Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 12

< Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Natalya in topic Template and category usage on disambiguation pages
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Template and category usage on disambiguation pages

Latest comment: 18 years ago59 comments11 people in discussion

Some of the following discussion has been taken from MOSDAB. Disucssion should continue here]]

There has been a new proposed solution (from me) to the disambiguation page templates and categories problems. You may like to know that at the moment abbreviation pages are not considered disambigaution pages (ie they use {{2LC}}, {{4LC}} etc).--Commander Keane 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
  • The only templates to be used on disambiguation pages (which includes the *LC's / abbreviation pages) are {{disambig}} and {{disambig-cleanup}}. All disambiguation pages will fall under Category:Disambiguation - and there will be no subcategories
  • A seperate categorisation system (completely independent of the templates or Category:Disambiguation) will be set up. Something like Category:Specialised dab pages. Subcategories would be anything that helps humans work on particular dab pages, eg *LC or humandis (which has been used effectively before) or townshipdis etc. Categories will be manually added to the bottom of dab pages.
That seems like it would get around the possible problems of having them be in a category and a subcategory. Providing it wouldn't be too challenging to set up the new system and implement it, it sounds good (at least to me). -- Natalya 21:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I would support that as well. — Catherine\talk 23:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto/wangi 23:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't participated in these discussions much (because, to be honest, I don't care that much and will abide by whatever others decide), but I'll chirp in here to say that yep, I'd support this one, and to ask a question.
Has a list of abbreviations, rather than a category, been considered? This would mean there is both a one-stop place for abbreviations, and the (redundant) subcategories won't be there. This goes for abbreviations only (not topical). The list would be rather systemic, so not hard to compile or maintain.
If so, why is this a bad idea? If not, then can this become another proposal? Neonumbers 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are several already existing lists, in both the article and the Wikipedia namespaces -- I think most of them are listed at Lists of abbreviations. List of all two-letter combinations and Wikipedia:TLAs are also helpful.
The main advantage of categories is the ease of maintenance; hand-maintained lists are perennially behind. And as seen from that proliferation of acronym/abbreviation/initialism lists, it can be hard to know where (on what list) one should be adding an entry; it's much easier to add and/or change a category while working on the page itself. Personally, I don't think a list would be better than a category in this case. — Catherine\talk 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain what value Category:Disambiguation has? How is it useful? Do people actually browse it? -- Netoholic @ 17:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never used it, and can't really think of a good use but I'll throw up some ideas:
  • It provides a complete, alphabetical list (good for bots or interested humans - eg, if you want to check all dabs that start with Za)
  • The "What links here" tool when applied to templates in currently faulty - so the category is a nice backup
--Commander Keane 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
For humans it's probably as interesting as Category:Living people. It's def an administrative category. I do use it, and the cleanup sub-cat when working on pages. Essentially dab pages are not articles, and it's good to keep track of them. Thanks/wangi 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I can understand the cleanup sub-cat, but I can't see that anyone really makes use of the main category. Category:Living people has a specific purpose (re: the new policies about biographies of living people). I don't see an equivalent need for the big diambiguation category. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I also don't see the need for one big category. It seems to me that more specialized subcategories would be most useful.
--William Allen Simpson 11:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If you were producing a report of articles that had unfinished sentences (no punctuation at the end), you might want to exclude pages in the Disambiguation category, as effort would be better expended on main articles. Just an example of an administrative use. Chris the speller 18:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's not the best way to do it. You'd most likely build such a report by querying the database and seeing which pages include the template, not the category, since the category is not in the page's source. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe that's why I'm not an admin! Chris the speller 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't actually know, but does generating the list of disambiguation pages that have links to them (see WP:DPL) have to do with pages listed under Category:Disambiguation? If it does, there's a use for it. If not, just ignore me. :) -- Natalya 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, those reports definitely don't use the category. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I was planning on putting together a tool which would work through the disambig categories (on a local dump) and then count the ration of wikilinks to number of lines for each dab page - idea being the high it is the more in need of cleanup (generally)... wangi 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a new project page now discussing wangi's idea: Database dump analysis.--Commander Keane 14:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I also support the proposal. Tedernst | talk 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Support for categories instead of lists

Even I would support the proposal, had Commander not included abbreviation pages. So, strike the words "(which includes the *LC's / abbreviation pages)". These replace disambiguation pages, and have their own style and place in the heirarchy.

