Talk:ALF/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Comments

I have removed Arcayne's vote and comments to this section. Although there was no ending date for the poll, an admin (Stemonitis) came by, observed consensus, closed the poll, and moved the page in accordance to Wikipedia policy. The poll is therefore closed and should not be edited, although users are free to start new ones to test consensus. I have moved Arcayne's comments here. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - the groups added without citation are a disruptive argument by others, there is no cinsistency to what is added and what is not; therefore, the reasoning for this is supect. It is a disambiguation page; stop pretending it isn't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some sort of ending date on this surveyr? Someone just removed my vote, calling it "late".However, I don't seem to see any end date on this particular survey. Of course, there not being any date means that anyone in WP can weigh in on the issue. This means my vote is as valid as anyone else's. Please try to remember that. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(after ec)Arcayne, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines for conducting requested move discussions. Just as with many other types of discussions, such as AfD, Cfd, etc, there is a set time frame. The poll was clearly closed. While consensus can change, that particular poll related to that particular move request is closed. older ≠ wiser 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Viriditas's comment in the poll — Yom

So, what precisely is your point, Viriditas? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you've wikistalked me here from Children of Men, but as I told you before, these talk pages aren't about me. We have topics on Wikipedia, and this article is about ALF. It's amusing to see that you don't even know what you are arguing or voting about, but it gets old after a while. —Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

V, you wikistalked me here, so beware of who else you accuse of that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I've had this page on my watchlist since at least 00:29, 12 May 2006 [1] and I've been editing it since that time. According to that page history, you did edit the page before me, but it was eight months previous to my edit, on 07:11, 1 September 2005[2]. I'm sorry, but you will not find anyone who will describe that as wikistalking. Arcayne, OTOH, has been engaged in a conflict with me for five months on Children of Men, has never expressed any interest in or edited any dab page to the best of my knowledge, and yet shows up here mimicking Crum's edit summary with a blanket revert, mimicks your vote word for word, and makes harassing comments towards me. Perhaps you've been canvassing and recruiting other editors, I don't know, but it looks like the definition of wikistalking to me. —Viriditas | Talk 19:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have the diffs. You've stalked me to animal rights pages; you've kicked up a fuss about various things to do with titles, dabs, and cats, of which this is more of the same; you've engaged in WP:POINT and multiple violations of NPA and CIV; and you've sent insulting e-mails about me. Even after e-mailing me to apologize, it continues. If you weren't doing anything wrong, what was the apology for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Give it a break, Slim. I've never stalked anyone at any time, and I've never engaged in WP:POINT. Discussion between us on various issues has become heated before, and we've both said things we wish we hadn't said. I've apologized to you, because that's what you're supposed to do when you get into an argument with someone you consider a friend, and I meant it. I really wish you weren't going there. —Viriditas | Talk 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want this, then don't be provocative. You seem to think you can act provocatively and it somehow doesn't count (it's just "improving the encyclopedia"), but when anyone else does it, they're in the wrong. That's not how the world works. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, but your accusations and insinuations have no place here. Please stick to the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I've never sent "insulting e-mails" to anyone. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, these accusations of wiki-stalking are pretty much ridiculous. Viri - if you can prove your baseless accusation of wiki-stalking, present it here. Otherwise, restrain your imagination, zip your lip and keep your specifically on the article isn question. We simply don't have time to pander to anyone's ego or paranoia here. As my uncle used to say, either put up or shut up. You are simply not the sort of person I would follow anywhere. Get over yourself.

Slim, you've worked with Viri enough to know that this is just how he chooses to approach editing in WP. WP is supposed to be fun; just because he doesn't get or appreciate that doesn't mean you have to join his pity-party. If you can't tolerate it, take him to RfC; this isn't the place to discuss the matter, and he certainly won't fare well in that arena.

Yom,, thanks for moving my comments. I signed off before you asked me to move them. I have no problem seeking a new consensus.

Now, can we set the mini-drama aside and get on with discussing the issue? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was Viriditas who reverted back to my moved comment version. Viriditas, I have reverted your removal of Arcayne's comment. You stated that he violated WP:NPA and was incivil. If this is the case, then simply remove the comments you think are personal attacks (the kid comment, I assume), and leave the rest in place. Incivility is not case for removing the text, and even removal of personal attacks on non-user pages isn't always the best way to go. Multiple edit conflicts: Arcayne restored his comments multiple before I could, and Viriditas reverted them multiple times. I restored them again. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne has wikistalked me here from Children of Men. He has never expressed any interest in this topic, disambiguation pages, or ALF. He is only here to distract the discussion and attack me. Look at his comments. He hasn't yet begun addressing or discussing the issue because he can't. This is exactly what has gone on Talk:Children of Men for five months as myself and other hard-working editors turned it into a GA. He has never done anything but troll the talk page, and now he is here, trolling this talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

