Talk:TTT

Untitled

I will remove from the list:

The World Wide Web in Esperanto: Tut-Tera Teksaĵo (à la World Wide Web)

There are already a lot of meanings in English, and lists like this will become quite unmanageable if we were to start adding abbreviations in other languages. (Obviously where a foreign-language abbreviation is notable within English-language culture, e.g. KGB, that's another matter.) Arbitrary username 07:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal Of Periods

Please do not revert the removal of the periods; we need to keep disambiguation pages consistent and there are cases that periods can not be used.100110100 08:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be rather curious structure - please provide a link to support this.

This sounds right - the items are supposed to be sentence fragments, not complete sentences: See MoS:DAB -- Chuq 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Tier Toilet

To 72.241.212.121:

Thanks for adding the source for TTT meaning "third tier law school". But Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. See wp:rs.

Note, you need to find a source that is reliable and that actually discusses the term. Examples of usage are not enough.

Finally, even if you find a source supporting your view, add it to the existing "third-tier toilet" interpretation. Don't erase the "third tier toilet" interpretation, because it has a good source backing it up. Even though it is offensive, Wikipedia is not censored. See wp:censor.

By the way, it's hard for me to see how TTT could possible stand for "third tier law school," which only has two T's in it...

Thanks. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Technically, that entry shouldn't even be there. It's a red link. ♠ 21:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should it matter that it's a red link? Even topics without articles need to be disambiguated. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole purpose of a disambiguation page is to route queries to the appropriate pages. If there's no page, there's nothing to be led to; likewise, there can't be a random list of pageless topics floating around in a disambiguation page. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. ♠ 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:D3 states that you should not:

• add references or external links
• add red links that aren't already used in an existing article

• the links page for your proposed entry (Special:WhatLinksHere/Third_Tier_Toilet) shows that it is not used by any articles

Therefore your proposed entry is unacceptable. I also refer you to WP:BURDEN which states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Green Giant (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It was cited. Your comment here seems authoritative but is actually quite uninformed and besides the point. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite your comments on my talkpage, I always check histories before commenting on something. Whilst you are trying to focus on Huggle, you are missing the obvious point - the entry, which you have defended several times against anonymous IP's and registered editors, should not be there in the first place because it is a redlink which no other article links to (arguing for your source against a blog when there should not be citations, debating whether "colleges" should be included but leaving citations in here, and here, arguing vandalism and original research in favour of your preferred entry here, and here). The only appropriate action you can take here is to persuade Wikipedia that its guidelines should be changed in favour of your proposed entry, or you could try to write an article about your proposed entry and then add it to the dab page. Green Giant (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No my friend, it is you who even now continue to raise irrelevant and uninformed points in all the wrong places. I brought up the Huggle/vandalism issue on our user talk pages, because it is relevant there but irrelevant here. Yet for some reason you see the need to raise the issue here. By the way, it is not "my proposed edit." Ever since I observed that someone else originally inserted the reference to "third tier toilet", I've tried to keep things in line with policy and searched for and inserted appropriate sources. Finally, you continually refer to nonexistent policies that 1/ redlinks can't be on disambig pages and 2/ there should be no references on disambig pages. Um, why not? Surely a reader would like to see a source for the disambig page's assertion about what TTT means in Morse code? I know I did, which is why I looked for and inserted the source. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Full article for Third Tier Toilet is being built.

"Non-existent policies?" - What part of WP:D3 do you not understand? Can you not see the words that say "Disambiguation pages are not encyclopedic pages – they are navigational pages"? Click on the link for WP:D3 and read the points on the right hand side under Don't - specifically the ones that say "Don’t add entries without a blue link" and "Don’t add references or external links".

"My proposed edit" - yes it is your proposed edit because you are the only one trying to defend it as evidenced by the links above.

Build your article by all means but it does not change the fact that at this point you should not include that entry in any dab page. Green Giant (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wrote "full article is being built." You're still quite in the dark about the edit history of this dab page. Not that it's important, but if you're going to comment on it, you should make sure you know what you're talking about. And I shall again revert your edit. WP:V is a basic and fundamental principle. Yet you think that some silly style guideline trumps it. How quaint of you. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the the Manual of Style section that states that "references should not appear on disambiguation pages". Why are you having such difficulty understanding the difference between a dab page and an article?

What makes you think that I am "in the dark about the edit history" - just in case you didn't read my earlier message, you should click on each of the following links (reproduced from above): arguing for your (Third Tier Toilet) source against a blog, debating whether "colleges" should be included but leaving citations in here, and here, arguing vandalism and original research in favour of your preferred entry here, and here). What part of those edits suggests that I am in the dark about your editing behaviour? Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Teacher Talking Time

This is a big concept in EFL / ESL circles - here's a link to a site associated with the BBC and the British Council talking about it: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/articles/teacher-talking-time. I've no idea how to suggest a new page for TTT, so maybe someone will see this and be interested... 114.173.35.166 (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)