Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tools

Post proposed tools for discussion here.

[edit] General systematization

  • There are many thousands of disambiguation pages. They're all in various states of conformance to the Manual of Style, and they all see different amounts of traffic. Thus, we need a way to:
    • Systematize, so that we know which disambigs need work and which are done.
    • Prioritize, so that we can work on the most oft-used pages first, and leave out-of-the-way ones until later.

--Smack (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Each of the "major problem pages" which appear on the links suggested by User:Josh Parris is almost a project in and of itself. It would probably be helpful if as a major page is "adopted" it is listed somewhere. Such listing could be started here for convenience and moved elsewhere if it grows.
I propose that we use Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links as a de facto list of the disambigs that need most urgently to be brought into line. Two provisos should be made:
  • Crossed-out items are left alone for now
  • We stake out claims on the list to avoid duplication. I claim 1-30 (as of this writing, I've already done 1-11). --Smack (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Major adopted pages

The pages listed below are currently under active revision and present major disambiguation problems in that there are many many in-coming links (per what-links-here). If such page is not listed at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links then please ensure that it is.

  • AAA Courtland 13:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (from 31 July, really)


[edit] Pages that might be needed


[edit] Edit link script

  • Fixing links to disambigs is mind-numbing. In my experience, after half an hour of fixing links, my head starts to swim and I have to sit and vegetate for a while. If I interrupt my progress periodically to fix pages that obviously have other problems, I can fix about forty pages in that time. To me, that's not satisfactory. It would be nice to have a bot, similar to the one used for the Wiki Syntax project. This bot would do three things:
    1. Identify every page that links to a disambig page (using Category:Disambiguation and Special:Whatlinkshere)
    2. Search through each of these pages for every link to a disambig
    3. Generate a link to an edit window in which every one of these links has been suitably marked, maybe like this: [[INSERT LINK HERE|foo]].

--Smack (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was partly mistaken. I'd forgotten that there were two different ways of doing things for Wiki Syntax.
  1. For the part of the project that dealt with redirects, a script generated an edit screen with the edit suggested (like this). This is easier to work with, but it may be too resource-intensive to do make this work right for pages that (unlike redirects) are liable to be edited at any time for other purposes.
  2. For the rest of the project, a script just listed problems in a page (like thus). If option 1 doesn't work out, this would be the way to go. However, I would very much like to have all of the problems in any given page listed in the same place, so that we don't have to edit it five times to fix five bad links.
--Smack (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S: Thank you, Triddle! --Smack (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
P.P.S: Triddle seems to want to move this to Wikipedia:Computer_help_desk/Smack_20050724. --Smack (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Will one of these solutions be enabled to assist in this work? Courtland 13:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see a note from 5 August on the Smack_20050724 page that Triddle doesn't know when this might be implemented; should we consider this assist off the table for the time being? Courtland 02:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's now an experimental interactive solution available which I found makes fixing a few links reasonably tolerable. See my comment about disambiguation with popups below. Lupin|talk|popups 01:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unlinked pages with similar titles

The user page User:Topbanana/Reports/A disambiguation link is suggested shows the output of a script designed to detect page names that are similar enough to perhaps need disambiguation but are not linked via redirects or disambiguation pages or other linkage means. This might be a useful page to look at and/or a useful script to re-run. I stumbled on this page while looking at the "what links here" for Rochester, a place-dab-page. Courtland 22:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wow. That's impressive. Should we add this to the project scope? --Smack (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be more helpful if it didn't contain dab pages, as I've suggested on its talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dab page expansion

Utilization of WikiWax is useful in finding terms that have articles about them but do not appear on a particular disambiguation page. For instance, a WikiWax lookup for "Faber" was used to expand Faber (before — after) Courtland 02:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dab page suggestions (a project)

User:Nickj/Redirects: A project to help suggest new useful redirects and disambiguation pages, from the data that we already have in the Wikipedia.

[edit] Scope of the WikiProject

[edit] Usage notes and dab-template repertoire

3. addition of usage notes to disambiguation discussion pages

Several of the dab templates for use in the main article space do not have clear usage guidelines/suggestions associated with them. This could be rectified.

4. monitoring of dab-template repertoire

The template I listed on the main page which does not appear in the Template Messages: General listing is {{TLAdisambig}}, which I ran across accidentally about a month ago. This WikiProject could take stewardship of the representation of disambiguation-related templates in the Template Messages page set and actively contribute to discussions regarding deletion and creation of templates in this space.

Thoughts?