He's doing the very opposite of trolling. He's encouraging people to discuss the substantive issue. Please keep your opinion of him to yourself from now on, and don't delete any more of his posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the substance of Arcayne's comments are a personal attack against me. It's sad that you encourage bad behavior, but I realize you are doing everything possible to distract from actual discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue this further, Viriditas, then take it up with a mediator, or at WP:ANI. This talk page is not the place for it (although you are still free to remove the personal attack or uncivil part of his comments, I would advise against it at this time, as it might spark an edit war, and you are already close to violating 3RR). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I already took it to WP:ANI yesterday, in two separate instances [3][4] because the bot had archived my original request an hour after I made it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked on multiple occasions to present some sort of proof that I am wiki-stalking you Viriditas. You should feel free at this point to present that proof, unless this is just like when you accused me of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry (which coincidentally, you introduced right after I disagreed with you in another article - the only other article we have butted heads on). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the question, as the matter was closed upon Tom's request. So long as the baseless accusations do not resurface, there is no need to revisit the matter. Time to let it go; we've wasted too much time on this stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you withdrew the question, it wouldn't be above your withdraw. And since you keep deleting my reply, I will again give you my answer: see WP:HA. Now, if that doesn't make sense, please feel free to ask me for specifics, as I would be more than happy to demonstrate them for you. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the matter has been closed. Back away slowly and go about your business. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Please provide sources for any further acronyms that show they are actually called that by reliable sources. From WP:V: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." The additional entries that keep being removed have been challenged, so please don't restore them without sources. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather disingenuous. A claim has been made that these are referenced in Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary. Eds. Michael Reade and Bohdan Romaniuk. Vol. 1. 35th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 4 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. Unless you are calling that an unreliable source, the only other possibility is that you are not assuming good faith on the part of the contributor. I don't see a basis for dismissing them all out of hand. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I am challenging the entries per WP:V, and I would like to see examples showing that reliable sources actually use these acronyms before they are restored. Writers often write an abbreviation after a name to signal that, from now on within the article, they will use the abbreviation rather than the name. But that's not the same as being known (outside that article) by that acronym. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to provide more reliable sources, however, it should be noted that you removed entries that were already sourced with additional reliable sources previously, so I'm unclear how anyone can meet your unreasonable, incessant demands that seem to have no end in sight. —Viriditas | Talk 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quit the attacks and just supply sources, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, unless you are contesting the reliability of Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary, then Viriditas, has provided a reliable source for the acronyms in "section zero," that is to say, the following:

• Absorption Limiting Frequency
• Afar Liberation Front, Ethiopian political party
• Airland battle Force
• Airlift
• Alien Life Force, title character in the television series, ALF (TV series)
• Allied Land Forces
• Alphanumeric
• Alta, Norway Airport symbol
• Animal Liberation Front, a name used by some animal rights activists.
• Assisted-Living Facility, a facility providing assistance to adults who are aged, infirm or disabled
• Association of Libertarian Feminists
• Auxiliary Landing Field
• Azania Liberation Front

With separate refs provided for the following:

• Alien Life-Form — Angelo, Joseph A. "alien life-form (ALF)." Encyclopedia of Space Exploration. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2000. Science Online. Facts On File, Inc.</ref>
• Arab Liberation Front — Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.2005.