That leaves 1 template pair, and several possible added subcategories. Having them as subcategories of Disambiguation is what folks chose last April. What's the point of Category:Specialised dab pages? Seems like needless duplication of Category:Disambiguation. A distinction without a difference. It's just a spot in the category mesh. So, why not just locate them under Category: Wikipedia administration?

However, don't forget that this means maintaining lists plus subcategories; for example Wikipedia:Multiple-place names, and Category:Geographical locations sharing the same title.

I agree with Catherine that categories are easier to maintain than lists. Therefore:

Proposal

Any existing lists will be used to populate the subcategory, and then the list will be eliminated.

--William Allen Simpson 11:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that this proposal variant introduces a new class of Wikipedia page - Abbreviation pages. These pages do not fall under the guidelines WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. Example: FAST is currently not a disambiguation page.--Commander Keane 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, Commander, you are incorrect. Abbreviation pages are a very old class of Wikipedia page, that predate disambiguation pages. I do wish you'd actually read the history. I spent many hours researching it.
--William Allen Simpson 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That is one of the things that confuses me - I previously reverted to the last time when it was using {{4LC}} categorization, because I was under the impression that that was what it was supposed to be. Now I don't really know. Should it be changed back to being categorized as a dab page until the discussion is completed? -- Natalya 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No, Natalya, FAST is not a {{disambig}} page. This very guideline says: Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages. (emphasis added)
--William Allen Simpson 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with this proposal too. However, I would like these Wikipedia:Abbreviation pages to fall at least somewhat under the guidelines at MOSDAB; if there are reasons why pages which disambiguate abbreviations should be styled differently than regular dab pages (bullet points, links at head of line, minimal non-dabbing wikilinks, etc.), I haven't heard them yet. If there are reasons, we can easily create a separate section of MoSDAB, or a new MoS:Abbreviations (MOSABB?) page to address them. I would just like to see these pages follow a standard style that is familiar to users, and that is easy to use for editors fixing ambiguous links. — Catherine\talk 22:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
--William Allen Simpson 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to hear it -- I'll check in there.

Abbreviation expansion

  • I do object to this proposal. I can see no reason why appreviations should not be disambiguation pages if they are ambiguous. Tedernst | talk 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abbreviations have been under MOS:DP (ie {{TLAdisambig}} for starters) since I've been editing Wikipedia. I see no reason to change that. Thanks/wangi 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
--William Allen Simpson 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The consensus was against categorisation of abbrvs/acronyms simply by the number of letters in them - it was not against having them within the disambiguation scheme. T/wangi 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • [w]angi, I know of no such consensus. There is no support for your hypothesis.
--William Allen Simpson 01:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Yes, the terms are abbreviations, but the page is disambiguating the meanings of the term, just like all other disambiguation pages, and therefore should be considered one. -- Natalya 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, Natalya, "disambiguation" is a made up Wikipedia term, and the encyclopedic editors have always taken some care to distinguish that from abbreviation expansion pages.
    • Moreover, nobody is supposed to be "disambiguating" abbreviations pages. They are encyclopedic. The entries are (used to be) more like "multi-stub" pages, until the disambiguation hackers and slashers came around. That's how we ended up with so much acrimony.
--William Allen Simpson 00:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • William, I think this may be where some of the confusion comes in; we may be talking about two different things: Abbreviation lists like List of computing and IT abbreviations have their own uses, and some are indeed useful multi-stub pages.
  • I think (and this is my opinion) most people who are thinking of abbreviations pages as a subset of disambiguation are thinking of the problem of fixing ambiguous links. If a naive user puts in a blind link to ACR or SSI, then anyone who can't get the meaning from context will be led to a disambiguation page. A reader who just wants the correct meaning needs a short, simple, scannable list of definitions/links so they can choose the right one to get on with learning (either by having enough of a definition to go back to the original article, or enough curiosity to follow the link to the article about the abbreviated subject). An editor following that link just wants a short, simple scannable list (or a clean list in their Navigation Popup) so they can choose the right definition to get on with fixing the link. I browse Wikipedia in both roles, and as far as I can understand it right now, neither wants a multi-stub page of the type you are seem to be discussing.
  • Can you please point me to an example of a multi-stub page which has been "hacked and slashed", so that I can see precisely what you are advocating?
— Catherine\talk 06:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to just pipe in here to say that recent history overrides older history, and the present situation is generally (but not exclusively) given greater weight than what there was a year or two ago.