Courtland 04:36, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

3. That's a worthy task, but from what I know about wiki convention, it's something that should just get straightened out on a talk page somewhere. That said, we can create a dedicated talk page for it here, but the title would probably be a little frightening (something like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/templates).
4. Also a worthy task, since disambig-related templates are among the most important, but I'm not sure that it belongs here. The two tasks that this project has at present are thrown together a bit haphazardly, but they're similar at least because they're both clear-cut and require a lot of work. This one is nebulous and requires comparatively less work. IMHO, I think that could be a separate project, but I really don't know. --Smack (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Agreed .. it's a fuzzy activity, more a matter of being a good wikicitizen than anything else (the creator of the template should place it on the index page in general, I think). Courtland 03:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template choice

(item number here). Orphan {{Disambiguation}}, replacing instances of this template's use with {{disambig}}, culminating in placement of the newly orphaned template on WP:TFD.

I thought of this because I've occasionally gone the other direction, placing the longer titled template rather than the shorter. We should keep {{disambig}} as the primary as it is consistent with {{TLAdisambig}} and presents an unambiguous shorthand (no comedy intended) to the editor employing it. I took a quick census and found that there are between 50 and 100 uses of {{Disambiguation}}. Thoughts on including this as a Scope or Activities item? Courtland 02:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
It'd be nice if we could mark pages that need to be brought into compliance with the MoS - perhaps by making every page with {{disambig}} have a (hidden?) link to pages needing to be brought into line with the disambiguation MoS... maybe by changing {{disambig}} and then manually changing it to a version that doesn't link to pages needing to be brought into line with the disambiguation MoS as each page in brought into line. Josh Parris ✉ 08:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible to have one template redirect to another? --Smack (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is done all the time (see {{OtherUses}} as a recently created example). Courtland 02:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is a series of other templates redirecting to {{disambig}}, e.g. {{disam}}, {{disamb}}, {{dab}}, {{disambiguate}}, {{dambig}}. I replaced some of them by bot with {{disambig}}, initially mainly to make sure that all of the articles are in Category:Disambiguation. If it's considered useful, I can replace the redirects from time to time with {{disambig}}. -- User:Docu

[edit] Page titling

Another possible expansion of scope: correcting page titling. Some dab pages are named Glop (disambiguation) but have Glop as a redirect, or vice versa. This might be too big a can of worms, though.

And then there's the fact that Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Uranus are primary topic pages but Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto are dab pages. (Mercury is a special case because of the element.) I put Venus on Requested Moves to move it to "Venus (planet)" (and turn Venus into a dab) and that idea got soundly trounced, so probably Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto should become planet pages.

Also, some pages titled Glop (1989 movie) have a dablink to Glop (disambiguation) even though it's not necessary.

I'm thrilled that somebody started this project, however, and am eager to dig in! —Wahoofive (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm mildly in favor of adding this to our list of tasks.
Why is that form of titling a big can of worms? User:Jnc promoted it here, and I've been using it semi-regularly.
Second, I'm confused by the Venus thing. Venus has around 1000 links, and Venus (mythology) has around 175. Some of the reasons cited on the relevant talk page are against policy. --Smack (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What I was referring to regarding the planets is the inconsistency; some planets have a dab page at the primary title while others go directly to the planet. The decision on Venus is already made. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

_ _ It is a mistake to assume such inconsistency is a problem, just bcz they are all planets. Saturn and Mercury are both cars; should we ensure that the subject matters of Saturn and Mercury are consistent with other cars or with other planets? The attempt to discover all the types of things that should "own" the corresponding un-qualified titles will inevitably result in contradictions because there is no logic to which types (planets, mythological figures, cars, & many more) can "overlap" by sharing a name; i am convinced the only feasible approach to these cases is title by title, disregarding all supposed precedents in the form of things of the same kind.
_ _ In fact, our whole concept of dabs rests on the fact looking a topic up with an unqualified name works whether or not that title is a dab, an article with at Top-of-Page dab leading directly or via a dab to the sense you want, or an article on the sense you want. How would inconsistency among planets disrupt that?
_ _ Don't get hung up wanting order for its own sake, where the information we are representing is just not that orderly.
--Jerzy·t 08:25, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
indicating agreement with User:Jerzy on points made Courtland 12:35, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. --Smack (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Planets being inconsistent with each other because of title differences: not an issue. We can't help that planets like to share names.
The big can of worms with Glop redirecting to Glop (disambiguation): very big issue. We should be looking to rid that. Neonumbers 10:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I follow where you are leading ... there are sometimes reasons for having such a redirection when there is not clear primacy of a term's use over another; it's not terribly common, but it does happen. Agreed? Courtland 13:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
trying to think of a good example .. how about Pool (User:Ceyockey)
I don't understand, why should Glop ever redirect to Glop (disambiguation)? (I can think of reasons for the other way around, for instance if the disambiguation page becomes obsolete). Glop (disambiguation) is unneccesarily reflexive in this case, which is no different than entitling an article Gooble Blobble (1979 album) when no article named Gobble Blobble exists within Wikipedia. —jiy (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid abbreviations