If you are not contesting the reliability of Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary, then there need not be any discussion for the inclusion of the items listed above (save Alien Life-Form, and the Arab Liberation Front). The usage for "Alien Life-Form" (not including the TV series, just the term in general) and "Arab Liberation Front" are cited with seemingly reliable sources as well, so unless you contest those as well, there shouldn't be any problem with their inclusion. Could you clarify exactly what you are contesting? Some of the items you've been removing have citations (such as the Azania Liberation Front, which Viriditas says is covered by Acronyms). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting reliable sources for each entry to show that these are acronyms in use, and not simply possible abbreviations, which we could invent for any set of words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't those citations show that they are in use? It's not as if they're saying that it's "possible" to abbreviate them. For instance, the listing of the first group in the abbreviation dictionary shows that they are in use (or else they wouldn't be listed in the dictionary); the "Alien Life-form" citation shows that it's in use just from the title. As for the Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, I would assume that Viriditas included it as it either used the acronym or stated that it is also known as "ALF," both of which would qualify for your request and our needs. So what's missing? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't show they're in use. They show only that Viriditas says a book has listed them as possible abbreviations. I would like to see for each one that reliable sources actually use them as acronyms. This is a reasonable request under WP:V, especially given the WP:POINT that V has been engaged in on this and related pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course the terms are in use. And please, stop making accusations against me that you can't back up. Just stick to the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, as you know I am concerned about the same issue. You say the 'terms are in use'. Do you have reliable sources showing them being used as acronyms? Crum375 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns, but not all acronyms will be actively used, and the source book is reliable and definitive. When we are talking about usage, we must recognize that usage can be historical and current, and seeking to limit historical usage due to a lack of current sources in an encyclopedia doesn't make sense. Whenever possible, we should be able to demonstrate RS, and that has been done. In many instances, multiple sources have been provided. I will continue to provide multiple sources, but I'm afraid all of this hemming and hawing will never end. As it stands, the terms are reliably sourced, and there was absolutely no justification for their removal from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrary unindenting>Crum, see above. SlimVirgin, what's your evidence that the book's listing of the terms is that they're only "possible abbreviations." An abbreviation dictionary only lists abbreviations that have been used before, does it not? And barring that, the usage of the acronym in the Acronym dictionary would constitute a use of the acronym for that term, wouldn't it? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yom, I don't 'see above' where the terms are shown as being actually used by published reliable sources as acronyms. Just the fact that some dictionary picks it up means nothing to us - they could have picked it up from the organization's own site, which is not RS. Crum375 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum, "that some dictionary picks it up" in fact does mean something. That dictionary is clearly a reliable source, and therefore an adequate source to indicate the use of the acronym for that term. Where they got that idea does not matter unless we have reason to believe that the acronym dictionary is not reliable, in which case we shouldn't be bothering with it anyway. They could have in fact picked up its usage from the organization's own site, which is a reliable source for the usage of the term for that organization. What it is not, is evidence that the organization is notable, which has to be met before it is included on this page. If we have evidence that the acronym is used and that the thing being described is notable, then that's enough for its inclusion here. What this discussion is really about, though, is whether ALF should be a redirect or a disambiguation page. The dispute between Viriditas and SlimVirgin right now is less about the validity of those acronyms than it is about the future status of this page. The more acronyms that Viriditas can find, the less likely that this page will be a redirect, and the fewer they are, the more likely SlimVirgin can get it redirected to the Animal Liberation Front. Still, despite the ulterior motives, we should have RS for each usage. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yom, I agree that the acronym dictionary can probably be trusted that a listed acronym exists. But for virtually any organization under the sun with a multi-word title you can imagine that somewhere someone used an acronym, as is typically done for abbreviation in an article. If we were to rely on that, we'd get the important acronyms, where people actually use and remember them as a reference to the organization, lost inside the ones that are never used that way in published reliable sources. So I would like to see a published RS showing actual use of the acronym that discusses the organization with that name, not an index listing with the acronym. Crum375 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not an animal rights activist, so I have no "ulterior motives". I'm just interested in improving Wikipedia articles, including disambiguation pages. SlimVirgin's contribution history, on the other hand, shows that she has been devoted to animal rights issues, and I believe she is the creator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. So, unless someone can show that I have an "anti-AR" agenda (which is totally absurd), I don't see how you could say that I have an "ulterior motive", whereas SlimVirgin most certainly does. —Viriditas | Talk 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps SV was wrong to accuse you of having ulterior motives. That doesn't give you a free pass to make the identical accusation. It's uncivil. Please try to respond more maturely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, when I said "ulterior motives" I was referring to whether the page will be a DAB or a redirect. The removal or addition of acronyms is what I thought was being handled disingenuously, although we should address those concerns. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the matter of those acronyms is being addressed int he section below. As for folk acting disingenuously, it might be opening another can of uncivil worms, and frankly, I am growing tired of dealing with uncivil editors. Perhaps we should just move on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-moved my comments to section below. Dan Beale 10:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop the constant reversions on this page. Not only is it getting ridiculous, but some of you are close to, or already have, (I haven't checked carefully) violating WP:3RR. Viriditas, if you feel like Arcayne's comment included attacks (the kid comment), then simply remove the relevant sentence and note that you removed it. Do not remove the entire comment. Moreover, although parts were uncivil, the entire comment was not. Removing uncivil comments can be controversial, and I would encourage you to take it up with Arcayne on his talk page or with an administrator, rather than starting an edit war. Arcayne, I would recommend that you be more civil and less abrasive in your comments. Luckily, it seems as if it's died down now. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne is a troll who has wikistalked me to this article to attack me; there's no other reason for his presence here. He has no interest in this topic, nor does he concern himself with dab pages. Comments like," You are simply not the sort of person I would follow anywhere. Get over yourself...this is just how he chooses to approach editing in WP. WP is supposed to be fun; just because he doesn't get or appreciate that doesn't mean you have to join his pity-party. If you can't tolerate it, take him to RfC; this isn't the place to discuss the matter, and he certainly won't fare well in that arena" distracts away from the discussion and focuse upon me instead. His comments are totally off-topic and serve no useful purpose other than to attack me. It should not be tolerated. —Viriditas | Talk 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a violation of NPA to call someone a troll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Parts of his comment are not appropriate, I agree, but he is right in saying that this is not the place to pursue the matter. I would recommend you discuss the issue with him on his talk page, or barring that, take it to WP:M, WP:RfC, or barring that, WP:ANI or WP:ARB. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I already took it to WP:ANI yesterday, in two separate instances [5][6] because the bot had archived my original request an hour after I made it. —Viriditas | Talk 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I refactored out the kid comment - I was a lit hot under the caller at being accused (without any sort of proof to back it up) that I was wiki-stalking him. I've only seen him in one other article (out of over 100 that I edit), so I guess I am a bit curious as to where the bizarre (and seemingly paranoid) accusation actually comes from...

Anyway, I would prefer to move on (as I said in my post) and discuss the matter at hand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't wikistalk me here, then how did you find this article? And what disambiguation pages have you previously worked on? Requests for moves? Anything related to this discussion? —Viriditas | Talk 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop the personal comments. Everyone is tired of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And, I am tired of being harassed. Arcayne is involved in a conflict with me on another article and followed me here to make personal attacks. I'm sorry you don't understand that. —Viriditas | Talk 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The other conflict was one that you started by refusing to allow him to add a perfectly common sense observation about the movie; because you didn't like it, it was OR. Since then, you've done almost nothing but revert him. I can only repeat: please focus ONLY on the issue here, which Arkayne is trying to do, as are others. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are misinformed. The consensus of the editors on that page was to remove original research that Arcayne added. Please focus on this discussion, and do not distract from this topic by discussing other discussions. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you have your facts a bit mixed-up. Precisely what information did I add to the DAB that was both OR and voted upon? It has been pointed out by Yom that I didn't even vote on the issue until it had already been decided upon by an admin. The only thing I had done to that point in the article is to revert a choice a didn't feel best reflected the material. I don't believe I've actually added any content - OR or otherwise - to the DAB. Of course, please feel free to point out where you think i did, or forward on an apology. Coz its always civil to apologize when you make a mistake, right Viriditas? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Substantive issue

This is a response to Arkayne.

