![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What is this page meant for ? The 1st para says the abbreviations are likely to be ambiguous. It also says "no need to disambiguate the abbreviations". What happens on this page ? Jay 10:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Today is a fresh new day, but it isn't helping me look at the page in a new light. I re-read the metapage and Docu's comments above and am still lost as ever. So here are some questions:
Jay 04:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
<moved from User talk:Docu>
I went through the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page but couldn't find any topic with relevance to abbreviations except the "See also" link on the last line. What is it that you wanted me to look on the page ?
In fact I have read the page before too and have done quite a bit of disambiguation of a few pages. It seems I'm not able to see something u're able to see. So if you can answer my questions on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_and_abbreviations that will sort things out. Jay 06:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
</moved from User talk:Docu>
On MediaWiki talk:Disam, I suggested a wording that could replace {{msg:disambig}} for two/three letter acronym pages -- User:Docu
(talk moved here) The suggest is the following:
Based on discussion elsewhere, it was better to have separate descriptions for {{ 2LC}}, {{ 3LC}}, and {{ 4LC}}. They link to different lists, and are very easy templates to remember. These replace disambiguation pages, as they are considered encyclopedic. Most folks linking here will learn the expansion of the abbreviation, rather than clicking through to another article. (See later comments.)
It seems that using Wiktionary as a disambiguation resource, at least for Abbreviations and Acronyms, might be a viable alternative if a method for easy cross-referencing can be identified. Thoughts? ~ Courtland (user Ceyockey @ 16 Jan 2005)
Based on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SAR (which ended pretty much without a consensual conclusion), I'd like to have this statement here clarified. What does "usually" mean exactly?
In the case of SAR and Sar, the former is an acronym that expands into eleven meanings (to date), while the latter is not an acronym and it links to two words, one of which isn't exactly the same (it has diacritics stripped due to various reasons).
Should we have a poll here regarding what constitutes an exception that can apply instead of the "usual" situation described in the example? -- Joy [shallot] 21:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I'm against merging SAR and Sar, for the reasons given over there.
I was looking for help with abbreviations commonly used on Wikipedia--like dab and rv--and stumbled across this article, which isn't on that topic. Is there such a page? Thanks. -- JButler 11:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The guidelines currently suggest that links to disambiguation pages be redirected to more appropriate targets, with which I agree. I've come around to thinking that on lists of abbreviations where both an abbreviation and an article title are linked, it is more useful for the reader to have the abbreviation link to the appropriate disambiguation page (as it is in the vast majority of cases) than redirected to the more appropriate target. For example, this would apply to the page List of IOC country codes. My reasoning is that it is useful to have a direct link to instances of potential confusion, in addition to a link to the article topic of the abbreviation thesaurus line. If this is something that seems useful to have for most people, then I would suggest addition of an exception for this to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. I will add a link to this discussion thread to Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. Thanks for considering this; regards Courtland 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC).
I believe that the bullet point:
is confusing, as it does not explain its scope when the abbreviation is also a word. For instance, should SAGE (disambiguation) necessarily be merged with Sage (disambiguation) because the former is a different casing from the latter? I think no, as "sage" is a word, while "SAGE" is an initialism. On the other hand, if a third abbreviation variant existed, say SaGE, it should go to the same place as SAGE does. I would like to change this bullet point to read something like:
This would be much clearer. Again, the point of dab pages should be to get the reader to the correct article as quickly as possible, not to hew closely to formalisms. -- TreyHarris 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation terms should not be categorized or separated by criteria that the reader may not know. People, and possibly places, may be separated on the page, but capitalization, US/UK spelling, and status as abbreviation, acronym, or word may be unknown or variable. A reader looking for, say, "uncle" doesn't necessarily know whether it was the man from U.N.C.L.E., UNCLE, Uncle, or unclE he was looking for; likewise SABRE/SABER/Sabre/Saber. Are HEAT, lidar and NASA words or abbreviations? The reader may have just heard the name, or may have clicked a link which was capitalized differently, or was pipe-linked from a different term altogether. — Michael Z. 2006-01-04
I think getting the reader most quickly to the right page is the consensus goal of dab pages here (though I know there are some on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) who disagree). I think Mzajac is right that when there's apt to be confusion, the dab page should assist them. But I also think that when the number of items on either the word or abbreviation exceeds a handful, say seven plus or minus two, that splitting them up will assist the reader more than just throwing everything on one page. (I'd like to see dab pages fit on a single screen as often as is feasible.)