There are many many disambiguation pages that have abbreviations as titles, words that do not parse as standard English but work only as abbreviations. Examples of these abbreviations-only titles include ABM, LAPD (disambiguation), LL, etc. My suggestion is to concentrate on those disambiguation pages like La Boissière, Queen, and Taco (Disambiguation). There is the crossover set of pages to consider as well, such as PAR and Tap where both usage types co-exist. I would suggest working with these, but concentrating on the non-abbreviation senses related on the page. The reason why I suggest this is out of the reality that there are practical peculiarities of abbreviations that make it difficult to apply all the DAB guidelines equitably across both article types, though the majority of the existing principles will be common to the types. Courtland 03:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested way for individuals to start

A good start to work out personal processes for page updates related to this WikiProject might be for each participant to go through their own disambiguation page-related contributions and work on those first. However, looking through one's contributions list is tedious; is there a way the database can be interrogated directly to identify the set of pages I'm referring to here? Courtland 03:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

as a follow-up, I'm finding that some of the things I did when I first started working in Wikipedia in the area of disambiguation look really weird to me now; fixing them (cleaning up after myself) is non-trivial but is a good way to think through the details of the style guidelines. Courtland 13:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance (tagging pages we have addressed)

I was glad to see this project get going, because I've been quietly been working on fixing up dab pages for a while. One of the things that's been really frustrating to me is to put in a lot of time fixing up a real mess of a page, only to have somebody come along the next day and start undoing all the work you did. I think we need some standardized edit tag to point people to an explanation of what this project is all about; hopefully that will both disuade un-fixer-uppers, and help enlist new people into the project. RoySmith 12:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

How about
Disambiguation cleanup -- you can help!
—Wahoofive (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. RoySmith 23:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest about being careful about taking ownership of the pages that we as a group edit. The notion that changes to a page might be made after we've ourselves made changes is part of the "Wikipedia experience", being both a strength and a weakness. The label "un-fixer-upper" is a moniker that is close to being inconsistent with the Wikipedia concept of "assume good faith" and puts changing pages nearly on par with vandalism.

  • If the creation of this maintenance-indicator template takes place, I would suggest it be put in the talk space and not in the article space.
  • Further, I would suggest that variation in format/style within the guidelines that are codified is both acceptable and to be encouraged. This is the way toward definition of better guidelines, both new definition and dropping superfluous or unhelpful guidelines. (this is a general statement and not restricted to the present discussion)
  • If we truly believe there are certain disambiguation pages that should not be changed, then we should consider the step of protecting them from edits. I can envision some such pages where minor changes can have major POV impact or there has been an edit war for primacy of a term.

Regards, Courtland 12:44, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that I owned the page, or that I minded anybody else editing it. But, the Manual of Style gives specific, objective guidance (and, yes, allows people to break the rules if appropriate) on the right way to do it. If we can find a way to make it obvious to future editors of the page that the MoS exists, and encourage them to read it, that would be a good thing. RoySmith 14:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The way I indicate a MoS wholesale change (-wiki, complete re-layout, whatever) is by using
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
as the edit summary. Most explicit. Josh Parris ✉ 22:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I actually like Wahoofive's
Disambiguation cleanup -- you can help!
Disambiguation cleanup -- [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|you can help]]!

better. The invitation to other people to come on board is useful, and it follows the same style as other cleanup projects I've seen. RoySmith 11:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I stole the idea from some other cleanup project.—Wahoofive (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Depending on how much work I've done on a page in the last few days I'll add something like "revised as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation]]". Courtland 13:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Another alternative I've used (based on a suggestion above): "(revision toward Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) guidelines)". Courtland 15:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed project template

{{WPDABwashere}}

Intended to be "subst:" at the top of Talk pages; for use on either all pages we've touched or only major revisions (and there are plenty of those):

{| align="right" width="25%" style="border:1px solid #ccf;" |- <small> | align="center" |This [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page has been improved<br>by a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|WikiProject Disambiguation]]<br>''{{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)'' |} </small>


Which creates → → → →

This disambiguation page has been improved
by a member of WikiProject Disambiguation
14 June 2008 (UTC)


Comments? Suggestions? Jeers? Fears? Courtland 21:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but how about something more inline with other wikiproject talk page templates(see:Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace). Maybe:
 This disambiguation page has been improved as part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to improve and standardize disambiguation pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.