"Disambiguation" is, believe it or not, a word, and I cite this source to back my statement up. If an acronym page is basically a list of possible destinations, then it is, in effect, a page that is intended to disambiguate. It is possible that, after the creation of disambiguation pages, acronym pages started to, for whatever reason, morph into that category. Whether it did, I don't know and am open to enlightenment; whether it should have is irrelevant.

If an acronym page is, in effect, a page that is intended to disambiguate, then it should follow the manual for dab pages. All that is needed is to expand each expansion and link it, and if necessary, provide a short description. Whether or not they are grouped in the "disambiguation" pages category is arbitrary, though I see no more benefit creating an "abbreviation" pages category than there is from having it as a subset of specialised dab pages (as well as the cost of unnecessary complexity).

If an acronym page is not meant to resemble anything like a disambiguation page, and instead is meant to be a multi-stub page, then I don't see that working. Multi-stub pages have somewhat disappeared from Wikipedia, we even have a maintenance tag to split those into stubs + dab. Often, one or more of the expansions will have full page articles and will need its separate page. Then the disambiguation principle, with or without name, applies. Neonumbers 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Catherine has hit the nail on the head. These {abbreviation | acronym | initialism} expansion pages are not "disambiguation" pages, because they are actually (often short) lists in their own right.
  • Yes, disambiguation is a word (I looked up the history here and using Google "define:" before making my comment), but it's a word in linguistics having to do with translations. That's not really how it's used here.
  • As the guidelines repeat in multiple places, {abbreviation | acronym | initialism} pages are not intended for disambiguation. They are intended to assist navigation. They replace disambiguation. When a user searches for a term, the page will give a list of the expansions. It's not intended for disambiguators finding and redirecting links in articles.
  • Indeed, these pages should have very few links. After all, the guidelines say rather frequently that for the first use an expanded acronym is written out completely, followed by the acronym in parenthesis. For example, American Automobile Association (AAA). This initialism should not be linked. The only group effort should be removing such links, not disambiguation piping them!
  • I take exception to the "recent history" argument. Just because a very few (3-4) folks that didn't read/follow the guidelines began doing something, doesn't make that a reasonable or wise thing to adopt.
  • Heck, I simply don't understand why anybody that actually objects to reading history and writing articles would even be here in an encyclopedia. (I've actually found a comment from one of them that says, paraphrased, "I like disambiguation because I don't need to know anything.")
  • I answered the call for experts to help out here. It is not helpful for young inexperienced undergraduates (or even teenagers) that don't understand the meaning of consensus to hack and slash their way through my work.
--William Allen Simpson 13:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Young experienced undergraduates? Teenagers? Don't understand the meaning of consensus? Hack and slash? You've been admonished several times on this page for your personal attacks, William. I implore you to please be civil. Please assume the best of other editors, regardless of what they have done. We are all on the same team. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the above statement, and would like to extend its meaning to all parties involved in this discussion. As has been seen by the lengthy discussion, disagreements are hard to work out and often result in hurt feelings and bruised egos. However, there is no reason to be condescending and downright mean, even when there is disagreement. -- Natalya 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Wahoofive, Natalya, I've re-read each link you reference, and can find nothing what-so-ever in my text that qualifies as a personal attack, nor an incivility. No persons are directly referenced, etc. Yet, there is no question that the problem involves:
  • Young in-experienced undergraduates.
  • Teenagers.
  • That don't understand the meaning of consensus (a clique is not a consensus).
  • "Hack and slash" is an accurate description, well documented here-to-fore.
Or are you denying that these statements of fact are true?
I started in January with the assumption that folks replying to the poll were in fact working in good faith. With respect to a few of them, I was disabused of the notion by their actions. At some point, actions require accountability.
So, Wahoofive, it is perfectly appropriate to document these acts of bad faith, especially after being termed, individually and personally, a "rogue editor". Where is your approbation for that person? And, if not here, please suggest the appropriate forum?
--William Allen Simpson 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