The substantive issue is that Viriditas won't allow anyone to direct ALF to Animal Liberation Front. For some reason, a large part of the history has been deleted, so until it's restored, I can't show you examples, but he's been doing it for over a year.

There are two candidates for the title ALF. One is the Animal Liberation Front; 1,140,000 hits on Google [7]. The other is ALF (TV series), a former American comedy show that stopped broadcasting 17 years ago; hard to tell how many hits on Google, because it depends how you search, but here's one showing 462,000. [8]

My argument is that ALF should go to the Animal Liberation Front, because they are a current, active organization; they are active in 35 countries; they are known internationally as the ALF in many different languages; they are regularly discussed as the ALF by mainstream newspapapers, governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, and counter-terrorist organizations.

The television show, on the other hand, stop broadcasting 17 years ago; and it is only a television show that is probably never discussed in any serious way by reliable sources. I feel that allowing it dominance over, or equality with, a well-known international group that is the scourge of several governments, is to pander both to Wikipedia's Americo-centrism and its obsession with television, arguably two of its worst qualities.

Arcayne, thank you for injecting some common sense into this dispute, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is anyone? You are the one that keeps redirecting ALF to Animal Liberation Front against the consensus of multiple editors from the very begining. The original edit history showed that. And, as the Animal Liberation Front is not a primary topic, ALF should not be redirected to it. This dab page was in place before you and I began editing it. And I don't think the edit history has disappeared for some reason; I think it's because you continually did "move over redirects", which to the best of my understanding, deletes the edit history. So, you have been edit warring over this redirect against consensus for over a year. I've merely been restoring the consensus dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you capable of discussing the substantive point, or must every post of yours deteriorate into personal comments? As I said above, many of the edits are now visible only to admins for some reason, so I can't give examples, but I know there was at least one other person you reverted who wanted it to be ALF. Anyway, stop attacking people, please, or I will request admin intervention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the attacks in the above statement. The point that you have overlooked, is that I have been continually restoring the original dab page that you keep redirecting to Animal Liberation Front. Is that clear? —Viriditas | Talk 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first edit to this page was to revert me. You've also followed me to other AR articles. You know, something no one could help but notice is that whenever you get involved in a disagreement, the talk page turns toxic. Enough from you about individuals; stick to the issue or stop posting here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed SlimVirgin's addition of a header "More personal comments" over Viriditas's edit. Please do not re-add it, SV. It is a provocation and a violation of WP:CIVIL. I would recommend all of you take a step back and relax before trying to resolve the issue. The more you try to show that the other person is violating Wikipedia policy to further your arguments, the more the already uncivil environment will deteriorate and the harder resolution will become. Edit Conflict: Also, please do not remove my comments, SV. I'm guessing it was a mistake, but please be more careful in your resolution of edit conflicts. Viriditias, I seem to have accidentally removed your comment, sorry about that. It's been restored by SV. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance. —Viriditas | Talk 21:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin that given the relative notabilities, the AR version should be primary and the rest should go to a dab page, with the TV show perhaps getting a direct link from the primary. All the rest appear to be fairly obscure when actual usage in reliable published sources is taken into consideration. Short of that approach, I would have a common dab page as primary, with the AR version and TV show on top, and all the rest lower down, so they don't obscure the notable items. Crum375 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the substantive issue to me, SV; I kinda called it right, but wanted to make sure. Crum, I think the common DAB as primary is going to be what works best here, utilizing ALF (animal group), ALF (tv show) and ALF (comp language) showing on top with the rest lower down. While the Animal group is known in over two dozen other countries, I am not sure it is well-enough known to the general English-speaking world to warrant a primary direct, but instead a primary listing in the DAB page as one of the more notable uses, likely as the first one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This section to discuss the substantive issue only, please

This is a response to Arkayne.

The substantive issue is that Viriditas won't allow anyone to direct ALF to Animal Liberation Front. For some reason, a large part of the history has been deleted, so until it's restored, I can't show you examples, but he's been doing it for over a year.

There are two candidates for the title ALF. One is the Animal Liberation Front; 1,140,000 hits on Google [9]. The other is ALF (TV series), a former American comedy show that stopped broadcasting 17 years ago; hard to tell how many hits on Google, because it depends how you search, but here's one showing 462,000. [10]

My argument is that ALF should go to the Animal Liberation Front, because they are a current, active organization; they are active in 35 countries; they are known internationally as the ALF in many different languages; they are regularly discussed as the ALF by mainstream newspapapers, governments, police forces, intelligence agencies, and counter-terrorist organizations.