The picture needs replacing (any suggestion?) but otherwise...- Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 01:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the standard template is far to obtrusive, frankly. Consider the subtlety expressed by {{Portal}} ... a very major linkage in a small package. Courtland 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless ... is it allright for me or you to create the template you've suggested .. the "hourglass" one? I think it would be good to start using something even it its not 100% what I want personally :). Courtland 02:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's an attempt at art ... as you were interested in replacing the hourglass Courtland03:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:DABicon.png
Or smaller
Or smaller still

[edit] WikiProject Template created

I went ahead and created {{WPDAB}}, which looks like ...

 This disambiguation page has been improved as part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to improve and standardize disambiguation pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I'd like to start using this and will transclude it for now until discussion leads to a final formatting decision, at which point the transclusions can be replaced with subst: if that is the community decision. Courtland 02:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks good —jiy (talk) 10:23, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see a manual of style link worked somewhere in there, and a relevent good looking image. --Commander Keane 14:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Is this intended to replace {{disambig}}, or be in addition to it? I could see a progression from {{disambig}} to {{disambig-cleanup}} to {{WPDAB}} (perhaps renamed {{disambig-improved}}). I can see both good and bad sides to this. On the good side, I've been concerned that we have no permanent record of the work that we've done, and this would solve that problem. On the bad side, I'm concerned that {{WPDAB}} is so visually prominent that it draws attention to itself as the expense of the guts of the page. How about a shorter version {{WPDAB/short}}:

 This disambiguation page has been improved as part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to improve and standardize disambiguation pages. You can help!.


but I'm not sure we even need that. Other projects just put the you can help link in the edit comments, and that seems to work well enough without being intrusive. BTW, can anybody figure out why the you can help link formats correctly on the template page, but not on a page where the template is included (like this one)? --RoySmith 15:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment 1: things like this go on the talk page, not the article page.
  • Comment 2: I'm opposed to this whole idea, since it gives the impression that the edits are somehow complete. This is similar to appearance to Featured Article and similar templates, which are awarded after extensive review, not just a one-time edit. You're trying to apply some sort of Good Wiki Seal of Approval to your own edit, which I think is a bad precedent. Can you imagine somebody from the NPOV WikiProject deciding to mark an article as officially NPOV? Or somebody from the Manual of Style marking an article in compliance because they changed all the spellings to British? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wahoo raises two excellent points in his second comment (editing not complete and self-award), and I agree with both of them 100%. --RoySmith 16:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I've been accused of patting myself on the back and applying an inappropriate "seal of approval" to a non-article (dab pages are not articles). Any other criticisms before I send {{WPDAB}} to WP:TFD? Courtland 04:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit links generated

Hello, there was a message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wiki Syntax saying this project needs some help. If I understand correctly you have a list of articles that need to be edited. I can create a report for you that would look like this. All I need is the list to do or I can give you the perl script that generates a report just like that. Triddle 00:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please see the second posting under "Tools" above. --Smack (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll check it out and see if there is anything I can do. By the way, this is the exact sort of thing I created the Wikipedia:Computer help desk (shortcut: WP:CHD) for. Its new and I'm still trying to get the word out. Triddle 17:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "For" template

Maybe {{For}} is something that should (also) be listed in a new subsection of the template listing entitled "for use when a disambiguation page doesn't seem necessary" (or something less awkward). I've gotten into the habit of using this template to bypass a disambiguation page that has only two items on it, which I follow by converting the disambiguation page to a redirect when it is possible to choose one target in favor of the other (open to much interpretation). An example of where I've done this are with the former disambiguation page A Byatt. Courtland 16:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't know that there was a template for that. --Smack (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Just note that when a it's a redirect, and I think I had to do this once (don't remember when or where), it might be better to put, "A Byatt redirects here. For the novelist, see A. S. Byatt." I don't think there's a template that combines both {{redirect}} and {{for}} (I think it's those two). Maybe there should be one? Just a thought. Neonumbers 09:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] "Dablink" template

  • {{dablink|This article is about the blarg. For the blarp, see [[blah (blarp)]].}}
  • :''This article is about the blarg. For the blarp, see [[blah (blarp)]].''

