Disambiguation | ||||
|
There are some entries of worse than dubious (i.e. misleading) merit here. For example, 'Mirrorsoft'... don't recall them ever being referred to as 'MS' (let alone commonly enough to warrant inclusion), can't find any evidence to support it. Just because they were referred to as such once or twice, it doesn't mean the abbreviation is common enough to justify inclusion.
'Mad Scientist'? Has anyone every heard of this being abbreviated 'MS'? The 'mad scientist' page doesn't even include it. Is someone out there throwing every phrase that includes M-word S-word in here?!
This is just clutter, and mostly inaccurate clutter... much of it examples of the tendency to throw every 'fact' in for the sake of completeness, regardless of usefulness, let alone accuracy.
I've taken some out, but left others that may well fall into the same category (I don't have enough knowledge to judge these on my own).... That having been said, I'd like to see the more useful answers (e.g. 'MS' for Microsoft) given greater prominence.
Fourohfour 23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
MS means microsoft most often as a prefix. Such as "MS-DOS" or "MS word". MichaelBillington 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the problem here is that there are too may things that this can mean. It is far too long for a disambig page, but I'm not sure how to fix it. MichaelBillington 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I was fairly conservative with the pruning, as it's hard to judge some of them myself. The question is (for each entry) whether someone is going to type it as a search term and should reasonably expect navigation to the page they want.... I'm not convinced by all of them. As for Microsoft, I've seen them referred to as MS (i.e. non-prefix) often enough, and it doesn't really matter anyway, provided people know it means Microsoft. Fourohfour 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing Master of Science in Information Technology as it looks like it's just included due to being a Master of Science degree (already included) and the page notes four different abbreviations, none of which are simply MS. Firefeather ( talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I decided that 'MS', since it so commonly refers to Multiple sclerosis in common language, should be a redirect. But I have moved the previous contents of this page to a redirect, which is linked to on the Multiple sclerosis page after a redirect. Any disagreements, feel free to change it back, but I felt this was the most reasonable solution. -- Soonlaypale 04:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Soonlaypale, when are you going to fix all the bad links created by your changing MS from a disambiguation page to a redirect? -- Una Smith 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed because this article is not started:
Did anyone do a Google test on any of the removals? IT need not be on the target article to be true. 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen a dab page with citations, where's that from? 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles: I have removed :
MS
ms
mS
(All the above articles where verified and no reliable sources where included within the article to substantiate a reference to the term MS. Each one is a different case with varying severity, nevertheless, there is still no reliable sources.)
Here is some of the one I had previously taged and where removed, but placed in hidden code within the article:
not known as MS according to the linked articles
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CyclePat (
talk •
contribs) 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, I have to strongly agree with JHunterJ that you are applying the wrong set of guidelines to this page. Although I agree with your removal of the links to articles which do not use "MS", you have also removed several links because "MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles". If you believe the use of "MS" in the articles is dubious, then by all means request a citation at the article. But if it appears in the articles (especially when the use is so common as not to be challenged), that's enough for inclusion on a dab page. The purpose of a dab page is much different than the purpose of an article. We're not making statements of fact here, we're simply trying to help users navigate. Removing helpful links because you don't feel the articles are properly sourced is an example of applying a good policy at the wrong level. The following links should be replaced (though with better descriptions):
I admire your energy and enthusiasm for sourcing. I'd love to see you go after the thousands of questionable statements being made in articles all over WP, and if working on disambiguation pages helps you find those unsourced articles, that's great, but settle those arguments in the articles themselves, don't just blank out the links on the dab pages. You've got the right guns, you're just aiming at the wrong target. (A small typographical note...I think you often type "where" when you mean to say "were". I had a hard time understanding some of your posts.) SlackerMom 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
anyone else think that material science should be on this page? ENSSB 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed Master of Science because it lacked sources. however this was quickly reverted. The discussion is happening on the main article Talk:Master's degree. Just a friendly reminder, respectivelly in that order, of 1 guideline and 1 rule.