The television show, on the other hand, stop broadcasting 17 years ago; and it is only a television show that is probably never discussed in any serious way by reliable sources. I feel that allowing it dominance over, or equality with, a well-known international group that is the scourge of several governments, is to pander both to Wikipedia's Americo-centrism and its obsession with television, arguably two of its worst qualities.

Arcayne, thank you for injecting some common sense into this dispute, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with SlimVirgin that given the relative notabilities, the AR version should be primary and the rest should go to a dab page, with the TV show perhaps getting a direct link from the primary. All the rest appear to be fairly obscure when actual usage in reliable published sources is taken into consideration. Short of that approach, I would have a common dab page as primary, with the AR version and TV show on top, and all the rest lower down, so they don't obscure the notable items. Crum375 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the substantive issue to me, SV; I kinda called it right, but wanted to make sure. Crum, I think the common DAB as primary is going to be what works best here, utilizing ALF (animal group), ALF (tv show) and ALF (comp language) showing on top with the rest lower down. While the Animal group is known in over two dozen other countries, I am not sure it is well-enough known to the general English-speaking world to warrant a primary direct, but instead a primary listing in the DAB page as one of the more notable uses, likely as the first one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see sources showing that the others are actually used as acronyms. A couple of them still appear to be from the long made-up list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using the term "made up list" - this is a personal attack and does not assume good faith. You _must_ know that it's inflammatory. You make your own case weaker by using such language. By assuming good faith, and looking for the terms listed, it's easy to find where many have been used by reputable sources, and to show that the numbers of those uses are very low. (Today's Google news sources show Alf being used for all of them but one, which is using ALF for Assisted Living Facility.) Dan Beale 10:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ones that can be verified should stay in, whilst the ones that cannot be verified need to go bye-bye. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources

Also, please do not continue to remove this section, like you did here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't recall removing it - must have been caught in an edit summary thing. I probably would have refactored them, as they were rather uncivil, and personal attacks. Bt, please stop that, will you? It's rather disruptive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've removed thosecomments, since they had no constructive value to the discussion. Talk about the discussion, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets see a list of the acronymics cited here first

Just when one situation calms down, another starts. Rather than going back and forth over which acronyms should be included or disincluded in the DAB page, let's sort it out here first. That way, the list that finally makes it in is one that we can mostly agree on. That seems to be the best way to accomplish the matter. Make sure to provide an easily cited source for your included DAB term, or there is no sense arguing about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since you have asked for the list, here it is:

• Absorption Limiting Frequency (DEN)
• Accelerated Loading Facility (ADA)
• Accuracy Limit Factor (SAUS)
• Acoustic Levitation (or Levitator) Furnace (SAUS)
• Afar Liberation Front [Ethiopia] (PD)
• African Liberation Front (SAUO)
• Airland battle Force (SAUO)
• Airlift [International]
• Air Lift Forces (SAUO)
• Alberta Law Foundation (AC)
• Alfred [New York] [Seismograph station code, US Geological Survey] (SEIS)
• Alien Life Force [Acronym is name of title character in television series]
• Alien Life-Form - A
• Allied Command Europe [ICAO designator] (FAAC)
• Allied Land Forces
• Aloft (FAAC)
• Alphanumeric (SAUS)
• Alpha-Omega Industries, Inc. [Vancouver Stock Exchange symbol]
• Alta [Norway] [Airport symbol] (OAG)
• American Land Forum [Later, ALRA] (EA)
• American Leadership Forum (EA)
• American Legal Foundation [ WLF] [Absorbed by] (EA)
• American Life Federation (SAUO)
• American Life Foundation [Press]
• American Liver Foundation (EA)
• American Loan Fund
• Animal Liberation Front (EA)
• Annual License Fee [FCC] (NTCM)
• Application Library File [Computer science]
• Approach Light Facility (PDAA)
• Arab Liberation Front - B
• Assisted Living Concepts [AMEX symbol] (TTSB)
• Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. [AMEX symbol] (SAG)
• Assisted-Living Facility [Health care]
• Association of Libertarian Feminists (EA)
• Atlantic Legal Foundation [Association] (EA)
• Atomic Line Filter (SAUS)
• Auaerirdische Lebensform (SAUS)
• Audiographic Learning Facilities (or Facility) (SAUS)
• Australasian Labour Federation (SAUO)
• Australian Lecture Foundation
• Australian Liberation Front [Political party]
• Australian Library Fair not found in any reference whatsoever
• Australian Lung Foundation (NRGU) common usage in Australia
• Automatic Lead Former "not in common usage outside of mechanical engineering"
• Automatic Letter Facer unverifiable common use
• Automatic Letter Facer (or Facing) (SAUS) unverifiable common use
• Automatic Line Feed [Telecommunications] not in common use
• Auxiliary Landing Field not in common use outside of avionics jargon
• Average Load Factor not in common use, even in civil/structural egineering field
• Azania Liberation Front [Sudan]not in common use - disputed

—Viriditas | Talk 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that, but you might recall that I specified those acronyms with cited sources. Please provide those as well.

