 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Softbank edit
Dear JHunterJ, I have a doubt for your delition of Softbank fron this page. This Group is not a part of SBI Group since 2 August 2006 (see Japanese article), so I thought to add a link to Softbank is suitable for this page. please don't blame this contribution. best regards. --OkakiMCMLXX (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Softbank doesn't mention that it is known as "SB", so it does not appear to be ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I accept your opinion. so I won't add "SoftBank" link on ths article. But remember I know "SoftBank Mobile" is sometime referred as "SBM" in Japanese media and BBS(I apologize for not good enough at English). --OkakiMCMLXX (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
South Bend edit
Please give evidence that South Bend, Indiana is not known as "SB". This Google search even includes a link to a city of South Bend page that refers to itself as "SB". If you cannot provide a reason why the entry should not be there, I am going to readd it again. Mapsax (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Evidence: South Bend, Indiana doesn't mention it being known as "SB". Please add the information to the article first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's implied because it's a name with a word starting with "S" and a word starting with "B". Moreover, I'd use a document produced by the entity itself as a source before I would the WP article. http://www.southbendin.gov/business/ideal_bsns_envmt/avlble_prop/sb_bf_team.asp, an official government website page, is titled "SB Brownfield Team". No, "SB" isn't a nickname used in everyday conversation, but IMO, and more importantly, per WP:DPAGES, it doesn't have to be. It's used enough, in the page I just cited, as well as others in the Google search that I provided, and is the "SB" in SBT and by extension WSBT-TV and WSBT (AM) (I thought that that might be WP:SYN but it doesn't seem to be). No, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:IINFO) but this isn't indiscriminate from what I've shown. It's possible that DAB pages could get unwieldly if we include abbreviations for every combination of multiword term, but the above, plus the existence of the relevant WP article to go with the abbreviation, should be enough to distinguish this case from most others. I also checked WP:ABBR and this issue is not addressed. Therefore South Bend should be added, and likely Santa Barbara as well (I'll leave the burden of the latter to the editor who initially added it). Mapsax (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- The disambiguation page is not the "list of things with the initials SB". It's a navigational page to assist readers find the article they are looking for when the article might reasonably have been expected to have the title "SB" (and thus be ambiguous with the name). Per WP:D and WP:MOSDAB, yes, that is the criterion for disambiguation. Please, add it (with whatever citations are needed or appropriate) to the article, indicating that it is ambiguous, before adding it to the disambiguation page. In this way, the usual points of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research can be observed in the article space and the navigational pages (such as this one) can be kept targeted to those articles that are actually ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your first sentence above echoes my thought "DAB pages could get unwieldly if we include abbreviations for every combination of multiword term", so that's already been established. I have given enough evidence to show why my example transcends the blanket statements. As for manual of style issues, I still don't see why it's prohibited. The closest I could find was "Don’t add every article that contains the title" in WP:DDD, which links to the WP:D subsection entitled "Partial title matches" which begins with the sentence "A disambiguation page is not a search index", which doesn't cover this situation specifically. Not every article with the title containing the first word "Sxxx" and the last "Bxxx" should be linked, but look again at the Google search in my case. There's enough there to prompt someone seeing "SB" out of context to come to WP and search for the article "SB". Mapsax (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great. Add the information to the South Bend article first, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what to do.
- Putting "SB" in the article is deceptive because people will think that that's a nickname, which it isn't
- ...but...
- Not putting "SB" in the article is apparently enough to for you to keep removing the wikilink from the DAB page, though there is nothing in MOS to support that (for that matter, there's nothing there to prohibit editors from interpreting DAB pages as "list of things with the initials [whatever] that have Wikipedia articles" except possibly the word "indiscriminate", which is subjective like "notability").
- Please let me know which admin to contact so that editors can get something in the MOS to prevent discussions like this in the future. Mapsax (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Great. Add the information to the South Bend article first, please. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Your first sentence above echoes my thought "DAB pages could get unwieldly if we include abbreviations for every combination of multiword term", so that's already been established. I have given enough evidence to show why my example transcends the blanket statements. As for manual of style issues, I still don't see why it's prohibited. The closest I could find was "Don’t add every article that contains the title" in WP:DDD, which links to the WP:D subsection entitled "Partial title matches" which begins with the sentence "A disambiguation page is not a search index", which doesn't cover this situation specifically. Not every article with the title containing the first word "Sxxx" and the last "Bxxx" should be linked, but look again at the Google search in my case. There's enough there to prompt someone seeing "SB" out of context to come to WP and search for the article "SB". Mapsax (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- The disambiguation page is not the "list of things with the initials SB". It's a navigational page to assist readers find the article they are looking for when the article might reasonably have been expected to have the title "SB" (and thus be ambiguous with the name). Per WP:D and WP:MOSDAB, yes, that is the criterion for disambiguation. Please, add it (with whatever citations are needed or appropriate) to the article, indicating that it is ambiguous, before adding it to the disambiguation page. In this way, the usual points of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research can be observed in the article space and the navigational pages (such as this one) can be kept targeted to those articles that are actually ambiguous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's implied because it's a name with a word starting with "S" and a word starting with "B". Moreover, I'd use a document produced by the entity itself as a source before I would the WP article. http://www.southbendin.gov/business/ideal_bsns_envmt/avlble_prop/sb_bf_team.asp, an official government website page, is titled "SB Brownfield Team". No, "SB" isn't a nickname used in everyday conversation, but IMO, and more importantly, per WP:DPAGES, it doesn't have to be. It's used enough, in the page I just cited, as well as others in the Google search that I provided, and is the "SB" in SBT and by extension WSBT-TV and WSBT (AM) (I thought that that might be WP:SYN but it doesn't seem to be). No, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:IINFO) but this isn't indiscriminate from what I've shown. It's possible that DAB pages could get unwieldly if we include abbreviations for every combination of multiword term, but the above, plus the existence of the relevant WP article to go with the abbreviation, should be enough to distinguish this case from most others. I also checked WP:ABBR and this issue is not addressed. Therefore South Bend should be added, and likely Santa Barbara as well (I'll leave the burden of the latter to the editor who initially added it). Mapsax (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)