100% agree on William's view of "recent history" attempting to trump tradition. It is fairly easy for 3 or 4 new editors to overturn good practices that 30 or 40 editors struggled to build months or years ago. Though it's a lot to expect from new editors to wade through years of talk pages to see how the earlier editors came to the "wrong" conclusion, we could at least ask new editors to demonstrate that some change in the environment now justifies a change to the policy or guidelines. For example, a guideline that worked well when there were 100 dab pages might not work well with 10,000, but I resist any trend towards the "Style of the Month". Chris the speller 16:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

William and Chris, I agree that history shouldn't be changed lightly. I am trying to understand what it is you are trying to preserve. Again, William, could you please point me to an example of an abbreviation page that you liked, that you feel has been destroyed in the name of disambiguation? Could you please explain what it is about including these pages as a type of disambiguation that you dislike?
I agree wholeheartedly that abbreviations shouldn't be linked to, but the fact is that the "SSI" example I chose randomly above has sixteen naked incoming article links (Special:Whatlinkshere/SSI, which I'm now itching to fix), and in poking around it seems that's a relatively low average. Yes, editors do need to go fix these by changing to the "American Automobile Association (AAA)" style, rather than by piping the link -- but someone still needs to fix them, one way or the other.
And please allow me to add another calm voice asking you to moderate your tone. It doesn't do anything to advance our understanding of your point, and we do want to work with you rather than against you. — Catherine\talk 18:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviation expansion examples

I've chosen these off the top of my head, without searching for the actual bad disambiguator. Remember, somebody probably got here by typing "A1" or "A2" and selecting Go.

good stub entry
bad hack and slash
These are a series of expansions (A#, B#, C#, D#) that should not be linked in articles, and that a simple and clear sentence describing the class is documentary and encyclopedic, and has nothing at all to do with disambiguation. Each is very unlikely to have a page of its own, and will always be a stub.
good stub entry
mindless hack and slash
  • 0-2-2 (Whyte notation), as the equivalent UIC classification for railway locomotive wheel arrangements.
Eliminated essential links. Note that this is an equivalency between "A1" and "0-2-2". It's encyclopedically incomprehensible without the links that describe the notation.
good stub entry
bad hack and slash
  • HMS A2, an A-class submarine of the Royal Navy
As with {{shipindex}}, eliminated useful links. Note that (for those of you who look at the links) somebody already disambiguated "British A class submarine (1903)".

So, there you have some simple examples. But I'd be remiss without showing a particularly bad example of moving a stub out of a multi-stub page into a page of its own: INGO.

Is it possible this might be a page that will stand on its own someday? Maybe. But this should be at International non-governmental organization, similar to Big International Non-Government Organisation (a stub that successfully expanded).

Mindlessly splitting multi-stub pages is not encyclopedic.

--William Allen Simpson 22:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with "HMS A2". Won't that take the reader to the British sub? (The one below it, the U.S. sub, leaves me wondering why it's on the A2 page, however.) And please explain what you mean by the statement about {{shipindex}} eliminating useful links. Chris the speller 22:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
How do you know they were looking for a British sub? They could be looking for an A-class something instead, or comparing British and United States and Japanese military designations. Or just browsing. These pages are (supposed to be) designed for browsing navigation. Unlike disambiguation pages.
Apparently, the U.S. sub was later renamed "A-2". Not relevant to this discussion.
The {{shipindex}} problem may have been before your time. Draconian disambiguators were hacking and slashing them to bits, eliminating useful links. That's why these are no longer considered disambiguation pages.
--William Allen Simpson 22:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto Chris's observations. And I don't see why the second 0-2-2 is encyclopedically incomprehensible without the links that describe the notation. Anyone who might have typed A1 expecting a link to an article about a type of steam engine should be able to figure it out pretty easily. And if anyone is simply curious, 0-2-2 is linked and explains all. Do you really think that someone coming to A1 looking for a particular type of steam engine would need to look at the Whyte notation), UIC classification or wheel arrangement articles in order to understand that the link to 0-2-2 takes them to equivalent notation for "A1"? older ≠ wiser 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
(added after an edit conflict) HMS A2 is a specific ship. Why would someone who has gotten to A2 be looking for information about other A-class ships? Even if that is indeed what they were looking for, they could still get to that topic from that ship's page (as the description clearly says that's what it is). I'm afraid I haven't seen any convincing evidence here that abbreviation pages need to be considered as very different from disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 22:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Declaration of separation