Er, is "Auaerirdische Lebensform (SAUS)" a term that would be used inthe English-language wiki? If so, please provide a common reference for such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To me this list clearly demonstrates the need to severely restrict or totally restructure this DAB page. Otherwise, we are forcing our readers to wade through this (36 ghits) to get to this (132,000 ghits). This is clearly wrong - the common entries need to be well separated from the obscure/rare ones. Anything else causes undue hardship to our readers and essentiallly turns WP into an index, which it is not. The whole concept of an encyclopedia, and dab specifically, is to allow quick and easy access to the most common terms and entries. Crum375 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Some of these terms I've never even seen before, and am just AGF that they are real terms (seeing as none of them has been cited). I am sure some of them are so obscure as to not be referred to by anyone outside a specialized field. Perhaps some examination of the citations for these acronyms would be both prudent and useful in determining the common uses from the obscure ones. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see that things have died down and discussion has moved toward substantive matters, now. From the list I gave above, I bolded those that appear on Viriditas's list that are cited by the Acronym's dictionary, and added bolded letters and italicized those with other sources (Arab Liberation Front and Alien Life-Form). Those without sources (yet) have been highlighted in red. This is the list from the Acronym dictionary: Absorption Limiting Frequency, Afar Liberation Front, Airland battle Force, Airlift, Alien Life Force, Allied Land Forces, Alphanumeric, Alta (Norway Airport symbol), Animal Liberation Front, Assisted-Living Facility, Association of Libertarian Feminists, Auxiliary Landing Field, Azania Liberation Front. Note that the Azania Liberation Front was a Ugandan-based Sudanese front, not South African. Of course, as Crum said, we should not list them wholly alphabetically, given that some are more often used and more notable than others. P.S., Arcayne, what's with all the "refactoring" edits that you did? All of them show up as you simply adding a space or making a line start a new paragraph. Is it just me, or did you end up editing the new version of a page that had already restored your comments without knowing it? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 00:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

First matter, why not use the list that Viri added, and striek through those which aren't cited. Those with cites, note them in the list as well. After that, we can present a new, cited list, and then arrange them by importance. Again, doing so here allows everyone to weigh in before it gets placed on the DAB page.

Secondly, I was originally refactoring to eitehr reinstate comments that another editor had removed or to remove uncivil comments, usually from that same editor. I imagine it got a little disorganized. However, let's move on past that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To me an acronym dictionary is near useless as a source for this. My assumption is that nearly every multi-word term under the sun has been used as an acronym at some point somewhere. But that does not constitute proof of actual usage of the acronym in a published reliable source. Our goal is not to create long directory listings or indices - it is to allow readers easy access to notable information. AFAICT, the vast majority of these terms are obscure, certainly in their acronym usage. The only way to prove at least minimal notability is to show each one of them used on its own in a published RS. The dictionary doesn't count because it does not show actual usage, only existence, somewhere. Even after this minimal notability is established, we still need to ensure that the important top ghit items are prominently placed for easy access, per my above message. Crum375 00:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but is the ditionary useless for providing at least a basis to start? Granted, some people may think of the puppet Alf before they think of any one of a dozen different acronyms, but maybe we can use the ones Yom provided as a basis - as imperfect sources - to point the way to better ones. And that is the first step here: first we find the ones that have citable references, filtering out the esoteric or obscure. Then, we arrange the remainders in order of usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be possible to find some use by reliable sources of each acronym on the web, and if we can't, it strongly indicates that they're not in common use, or not in use at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. So let's focus out attentions on that. I'll look up some myself, so that way someone isn't left with the whole task. I will start with the last 5 acronyms Vir provided.

Also, if there are common acronyms not listed above, add it to the list. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, you struck out Azania liberation front (btw, for those you don't strike out, change the color and add a citation, please), but I just checked and found some reliable sources for it. There were only 32 google hits, which is expected for a non-western topic; e.g. the Afar People's Democratic Organization only gets 40 hits when combined with "APDO," but it's definitely notable and the abbreviation is almost always used. I found "ALF" used to describe the front in this published paper, these two JSTOR articles, these two books, etc. It seems to be a common abbreviation for the term to me, and it's already listed in an Acronym dictionary. Why shouldn't we include it? Remember that we must avoid systemic bias. Too often, I've found very notable Ethiopian topics put up for deletion because a user didn't have a good idea of its importance from google searches. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. The reason I struck it was that a check of Janes Defense, the CIA Worldbook and CNN indicated that the term for the political group is almost never referred to as such, and within Africa, the term is a different acronym altogether. I didn't rely on a Google search for it, deciding to use more sources than just the most common ones (yet still available to those without JSTOR access). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick list of sources using some of the ALF list.

• Afar Liberation Front: United Nations news report

  The Afar Liberation Front [Party] (ALF/P), founded by Sultan Ali Mirah Hanfary in 1975 is currently represented by his son, who has had a sometimes rocky relationship with Addis Ababa, reports say.>

• absorbtion limited frequency

Readings close to the origin (0 MHz) were not obtained and are also not possible due to the absorption limiting frequency (ALF) during the daytime. Some of this 11% or 1.43MHz difference is due to the empirical ‘decile’ scaling factor (<0.9) applied to the fxF2 value in the FMUF

formula (1).