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
–Jimmy Wales [1]
-- CyclePat 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, again, you need to discuss the change and remove it from the linked article before you remove it from the disambiguation page. Simple. There is no need to discuss proposed changes to Master's degree here, and there is no need to discuss changes to MS on Talk:Master's degree.-- JHunterJ 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, you have quoted one section of this page but not the top part:
This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. |
In your Jimbo quote, he was referring to information likely to cause harm to both the person and project. If you look further down the mailing list thread, you will find this:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page. [1]
–Jimmy Wales
The bottom line is use common sense. I am trying to believe you want to help the project out but the effects seem to be more disruption than benefit. spryde | talk 13:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reordered the list alphabetically and split it into two groups to make it easier to locate articles ... in addition I have singled out multiple sclerosis at the beginning as the most common usage (see above on this talk page). Comments? Abtract ( talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK taking on board these suggestions I have revised the order putting the most likely first and sectionalising/alpphabetising the remainder. Abtract ( talk) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed *[[Middle school]], a period of education (See Middle school) for not only it's lack of sourcing in regards to the term MS but it's lack of notability (or WP:NPOV) in regards to the use of the term. -- CyclePat 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have altered most of the entries to reflect the fact that we are disambiguating the initials MS and not the target articles, for instance it is MS not Multiple Sclerosis that is the entry. I have also traced through each link to ensure that the specific articles mention that ms is an abbreviation and where these initials are not mentioned in the article I have removed those lines, for example the microsoft article doesnt mention MS at all except MS-DOS which as you will see I have entered ... I have scrubbed microsoft. I am pretty sure this is in line with policy but if anyone has other ideas pl point me in the right direcvtion. Abtract ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Abtract, you might have missed this line: The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry, which is under WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree now about MS (though frankly I don't see how common knowledge is any substitute for a citation on the target page) but I disagree about the image since imho it is needed to help disambiguation (the initials are actually sm but the image places them as ms so surely the image is needed? I have reinstated both. Abtract ( talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this determined? Abtract ( talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I still struggle with the idea of a consesus of maybe half a dozen (if we are lucky) editors deciding which usage is most common. Can you tell me what is your rationale for each of those in the top list pls? So that I may discuss it. Abtract ( talk) 14:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no article for Mess Management Specialist wouldn't it be better to clarify that the link is direct to Culinary Specialist (US Navy) rather than allowing a hidden redirect? If my latest attempt to do this is against policy/guidelines could you point me to the relevant place before reverting me pls. I still think this [2] is better since it avoids a redirect, makes it clear to the reader and puts the target phrase first. Could you explain to me where in the guilde it says that redirects are ok or where it says that my way is not ok pls; I didn't get this from yr edit summary. Abtract ( talk) 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info ... perhaps next time you revert one of my edits you would explain why fully on the talk page instead of in an edit summary which says "mistaken" with a link that didn't explain it to me. Following your own advice about talk pages would be a very encouraging sign that you are beginning to understand how to treat other editors. Abtract ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO there are too many items in the top section ... I would start with multiple sclerosis and put the rest in the lower sections; also there are too many sections and too few items (2 each in several) in some of them ... I would combine some eg academia, measurement and tech into a new section "science and technology". Just a thought. Abtract ( talk) 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Abtract, to avoid further reversions, I will explain here. You are using an anchor notation needlessly. The purpose of the URL anchor notation on a dab page is to point to a topic that is contained within another article, when the majority of that article is not specifically relevant to the dabbed term. When the article itself is named Middle school, it is not necessary to point to the exact instance of the dabbed term on the page. Plopping people down in the middle of the article (just because that's where it says "MS") is pointless. It's much clearer (therefore less confusing) for the user who clicks that link to be taken to the top of the article. I guarantee that anyone who follows the link as you propose will immediately scroll to top of that article to see where the heck they are. Also, I'm not sure why you insist on using lower case. SlackerMom ( talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new citation to the target article, one which does not go to a personal page. As a result, I have also restored the dab link. Lots of middle schools abbreviate their name with this acronym, and the abbreviation is common in that usage on Google. However, since linking to the website of a middle school so abbreviated probably won't cut it as a ref, I went with a glossary - of which googling for "middle school" "ms" "glossary" turns up quite a few better ones than the one Abtract removed. Dethme0w ( talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are too many items in the lead as it is somewhat confusing to see six uncategorised items and then some categories. I would like to see Ms. (magazine) (in world terms very minority) and .ms Montserrat (not high on people's lookup targets) placed lower down as they can hardly be called "most common usage". I also feel that Manuscript should be taken out of the lead as it is not now in very common usage (how many times does the average person use the word manuscript in their life let alone the ms abbreviation?). Then comes Ms. as an honorific for women - much to my surprise and disappointment, this never really caught on and is rarely used in the UK (I can't talk for other countries) so I would push that lower down too. That would leave us with Mississippi and Multiple Sclerosis and I seriously wonder if Mississippi should be in pole position since it is only an American state after all. If we need a lead term, my proposal would be that it should be "MS stands for Multiple sclerosis. MS may also refer to:" Multiple sclerosis is known throughout the English speaking world as MS and I would guess that if you said MS to most people they would think first of Multiple sclerosis. Are there any other views? Abtract ( talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation | ||||
|
There are some entries of worse than dubious (i.e. misleading) merit here. For example, 'Mirrorsoft'... don't recall them ever being referred to as 'MS' (let alone commonly enough to warrant inclusion), can't find any evidence to support it. Just because they were referred to as such once or twice, it doesn't mean the abbreviation is common enough to justify inclusion.