I was the person who pushed for a shipindex template, to keep disambiguators from making a ship index page into a page that would disambiguate (Heaven forfend!) instead of what a lot of ship people wanted, multi-stub pages for browsing and investigating, a small tray of appetizers before the main course or main article. Their purposes were almost diametrically opposite, yet they both contained disambig templates, inevitably leading to clashes. They weren't causes by stupid editors or editors using bad faith, but by the use of the same designation for two competely different things. After the new template was implemented (in which implementation I gave much assistance) there was a complete cessation of rancor; everybody was happy except you, and you keep mentioning the shipindex template as if it were a memorial to failure. It is instead a fine example of cooperation between people with different purposes that made Wikipedia better for each group, and better for the readers. Those of us who only want to help readers get from Point A to Point B should be able to cooperate at least as well. Chris the speller 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris, you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It was the attempt to merge ship multi-stub pages in the same way as disambiguation pages that was a failure. For multi-stub pages, this guideline explicitly states: the disambiguation notice should not be put here. The persons that added {{disambig}} were not following the guidelines.
I am very happy with {{shipindex}}. I mention it repeatedly as a positive example of things that are "similar to" (yet not) disambiguation pages. Just like abbreviation expansion pages are "similar to" (yet not) disambiguation pages.
--William Allen Simpson 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Bkonrad, after reading all three or four hours worth of background material that I painstakingly compiled (more than a dozen hours of my effort), but you still don't understand the differences, then nothing more that I write here will ever convince you.
So, let's put it in stark terms. Either those many folks that went before, and I, are completely incompetent, or there's a difference worth having.
For the TV generation sound bite, it's the difference between browsing the encyclopedia and just looking things up in a dictionary. Abbreviation pages replace disambiguation pages.
--William Allen Simpson 23:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dumbing it down for me, William, that makes it a lot easier.
Maybe the issue is the existence of multi-stub pages. Chris documents the rift between ship pages and dab pages based on them being multi-stub pages. It sounds as if William would like a formal declaration (or a restatement of an existing declaration) that abbreviation pages are (or can be) also multi-stub pages. Other editors can easily find abbreviation pages which act as dab pages.
So maybe we should create a new class of pages: multi-stub pages distinct from dab pages and make the ship pages, as well as any legacy dab pages, part of that. Then we can split the difference for 3LAs and abbreviations and the like. I've always been very uncomfortable with having that option be part of the dab-page family. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the creation of a new class of pages may be a good idea. How would they interact with disambigaution pages - would they simply replace dab pages in certain cases, or would they also exist in parallel in some cases?--Commander Keane 01:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
WAS, I'm sorry I have not read all of the voluminous and rather convoluted outpouring above this. However, I think your presentation of history is a somewhat selective interpretation. Abbreviation pages have almost always been virtually indistinguishable from other dab pages. There may have been some exceptions, but then there were more than a few exceptionally formatted dab pages as well. I see absolutely no evidence that in practice (not empty words on some obscure Wikipedia namespace page) that abbreviation pages were ever treated significantly differently from other dab pages. So, please excuse me if I'm just a little skeptical. older ≠ wiser 03:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wahoofive, I agree that we need a "restatement of an existing declaration" as {{2LCdisambig}} and {{TLAdisambig}} came as a side effect of a single comment in a TfD — a rather obscure beginning.

  1. As I've pointed out earlier, the formal separation was done long ago, and seems explicit and emphatic (via bolding) in the existing guidelines.
  2. The existing Category:Abbreviations (since 2004-08-16) is part of the Category:Linguistics. I think leaving it there will make more people happy.
--William Allen Simpson 15:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Commander, the way that I've been handling them is as follows:

  1. When there is a clear Primary topic (majority of links),
    1. redirect the appropriate abbreviations, with the {{R from abbreviation}} tag (since 2004-04-09).
    2. use the {{redirect}} or {{redirect2}} hatnote.
    3. treat the resulting "(disambiguation)" {{disambig}} page as usual (clearly a mix of links that should be "fixed").
    4. recent example: V8, V-8, V8 engine, and V8 (disambiguation).
  2. Otherwise,
    1. Ante-poll, use the appropriate {{2LCdisambig}} or {{TLAdisambig}}.
    2. Post-poll, use the appropriate {{2LC}}, {{3LC}}, or {{4LC}}.
  3. Look at What links here for any out-of-place usage, and expand those. Usually, these are red-links. (I think red-links in lists are good indications of possible new articles, and red-links in pages should be more rare, but that's an entirely different conversation that folks also argue about ad nauseum.)
--William Allen Simpson 15:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Assisting navigation

Okay, so abbreviation pages are intended to assist navigation. But then, disambiguation pages are intended to assist navigation. So, they have the same purpose, don't they? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the two being called different things, being in different categories, and so on, I just want to point out that navigational aids are to be kept as simple as possible, like disambiguation pages are.

