
• It brings over existing interwiki links. I don't know the protocol; is that normally done in the case of a merge?

--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. And I believe the guideline prefers this sort of dabbing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru -- unsure what "this sort of dabbing" refers to specifically; can you clarify? --NapoliRoma (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:DISAM#Page naming conventions, which suggests that all page title variations should be on one page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately left in all the dubious items because my main concern was to make one list out of them all; I have eliminated those items not linked to a page but I am sure there are more lines that shouldn't be in as NapoliRoma suggests. I suggest the merge be made using my version then you all attack it to prune etc. :) Abtract (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Things look good to me. The only change I made is adding the Wiktionary template. Flibirigit (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I have made the transfer ... do with it what you will. :) Abtract (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)