'Mad Scientist'? Has anyone every heard of this being abbreviated 'MS'? The 'mad scientist' page doesn't even include it. Is someone out there throwing every phrase that includes M-word S-word in here?!
This is just clutter, and mostly inaccurate clutter... much of it examples of the tendency to throw every 'fact' in for the sake of completeness, regardless of usefulness, let alone accuracy.
I've taken some out, but left others that may well fall into the same category (I don't have enough knowledge to judge these on my own).... That having been said, I'd like to see the more useful answers (e.g. 'MS' for Microsoft) given greater prominence.
Fourohfour 23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
MS means microsoft most often as a prefix. Such as "MS-DOS" or "MS word". MichaelBillington 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the problem here is that there are too may things that this can mean. It is far too long for a disambig page, but I'm not sure how to fix it. MichaelBillington 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I was fairly conservative with the pruning, as it's hard to judge some of them myself. The question is (for each entry) whether someone is going to type it as a search term and should reasonably expect navigation to the page they want.... I'm not convinced by all of them. As for Microsoft, I've seen them referred to as MS (i.e. non-prefix) often enough, and it doesn't really matter anyway, provided people know it means Microsoft. Fourohfour 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing Master of Science in Information Technology as it looks like it's just included due to being a Master of Science degree (already included) and the page notes four different abbreviations, none of which are simply MS. Firefeather ( talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I decided that 'MS', since it so commonly refers to Multiple sclerosis in common language, should be a redirect. But I have moved the previous contents of this page to a redirect, which is linked to on the Multiple sclerosis page after a redirect. Any disagreements, feel free to change it back, but I felt this was the most reasonable solution. -- Soonlaypale 04:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Soonlaypale, when are you going to fix all the bad links created by your changing MS from a disambiguation page to a redirect? -- Una Smith 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Removed because this article is not started:
Did anyone do a Google test on any of the removals? IT need not be on the target article to be true. 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen a dab page with citations, where's that from? 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles: I have removed :
MS
ms
mS
(All the above articles where verified and no reliable sources where included within the article to substantiate a reference to the term MS. Each one is a different case with varying severity, nevertheless, there is still no reliable sources.)
Here is some of the one I had previously taged and where removed, but placed in hidden code within the article:
not known as MS according to the linked articles
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CyclePat (
talk •
contribs) 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, I have to strongly agree with JHunterJ that you are applying the wrong set of guidelines to this page. Although I agree with your removal of the links to articles which do not use "MS", you have also removed several links because "MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles". If you believe the use of "MS" in the articles is dubious, then by all means request a citation at the article. But if it appears in the articles (especially when the use is so common as not to be challenged), that's enough for inclusion on a dab page. The purpose of a dab page is much different than the purpose of an article. We're not making statements of fact here, we're simply trying to help users navigate. Removing helpful links because you don't feel the articles are properly sourced is an example of applying a good policy at the wrong level. The following links should be replaced (though with better descriptions):
I admire your energy and enthusiasm for sourcing. I'd love to see you go after the thousands of questionable statements being made in articles all over WP, and if working on disambiguation pages helps you find those unsourced articles, that's great, but settle those arguments in the articles themselves, don't just blank out the links on the dab pages. You've got the right guns, you're just aiming at the wrong target. (A small typographical note...I think you often type "where" when you mean to say "were". I had a hard time understanding some of your posts.) SlackerMom 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
anyone else think that material science should be on this page? ENSSB 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently removed Master of Science because it lacked sources. however this was quickly reverted. The discussion is happening on the main article Talk:Master's degree. Just a friendly reminder, respectivelly in that order, of 1 guideline and 1 rule.
