Talk:S.T.S.
Latest comment: 7 days ago by 65.92.247.66 in topic Requested move 13 April 2024
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of S.T.S. from de.wikipedia. |
Requested move 13 April 2024 edit
 | It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
- S.T.S. → S.T.S. (band)
- M.A.S.K. → M.A.S.K. (franchise)
- K.O.D. → K.O.D. (Tech N9ne album)
- O.D.T. → O.D.T. (video game)
- A.T.O.M. → A.T.O.M. (TV series)
– Whether an abbreviation is spelled with a terminal period or not is a triviality. In all of these cases the title without the terminal period redirects somewhere else, so the title with the period should do the same. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. If there's no primary topic for "ODT", then there's no primary topic for "O.D.T.", etc. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is a shaky rationale. No evidence shown to justify primary/no primary for any of these. The existence of a redirect is not a justification. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support all This is too minor for SMALLDETAILS to apply and none of these seem obviously primary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I agree that the terminal period alone is too trivial even for WP:SMALLDETAILS – but we need to also consider periods vs. no-periods in a broader sense. In my experience, it's relatively rare to see period-separated initialisms in contemporary day-to-day usage. There are some specific initialisms where the periods remain in widespread usage (such as Q.E.D. or N.B.), but outside of these narrow cases I think we shouldn't expect that readers would proactively insert period separation into acronyms they're searching for. No one sticks periods into, say, PBS. The reason I bring this up is because, since readers are unlikely to use period-separated disambiguators where they're not already conventional, I don't think we should assume that (for instance) any given entry at STS is a title match for S.T.S.Following on this premise, a review of the relevant DAB pages suggests that there are virtually no other articles contesting the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC status for each period-separated initialism. (There exists M.A.S.K. (TV series), but it seems sensible for the franchise to hold the primary title above a series within it; Atom (disambiguation) also mentions an album called A.T.O.M, but that album doesn't have its own article, making it a nonissue.) Therefore, I believe the best approach is to leave the articles at their current titles, and to retarget the no-terminal-period redirects to point to these topics. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The use of periods to separate acronyms might have become somewhat dated and "old hat", probably due to companies forever in search of a more "streamlined" name, but I refuse to believe that no one would ever use dots in acronyms anymore unless they're searching for a specific band. At most, there's no way to know what they're looking for and we shouldn't presume to know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- My thinking on this one is that periods vs. no-periods is a textbook SMALLDETAILS case: if a reader goes to the trouble of entering a title in a less common, more work-intensive style, I feel it's fairly safe to assume that they have a specific reason for doing so. It's analogous to how we assume that a reader searching Ice Cube has capitalized the C on purpose, and so we don't redirect that title to ice cube. I don't believe that literally nobody would use dots simply to indicate the acronym in general, but I believe it's rare enough that a hatnote will be the best overall solution here. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The use of periods to separate acronyms might have become somewhat dated and "old hat", probably due to companies forever in search of a more "streamlined" name, but I refuse to believe that no one would ever use dots in acronyms anymore unless they're searching for a specific band. At most, there's no way to know what they're looking for and we shouldn't presume to know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Cfls (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. None of these are primary topic for these abbreviations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Any abbreviation of STS, MASK, KOD, ODT, or ATOM could be written with periods, which is the nature of abbreviations. BD2412 T 03:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support grammatical pedantry would insist on the periods. Further, S.T.S. is the Space Shuttle, as much documentation has full-stops -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)