I'll try to find some more. Dan Beale 10:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alta, Norway airport symbol: Google search for ALF alta norway

• Alphanumeric : Recommendation T/R 75-04 (Odense 1986) EXCHANGE OF DATA BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS AND BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS RELATING TO SPACE SYSTEMS Recommendation proposed by the "Radiocommunications" Working Group T/WG 3 (R) (but there seem to be plenty of others too)

• Assisted Living facilities: US Virginia government link

  Assisted living facilities (ALFs) are non-medical residential settings that provide or coordinate personal and health care services, 24-hour supervision, and assistance for the care of four or more adults who are aged, infirm or disabled. This care may be provided in one or more locations. Non-residential adult facilities are listed under Adult Day Care.

• Association of Libertarian Feminists: UK academic link farm

  The Association of Libertarian Feminists aims to: encourage women to become economically self-sufficient and psychologically independent; publicize and promote realistic attitudes toward female competence, achievement, and potential; oppose the abridgement of individual rights by any government on account of sex; work toward changing sexist attitudes and behavior exhibited by individuals; provide a libertarian alternative to those aspects of the women's movement that tend to discourage independence and individuality. This website contains membership details, recent issues of ALF News, and a links page.

Really, a quick Google shows that most of these terms are being used by reputable sources and Are Not Just Acronyms Made Up To Shorten A Piece Of Writing (ANJAMUTSAPOW) Dan Beale 10:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards

Unfortunately, the current participants (myself included) in this sorry affair seem to have devolved into indecorous behavior in a dispute, which while perhaps not the lamest edit war ever, certainly rates a mention.

This conflict touches on several subjects that deserve some attention from a wider audience. Among the issues:

1. Is there a primary topic for either Alf or ALF? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic currently suggests:

   When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page.

   Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name. The unambiguous page name should redirect to the primary topic page. This assists future editors (and automated processes).

   For example, the primary topic Rome has a link at the top to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome).

   If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

2. Should the disambiguation page for Alf, currently at Alf (disambiguation) [11] consist primarily of a list of people with the given name "Alf", even though guidance and current practices as represented on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Examples of individual entries that should not be created suggests such content is not appropriate for a disambiguation page:

   People who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such people, new sections of People with the surname Title and People with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page.

3. Should there be separate disambiguation pages for Alf and ALF? And if not, should the disambiguation reside at Alf or ALF? Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions currently suggests:

   Usually, there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation.

   For example, "Term xyz", "Term Xyz", "Term X-Y-Z", and "Term X.Y.Z." should all redirect to one page.

4. What level of evidence is acceptable for including an acronymn on the ALF disambiguation page? Is inclusion in a dictionary of acronyms and a corresponding target article in Wikipedia sufficient? Is it sufficient to provide evidence for the acronym existence/usage on the talk page, or should the disambiguation page contain a citations and a references section? (unsigned post by User:Bkonrad)

Discussion

My position is that 1) there is no primary topic for either Alf or ALF. Specifically regarding ALF, this was supported in the Requested Move above Talk:ALF#Requested move from late in May. Slim Virgin and some others insist that Alf redirect to Alf and Alfhild, claiming that, despite the relative obscurity of the figure, since it is the oldest known use of name it should be the target of the redirect. I remain unconvinced. 2) A long laundry list of people named "Alf" is not generally considered appropriate content for a disambiguation page. While personally, I don't think that such a list is encyclopedic, I'm not going to get too worked up about it. But it should be named appropriately, such as Alf (name). 3) No, there shouldn't be separate disambiguation pages for Alf and ALF and the disambiguation page should reside at "Alf". While there is some inconsistency about this (see the partial list at Talk:Alf (disambiguation)), general practice is to not have separate pages based on capitalization. While Slim Virgin insists that "Alf" being a man's name somehow makes it eligible for different treatment, I suggest this be addressed by splitting the treatment of the name as a name into Alf (name). 4) This I don't care about so much. AFAIC, if there is an article in Wikipedia and some reasonable indication that the subject is referred to by the term being disambiguated, it should be listed. If there is some question about inclusion of an item, it should be sorted out on the talk page as citations are, IMO, simply bizarre on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The item here I have the strongest opinion about is that (most) people named "Alf" should not be included on the page. Create a "list of people named Alf" if appropriate (I'm not sure what the current policy is there), but don't just put those names here. Second strongest reaction: keep the list of acroynms to only those that might possibly have Wikipedia articles. Third strongest, ALF and Alf should stay as separate pages.

I can see the primary target being an issue as the TV series in The States is probably overwhelming here, but not the parts of the world where it didn't play. If its tough to pick, probably a good sign that the disambiguation page should be the primary article.

Just my thoughts. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My position is that:

1. While there is no primary topic for either name or acronym (avoiding systemic bias), the move was handled at best poorly. I think the term should direct to a DAB, listing the terms in order of their usage (taking into consioderation the Elglish-language wiki). The inescapable logic is that dissent about a primary topic (barring nonsense overtures) means that a DAB is required.

2. While the question seems like a straw man argument (using the term "laundry list" to characterize the argument), the DAB shouldn't a "laundry list" of folk named Alf - just those folk notably named such. Alfred Pennyworth would not be included, while Alf would. Clearly, a short explanation of the reference should explain such.

Point taken, I've struck the word laundry from the description. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

3. There should not be separate DABs for capitalized, partially capitalized or lower-cased references for 'alf'. One DAB should be able to handle most of the the search inquiries. There simply aren't enough common usages of 'alf' to warrant separate pages.

