Wikipedia talk:List of two-letter combinations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-31. The result of the discussion was no consensus (page was deleted by Woohookitty then undeleted by Docu as an "out of process deletion").
Attention Editors Several letter combinations redirect with {{R from abbreviation}} to the chemical element they symbolize. Do not pipe the link. The redirect may become an abbreviation expansion page in the future.

/Test

Contents

[edit] ?

May I ask what is the point of this? I mean where are you going to stop? If you have a list of all 2 letter combinations you may as well have a page for n-letter combinations, in which case there will be an infinite number of pages dedicated to this silliness. I will put this on the votes for deletion page... GRAHAMUK 12:06 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Myfirst thoughts on this page were the same. However, it might be useful as a utility page for checking on the ambiguity of abbreviations and TLAs. So perhaps it should be moved to Wikipedia namespace. 80.46.175.109

I think this is useful as a way of tracking articles on short words and abbreviations. I think the two and three letter combination lists should stay, but I would very definitely agree with you about lists for n > 3. -- The Anome 12:12 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Plus it might be good for Scrabble players :) Dmsar 12:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC) And if you turn your monitor 68 degrees right - or is it left? - and filter out the red letters with 3-D glasses, it reads "just kidding". weird huh? :)

[edit] trans-namespace

The main reason why I moved it here from Wiki-namespace, is that lists for all the TLAs had been created .. It's fine with me, to move it back there. The main use (IMHO) is disambiguation.

BTW: Calling it "all" the combinations is somewhat exaggerated. -- User:Docu

[edit] existence

Seems everyone's agreed to allow this page to exist... but it seems a pity we have separate pages for Aa and AA (etc) when in many cases case is not important. However we are too far into that to suggest wholesale mergers. Could I suggest two bits of convention we could gradually implement?

  • The page for X should have the list of Xa..Xz AND the list for XA..XZ on it (at the moment, for most X, only the first of these is provided);
  • The page for Xx should always include a "see also XX" line, and vice versa.

seglea 07:43, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. -Sean 07:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] need?

Why do the combinations need to link to the page, is it really neseccary? -JedG

[edit] MOVE

unobstructed move, and all 17 double redirects, done.

--William Allen Simpson 07:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The list seems preferable in article namespace, it's not so voluminous as the TLA one. I moved it back as I didn't see the discussion here. (Apparently there is a start in the history of this page). -- User:Docu

Sorry, the discussion took place at WP:RM, that created this section. Nobody posted anything here.

Apparently, the thought is/was not so much about the number of entries. Like the other related tables, this unannotated table is mostly used by editors, rather than readers. One argument is that editor pages belong in "Wikipedia" space, as opposed to the annotated lists for readers making comparisons.

However, the main argument was that the TLA tables are already in Wikipedia space (the Afd was cited), and consistency would have this table there, too.

--William Allen Simpson 15:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The table looks like a convenient navigation aide for anybody, similar to list of people by name. Thus it seems to be preferable to leave it in article namespace. -- User:Docu
If belongs in the article space, then it shouldn't be self-referential, correct? Except for the table itself, the page is full of WP jargon. If it's meant for readers, as opposed to editors, then shouldn't this be minimized? Same for the TLA pages. —johndburger 17:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Reducing self-references

Following the suggestion of Johndburger above, I tried to reduce the number of self-references. As in the meantime the structure of the pages has changed, we might be able to remove the part about chemical elements as well. --- User:Docu

Much better, I think. If we can't get rid of the "do not pipe" material, how about prefacing it with "Editors:" or something. I have visions of ordinary users stumbling over pages like this: "huh???" —johndburger 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
We could just place the note as a comment for those hitting "edit". -- User:Docu
OK, I've had a go at that. Feel free to beat up on the warning added to the talk page, or use a specific template (I couldn't find one). If/when it's satisfactory, we can remove the warnings from the article. —johndburger 11:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you meant an XML comment—I get it. Cool—I repeated it lower down in case someone edits just one section. —johndburger 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Not an editor, found this by accident, but to be honest, this seems like THE most pointless page on wikipedia. Why does it exist? --82.32.145.126 15:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowercase-Uppercase Combinations

Would it make sense to include a section on Lowercase-Uppercase combinations? This would include things such as the Scion xB, the milliVolt (mV), pH, etc. Samwaltz (talk • contribs) 06:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It would, but wikipedia doesn't distinguish between uppercase & lowercase for the first letter - it treats a lowercase first letter as though it were uppercase. That's why there's no list of lowercase-lowercase combinations.
Examples:
  • tla and Tla both take you to Tla.
  • pH appears to take you to a page called "pH", but it's really taking you to PH - the editor has changed the page title to pH, but the page's actual name is still PH.
  • Type pH into that "search" box on the left side of every wikipedia page and click on the "Search" button.
Pdfpdf 11:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold

"A two-letter combination in bold means that the link links straight to a Wikipedia article (not a disambiguation page)." Is a redirect an article? If so, then Ox should be bolded. If not, then Zr should not be bolded. Either way the statement is false, although I'm not anxious to try 26x26 possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art LaPella (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)