So how about this (taken from the current text of the respective pages):
SAGE (disambiguation) |
SAGE may refer to:
The word sage also has a number of articles. See: Sage (disambiguation) |
and
Sage (disambiguation) |
Sage can refer to:
![]() Look up
sage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The abbreviation SAGE also has a number of articles. See: SAGE (disambiguation) |
Since that text is in italics, I think it could also go at the top without disrupting the flow too much, I'm ok with either. I'd then rewrite the bullet point referenced above as a new section:
Abbreviations and words spelled alike |
Usually, there should be just one disambiguation page for all
cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g.
MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb. However, when the all-lowercase or initial-caps case(s) are words with articles in their own right, and there are several articles being disambiguated for both the word and the abbreviation, the word form and the abbreviation form should each have a separate article.
In the rare case where an abbreviation is usually written in all-lowercase (cf. pig (disambiguation)), this abbreviation should be included on both disambiguation pages. Each page should reference the other, using the {{ dab-word|word|word dab page}} and {{ dab-abbrev|abbrev|abbrev dab page}} templates, (after the disambiguation list/at the top of the page). See, for example, Sage (disambiguation), which includes all articles disambiguating "sage" as a word, and SAGE (disambiguation), which includes all articles disambiguating "SAGE" (and other capitalizations thereof) as an abbreviation. |
Maybe too complicated? It splits the difference, though, and accelerates getting to the right page for the largest proportion of cases. -- TreyHarris 06:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sage or SAGE may refer to:
|
Sage or SAGE may refer to:
in technology:
SAGE may also be an abbreviation for:
Sage may also mean:
|
I'd keep the descriptions just complex enough to distinguish, and put the most basic meanings first: — Michael Z. 2006-01-4 23:34 Z
Sage may refer to:
I have merged SAGE (disambiguation) into Sage (disambiguation), following Wahoofive's model. -- TreyHarris 04:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was a good thing to do, but shouldn't it have been at SAGE? I've been following the literal convention on the page (that is, "MB"), and found that most existing redirects from the two and three letter combination pages are from mixed to all upper. Was this chosen because the Primary topic is "Sage"? (That seems to be reasonable, but wasn't spelled out here, and should have a {{ Primary}} in that case.)
Mr William Allen Simpson is trying to sneak in a new policy instituting "abbreviation expansion" pages. Please express your opinion for or against the idea at Wikipedia talk:Abbreviation expansion. — Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:36 Z
Is there any consensus over whether disambig pages are themselves supposed to be encyclopaedic, or are they simply a practical tool for encyclopaedia readers? In particular, should a TLA disambig page reference all possible interpretations of that abbreviation (as would be encyclopaedic), or only those that a reader would likely search under (as would fit the latter interpretation)? Should redlinks ever be included in a disambig page? How much other information should be included on it? Stevage 12:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper and have commented to such effect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages. Please comment there if you wish to voice an opinion! Grutness... wha? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From intro: "abbreviations should usually be expanded [...] beforehand". Beforehand? Before what? Nurg 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Abbreviations pages replace disambiguation pages". What does this mean? Does it mean there should not be disambiguation pages for acronyms or abbreviations, but rather that acronyms and abbreviations should be disambiguated by "abbreviations pages", whatever these are? Nurg 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposing merging this page (or at least, the information on it that makes any sense) with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Most of the information is there already anyway.-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't WP:TLA point to the same page as WP:WOTTA, rather than here? / habj ( talk) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
What is this page meant for ? The 1st para says the abbreviations are likely to be ambiguous. It also says "no need to disambiguate the abbreviations". What happens on this page ? Jay 10:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Today is a fresh new day, but it isn't helping me look at the page in a new light. I re-read the metapage and Docu's comments above and am still lost as ever. So here are some questions:
Jay 04:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
<moved from User talk:Docu>
I went through the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page but couldn't find any topic with relevance to abbreviations except the "See also" link on the last line. What is it that you wanted me to look on the page ?