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
–Jimmy Wales [1]
-- CyclePat 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, again, you need to discuss the change and remove it from the linked article before you remove it from the disambiguation page. Simple. There is no need to discuss proposed changes to Master's degree here, and there is no need to discuss changes to MS on Talk:Master's degree.-- JHunterJ 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat, you have quoted one section of this page but not the top part:
This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. |
In your Jimbo quote, he was referring to information likely to cause harm to both the person and project. If you look further down the mailing list thread, you will find this:
If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page. [1]
–Jimmy Wales
The bottom line is use common sense. I am trying to believe you want to help the project out but the effects seem to be more disruption than benefit. spryde | talk 13:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reordered the list alphabetically and split it into two groups to make it easier to locate articles ... in addition I have singled out multiple sclerosis at the beginning as the most common usage (see above on this talk page). Comments? Abtract ( talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK taking on board these suggestions I have revised the order putting the most likely first and sectionalising/alpphabetising the remainder. Abtract ( talk) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed *[[Middle school]], a period of education (See Middle school) for not only it's lack of sourcing in regards to the term MS but it's lack of notability (or WP:NPOV) in regards to the use of the term. -- CyclePat 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have altered most of the entries to reflect the fact that we are disambiguating the initials MS and not the target articles, for instance it is MS not Multiple Sclerosis that is the entry. I have also traced through each link to ensure that the specific articles mention that ms is an abbreviation and where these initials are not mentioned in the article I have removed those lines, for example the microsoft article doesnt mention MS at all except MS-DOS which as you will see I have entered ... I have scrubbed microsoft. I am pretty sure this is in line with policy but if anyone has other ideas pl point me in the right direcvtion. Abtract ( talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Abtract, you might have missed this line: The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry, which is under WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree now about MS (though frankly I don't see how common knowledge is any substitute for a citation on the target page) but I disagree about the image since imho it is needed to help disambiguation (the initials are actually sm but the image places them as ms so surely the image is needed? I have reinstated both. Abtract ( talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this determined? Abtract ( talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I still struggle with the idea of a consesus of maybe half a dozen (if we are lucky) editors deciding which usage is most common. Can you tell me what is your rationale for each of those in the top list pls? So that I may discuss it. Abtract ( talk) 14:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no article for Mess Management Specialist wouldn't it be better to clarify that the link is direct to Culinary Specialist (US Navy) rather than allowing a hidden redirect? If my latest attempt to do this is against policy/guidelines could you point me to the relevant place before reverting me pls. I still think this [2] is better since it avoids a redirect, makes it clear to the reader and puts the target phrase first. Could you explain to me where in the guilde it says that redirects are ok or where it says that my way is not ok pls; I didn't get this from yr edit summary. Abtract ( talk) 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info ... perhaps next time you revert one of my edits you would explain why fully on the talk page instead of in an edit summary which says "mistaken" with a link that didn't explain it to me. Following your own advice about talk pages would be a very encouraging sign that you are beginning to understand how to treat other editors. Abtract ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO there are too many items in the top section ... I would start with multiple sclerosis and put the rest in the lower sections; also there are too many sections and too few items (2 each in several) in some of them ... I would combine some eg academia, measurement and tech into a new section "science and technology". Just a thought. Abtract ( talk) 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Abtract, to avoid further reversions, I will explain here. You are using an anchor notation needlessly. The purpose of the URL anchor notation on a dab page is to point to a topic that is contained within another article, when the majority of that article is not specifically relevant to the dabbed term. When the article itself is named Middle school, it is not necessary to point to the exact instance of the dabbed term on the page. Plopping people down in the middle of the article (just because that's where it says "MS") is pointless. It's much clearer (therefore less confusing) for the user who clicks that link to be taken to the top of the article. I guarantee that anyone who follows the link as you propose will immediately scroll to top of that article to see where the heck they are. Also, I'm not sure why you insist on using lower case. SlackerMom ( talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new citation to the target article, one which does not go to a personal page. As a result, I have also restored the dab link. Lots of middle schools abbreviate their name with this acronym, and the abbreviation is common in that usage on Google. However, since linking to the website of a middle school so abbreviated probably won't cut it as a ref, I went with a glossary - of which googling for "middle school" "ms" "glossary" turns up quite a few better ones than the one Abtract removed. Dethme0w ( talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are too many items in the lead as it is somewhat confusing to see six uncategorised items and then some categories. I would like to see Ms. (magazine) (in world terms very minority) and .ms Montserrat (not high on people's lookup targets) placed lower down as they can hardly be called "most common usage". I also feel that Manuscript should be taken out of the lead as it is not now in very common usage (how many times does the average person use the word manuscript in their life let alone the ms abbreviation?). Then comes Ms. as an honorific for women - much to my surprise and disappointment, this never really caught on and is rarely used in the UK (I can't talk for other countries) so I would push that lower down too. That would leave us with Mississippi and Multiple Sclerosis and I seriously wonder if Mississippi should be in pole position since it is only an American state after all. If we need a lead term, my proposal would be that it should be "MS stands for Multiple sclerosis. MS may also refer to:" Multiple sclerosis is known throughout the English speaking world as MS and I would guess that if you said MS to most people they would think first of Multiple sclerosis. Are there any other views? Abtract ( talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)