If abbreviation pages have a different (fundamental) purpose, then please enlighten me. ("Abbreviation pages expand and disambiguation pages disambiguate" doesn't count, because they are still both in effect navigational aids.)

Multi-stub pages involve multiple stubs, paragraphs, not lines, and they don't link to a more in-depth article on one of those stubs — just a definition I wanted to point out. Remember that a stubs are intended to be expanded. And (proper) multi-stub pages have almost died out... this (abbreviation pages) is a different concept, from what I gather, so I don't understand (as in, am-completely-lost, not can't-see-why-that's-important) what we're getting at...

Main question: what is the purpose of an abbreviation page? (Apologies if I've missed this somewhere, it's hard to pick out.) Neonumbers 10:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Neo, it's my understanding that disambiguation pages are not supposed to be part of navigation, and that's why folks "fix" those links. Disambiguation pages are "catch" (exception) pages for WP:DPL (for those of us who think in programming language terms).
Likewise, it's my understanding that abbreviation pages are intended to be browsing navigational lists, and folks are not supposed to "fix" those links. That seems a pretty fundamental difference.
And, one that folks have been discussing for some time. For example, List of all two-letter combinations. It's had a split AfD vote in the past. As have the TLA lists. Some folks browse the encyclopedia. Others don't see any reason for it. At some point, we just agree to disagree.
Moreover, I'd think that the vigilant disambiguators would be happy having fewer things to keep up-to-date.
Maybe we'll have vigilant abbreviation expansionists someday. But that's a different task, as Catherine found. It usually requires more work than adding piped links, as it may need actual sentence, paragraph, and grammar restructuring to add the proper abbreviation expansion.
--William Allen Simpson 15:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just let me clarify "assist navigation": disambiguation pages are intended to get a reader to the correct page. (They're not meant to be seen, but when they are they're meant to get the reader to a certain place fast, whenever I say "assist navigation" here that's what I mean, which is of course different from "browsing" — this isn't a point of debate, I'm just adding this note to avoid confusion, substitute terms where necessary.)
So, disambiguation pages assist navigation (using the above makeshift definition) and abbreviation pages are meant to be for browsing.
But surely a link to (say) NCEA isn't meant to go to a list of possible expansions, it's meant to go to (say) National Certificate of Educational Achievement, because it came from (say) an article about Education in New Zealand. Now, this link is meant to be fixed, isn't it? And a clicker of this link just wants to get to a place?
Browsing through all possible two-letter combinations is very different. That list is (purposefully) aimless; but for a specific abbreviation, I find it far more likely that, in an encyclopedia, a reader is in search of a specific concept. A person who wants a list of all possible expansions shouldn't be looking in an encyclopedia, but as you've mentioned this has never been agreed on — so even if they do want to browse then a disambiguation page (or a page compiled like a disambiguation page) would still be a list of links to possible expansions, which is in essence what we want, isn't it?
The best way to demonstrate the difference to me is to show me a properly-done abbreviation page. I've looked at FAST, but that really just looks like a list of expansions to me, compiled on more of less the principles of disambiguation. By "principles of disambiguation" I don't mean that the page is called a "disambiguation page", but that the idea of just listing possibilities, without excessive extraneous information, is used. I don't have a problem with there being no difference except name, but if there's a difference, I still don't understand what it is. Neonumbers 10:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps abbreviation pages are supposed to be for browsing, but links to abbreviation pages that should be going to a specific page should be fixed. Using the example above, the link that was to NCEA from Education in New Zealand should be (and I believe was) correctly changed to National Certificate of Educational Achievement, because that is the meaning that it is referring to. -- Natalya 13:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_12&oldid=1137409308"