In fact I have read the page before too and have done quite a bit of disambiguation of a few pages. It seems I'm not able to see something u're able to see. So if you can answer my questions on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_and_abbreviations that will sort things out. Jay 06:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
</moved from User talk:Docu>
On MediaWiki talk:Disam, I suggested a wording that could replace {{msg:disambig}} for two/three letter acronym pages -- User:Docu
(talk moved here) The suggest is the following:
Based on discussion elsewhere, it was better to have separate descriptions for {{ 2LC}}, {{ 3LC}}, and {{ 4LC}}. They link to different lists, and are very easy templates to remember. These replace disambiguation pages, as they are considered encyclopedic. Most folks linking here will learn the expansion of the abbreviation, rather than clicking through to another article. (See later comments.)
It seems that using Wiktionary as a disambiguation resource, at least for Abbreviations and Acronyms, might be a viable alternative if a method for easy cross-referencing can be identified. Thoughts? ~ Courtland (user Ceyockey @ 16 Jan 2005)
Based on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/SAR (which ended pretty much without a consensual conclusion), I'd like to have this statement here clarified. What does "usually" mean exactly?
In the case of SAR and Sar, the former is an acronym that expands into eleven meanings (to date), while the latter is not an acronym and it links to two words, one of which isn't exactly the same (it has diacritics stripped due to various reasons).
Should we have a poll here regarding what constitutes an exception that can apply instead of the "usual" situation described in the example? -- Joy [shallot] 21:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
( William M. Connolley 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I'm against merging SAR and Sar, for the reasons given over there.
I was looking for help with abbreviations commonly used on Wikipedia--like dab and rv--and stumbled across this article, which isn't on that topic. Is there such a page? Thanks. -- JButler 11:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The guidelines currently suggest that links to disambiguation pages be redirected to more appropriate targets, with which I agree. I've come around to thinking that on lists of abbreviations where both an abbreviation and an article title are linked, it is more useful for the reader to have the abbreviation link to the appropriate disambiguation page (as it is in the vast majority of cases) than redirected to the more appropriate target. For example, this would apply to the page List of IOC country codes. My reasoning is that it is useful to have a direct link to instances of potential confusion, in addition to a link to the article topic of the abbreviation thesaurus line. If this is something that seems useful to have for most people, then I would suggest addition of an exception for this to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. I will add a link to this discussion thread to Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation. Thanks for considering this; regards Courtland 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC).
I believe that the bullet point:
is confusing, as it does not explain its scope when the abbreviation is also a word. For instance, should SAGE (disambiguation) necessarily be merged with Sage (disambiguation) because the former is a different casing from the latter? I think no, as "sage" is a word, while "SAGE" is an initialism. On the other hand, if a third abbreviation variant existed, say SaGE, it should go to the same place as SAGE does. I would like to change this bullet point to read something like:
This would be much clearer. Again, the point of dab pages should be to get the reader to the correct article as quickly as possible, not to hew closely to formalisms. -- TreyHarris 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation terms should not be categorized or separated by criteria that the reader may not know. People, and possibly places, may be separated on the page, but capitalization, US/UK spelling, and status as abbreviation, acronym, or word may be unknown or variable. A reader looking for, say, "uncle" doesn't necessarily know whether it was the man from U.N.C.L.E., UNCLE, Uncle, or unclE he was looking for; likewise SABRE/SABER/Sabre/Saber. Are HEAT, lidar and NASA words or abbreviations? The reader may have just heard the name, or may have clicked a link which was capitalized differently, or was pipe-linked from a different term altogether. — Michael Z. 2006-01-04
I think getting the reader most quickly to the right page is the consensus goal of dab pages here (though I know there are some on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) who disagree). I think Mzajac is right that when there's apt to be confusion, the dab page should assist them. But I also think that when the number of items on either the word or abbreviation exceeds a handful, say seven plus or minus two, that splitting them up will assist the reader more than just throwing everything on one page. (I'd like to see dab pages fit on a single screen as often as is feasible.)