Both provide the same effect, but which is preferrable? As comments on its talkpage suggest, the dablink template may be unneccesary markup. On the other hand, since there is a template for nearly every other kind of dab notice, it would add consistency to use this. Shall we establish some consensus as to which should be used for this project? -- jiy 18:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Does {{Otherusesabout}} do the same thing once again? Courtland 18:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with {{Otherusesabout}} is that the 'Article (disambiguation)' link is hardcoded into the template, but not all articles that need to be disambiguated have a disambiguation page. For instance, take Chess Records:
This article is about the record label. For records in the game of Chess, see World records in Chess.
Maybe a new template similar to Otherusesabout is needed, e.g. :<span class="dablink">''This article is about {{{1}}}. For {{{2}}}.''</span><br/>? -- jiy 18:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I now think it is simpler to just use plain wiki markup instead of any template in these situations (Chess Records above), and attempt to use {{otheruses}} in all other cases. ({{otherusesabout}} is now up for deletion, which makes sense in my mind). Now the question is, should {{dablink}} be endorsed on the project page as it is now? -- jiyTalk 00:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • So now we are endorsing the use of template A over B by presenting it on the Project Page? I thought it was meant as an informational listing rather than an influencing one. If you want to use the list like that, fine, go ahead. Courtland 01:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your list—it is difficult to know what was meant by the list if there is no clear indication of this on the project page. From what I've gathered of other Wikiprojects, items featured on a project page are in fact what that project encourages people to do/use, but I guess I'm wrong in this case. There's no need to get snappy. -- jiyTalk 06:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Related Discussions going on elsewhere

[edit] Discussion on wikilinks in dab pages

A user has begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) on whether wikilinks should be included in dab pages. I invite you all to come join the discussion and express your views. We should get this resolved before we make lots of edits all over Wikipedia. - grubber 17:42, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

[edit] New abbreviation-related sister project templates

As an outcome of my working on AAA, I've created two new templates that (hopefully) will not make a quick trip to WP:TFD (or Wiktionary's equivalent): {{WiktionaryAbbr}} and Wiktionary:Template:wikipediaabbr. I've not added useage notes to these yet, so in a nutshell these are for handling the matter of putting every meaning for an abbreviation on a Wikipedia dab-page, regardless of whether there is or will be an article on the topic for which the abbreviation stands. The WiktionaryAbbr template is the same format as {{Wiktionary}} except that it contains a passage that relates that there might be items in the wiktionary article that are not associated with articles in Wikipedia. The wikipediaabbr template (which goes on Wiktionary pages) is in the same format as Wiktionary:Template:wikipedia but it indicates that there might be articles in Wikipedia that are on topics that are represented by the abbreviation. Neither is perfect, but I thought it a useful kludge to handle some issues I've run into and tried to address by using the Wikipedia talk-space and found that to be less useful still. Thanks for any support or feedback in the use of these templates. I've not listed them on the Project page nor on the main Template messages page until they have lived a bit and had a chance to change under pressure from other editors. Regards, Courtland

TLAs are a bit different from other disambiguation pages. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations we would include all uses on the page, not just the ones that already have articles. Thus it's a bit regrettable that have of the content of AAA was removed. -- User:Docu
  • In order to move forward, I would like to initiate a process whereby a new class of pages is created: "Initialisms" (see Initialism and Wiktionary:initialism; I would not advocate "Abbreviations" as the scope of "Initialisms" is much better definable for the purposes of identifying guidelines). How would one go about this process ... in other words, how did, for instance, disambiguation become a part of Wikipedia culture and can we do the same for Initialisms? There are many arguments against this, chief of them being the "why not use Wiktionary" argument, which is both valid and unlikely to be widely accepted. The arguments for this include a) Peace on Earth (or at least in the Wikipedia part of it), b) division of labor/skills/interest among related but distinct article types, c) reduction in the confusion between navigation aids and articles. In the envisioned world with this new page type, Disambiguation pages would be able to concentrate on navigational assistance and Initialism pages would serve a dual role of navigational aid and usage index (a quasi-dab-list type page). I've not gone farther than just proposing this, but there is an infrastructure to be created of templates, a wikiproject, some wikipedia pages with guidelines ... you who have gone through this before (have a long history with Wikipedia) would be able to help a lot by mentoring this process ... or not, as I'm sure we newbies would muddle through some how :).
Does this sound like a viable and, at least on the surface, acceptable path to explore further? If yes, then I think the first thing to do would be to initiate a WikiProject aimed at making it happen, yes? Thank you for your input. Courtland 23:40, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what you want. The abstrusity of the topic and (no offense intended) your stream-of-consciousness writing style are rather stultifying. --Smack (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yep, my writing style doesn't always fit this medium. Nevermind; there is a page I just found entitled Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations which I've added to Category:Disambiguation the provides guidelines for dealing with abbreviations and provides a suitable forum for further discussion.
I'll make a suggestion under Scope input above about avoiding abbreviations in general as part of the project .. not completely, but focus on "standard words" would be best. Courtland 03:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)