So how about this (taken from the current text of the respective pages):
SAGE (disambiguation) |
SAGE may refer to:
The word sage also has a number of articles. See: Sage (disambiguation) |
and
Sage (disambiguation) |
Sage can refer to:
![]() Look up
sage in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The abbreviation SAGE also has a number of articles. See: SAGE (disambiguation) |
Since that text is in italics, I think it could also go at the top without disrupting the flow too much, I'm ok with either. I'd then rewrite the bullet point referenced above as a new section:
Abbreviations and words spelled alike |
Usually, there should be just one disambiguation page for all
cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g.
MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb. However, when the all-lowercase or initial-caps case(s) are words with articles in their own right, and there are several articles being disambiguated for both the word and the abbreviation, the word form and the abbreviation form should each have a separate article.
In the rare case where an abbreviation is usually written in all-lowercase (cf. pig (disambiguation)), this abbreviation should be included on both disambiguation pages. Each page should reference the other, using the {{ dab-word|word|word dab page}} and {{ dab-abbrev|abbrev|abbrev dab page}} templates, (after the disambiguation list/at the top of the page). See, for example, Sage (disambiguation), which includes all articles disambiguating "sage" as a word, and SAGE (disambiguation), which includes all articles disambiguating "SAGE" (and other capitalizations thereof) as an abbreviation. |
Maybe too complicated? It splits the difference, though, and accelerates getting to the right page for the largest proportion of cases. -- TreyHarris 06:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Sage or SAGE may refer to:
|
Sage or SAGE may refer to:
in technology:
SAGE may also be an abbreviation for:
Sage may also mean:
|
I'd keep the descriptions just complex enough to distinguish, and put the most basic meanings first: — Michael Z. 2006-01-4 23:34 Z
Sage may refer to:
I have merged SAGE (disambiguation) into Sage (disambiguation), following Wahoofive's model. -- TreyHarris 04:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was a good thing to do, but shouldn't it have been at SAGE? I've been following the literal convention on the page (that is, "MB"), and found that most existing redirects from the two and three letter combination pages are from mixed to all upper. Was this chosen because the Primary topic is "Sage"? (That seems to be reasonable, but wasn't spelled out here, and should have a {{ Primary}} in that case.)
Mr William Allen Simpson is trying to sneak in a new policy instituting "abbreviation expansion" pages. Please express your opinion for or against the idea at Wikipedia talk:Abbreviation expansion. — Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:36 Z
Is there any consensus over whether disambig pages are themselves supposed to be encyclopaedic, or are they simply a practical tool for encyclopaedia readers? In particular, should a TLA disambig page reference all possible interpretations of that abbreviation (as would be encyclopaedic), or only those that a reader would likely search under (as would fit the latter interpretation)? Should redlinks ever be included in a disambig page? How much other information should be included on it? Stevage 12:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper and have commented to such effect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages. Please comment there if you wish to voice an opinion! Grutness... wha? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
From intro: "abbreviations should usually be expanded [...] beforehand". Beforehand? Before what? Nurg 22:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"Abbreviations pages replace disambiguation pages". What does this mean? Does it mean there should not be disambiguation pages for acronyms or abbreviations, but rather that acronyms and abbreviations should be disambiguated by "abbreviations pages", whatever these are? Nurg 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposing merging this page (or at least, the information on it that makes any sense) with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Most of the information is there already anyway.-- Kotniski ( talk) 11:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't WP:TLA point to the same page as WP:WOTTA, rather than here? / habj ( talk) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)