4. There are too many acronyms currently listed. Some of them lilley are not in common use in the English-language wiki, and do not need to be there. Filtering the ones included by their common usage and common reference should be the sustaining criteria. Getting a good citation proves that the acronym is used. Of that grouping, a list of the most common should cull the abscure references, and list them in order of usage. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the choices are clear-cut. Al Aanning through Alf Young (and Alf Ramsay) should be moved to a new article "Alf (given name)". Note that this will be an article about the name and people who bear that name, not a dab page. It's a slam-dunk that the disambiguation page should be at "Alf", while "Alf (disambiguation)" should become a rdr to "Alf". The only valid point of contention is whether to mix upper- and lower-case aLfs into one dab page. The guideline encourages that, and once the given-name Alfs are moved off, I only see 4 entries left, with 12 more from ALF, and that makes only 16, not too many for one page, IMO, but if someone can explain why they should be separate, I'd be OK with that. Chris the speller 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Without reading previous comments, here's my opinion. To determine whether there's a primary meaning for "ALF", one thing to do is check "What links here" and see how the term is used elsewhere. From experience, I know it's not foolproof, but it's the best indicator we have. My instinct is that ALF (TV series) is the primary meaning, but not so clearly as to merit a redirect.

I also believe that ALF and Alf should be treated together, in accord with MoS. Create a section break, but keep it all on the same page.

Generally, w.r.t. acronyms, anything where the acronym is mentioned in the target article is fair game, and sometimes even if not. Use your judgment.

Perhaps this can become a "featured disambiguation page"? I've never seen even one reference ever on a DAB page, and here are more than a dozen! YechielMan 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured dab with a zillion references! Funny. I have been conversing with Viriditas, and until this is resolved, can he put the "ugly" version of the dab page (with all the citations) on this talk page or on a subpage to make a point, while cleaning the references out of the actual dab page? He says he is being prevented from doing so, but the readers shouldn't have to see this mess. Chris the speller 03:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct. See this edit by SlimVirgin at 22:02, 10 June 2007 with the edit summary of "added sources, requested others" and her other comments made to this discussion page around the same time frame. Since she is leading this dispute, I was meeting her objections by fulfilling the refs, which had previously been removed by consensus of other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

His list of referenced DAB items has been unmolested for the past four hours. No one is preventing anything. I think the referencing was asked for for HERE, in the Discussion area, so as to ensure what was evenutally added would be material that had been cited prior to inclusion. Other DAB pages don't have citation right on the page , and there seems little reason to have it in the article. Perhaps Viriditas read the request a bit too fast, and thought we wanted him to cite the actual page references (lol). He was asked to present the acronyms with citations in the Discussion page. He chose not to do that. I say port the mess over here and continue on sifting through the sources, leaving the choices currently onthe page (w/out citations) until we determine their relative value. At that point, we can add or remove them at our convenience. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the point is to find reliable sources who actually use the acronym, not who simply add an abbreviation to a text they're writing. Anyone can write "Oxford University Health Guide (OUHG)," which means "from now on, when you read OUHG, I mean blah, blah." But what we're looking for are real acronyms, where these groups (or whatever) have actually come to be known as the abbreviation; otherwise we could just start making things up for any random three letters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent, I'm not replying to anyone) Dab page guidelines make some things clear. ALF should redirect to Alf. Alf should be a dab page, as there is no primary page (and if there is, it's the tv show). Dab pages don't need citations! They are purely navigational; a form of indexes for user convenience. Dab pages should not include people named Xyz unless they are known only by that name. Editors sometimes determine that "Xyz (name)" needs to exist as a separate dab. SchmuckyTheCat 05:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We know that DAB pages aren't supposed to use citations - the editor in question might have just made a mistake. Rahter than think he was just making a disruptive point, we might be better off AGF. Your words on what DAB are pretty much on par with most of us, except that there shouldn't be a primary page. It should just present a DAB. What we are contemplating now is citing those sources which are notable enough for inclusion, and then sorting them in order of noteworthiness (making sure to try and avoid systemic bias at the same time). That all should keep us busy enough, if we can all focus on what we have to do instead of fighting over what I agree is a lame series of arguments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The references were added back in by SlimVirgin at 22:02, 10 June 2007 with the edit summary of "added sources, requested others" and her other comments made to this discussion page around the same time frame requested sources. See also her comments below. —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We need some sources for this one (though they can be left here, not necessarily on the dab page), because Viriditas has been making them up in an effort to bury the ALF (Animal Liberation Front). This was a version of the page that he wanted, and in fact it got even worse than that. Because there's been POINTy behavior, it would be good to know that these are acronyms that really are in use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked to stop attacking me with false accusations. I have never "made anything up" at any time; nor have I tried to "bury the ALF" or engaged in "POINTy" behavior. Editors have come forward to say that they have never heard of "Animal Liberation Front", and it's a wise bet that more people are familiar with some of the other terms, especially related to assisted living, technology, transportation, and television. Please stop attacking me and focus on this disambiguation page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's fine for you to continue to attack others? Look at the comments you've left on this and the other talk pages over this issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that she was wrong to reinstate those citations of the actual DAB. You were asked to put them here in the Discussion page, so we could all discuss them, and not have to deal with reverting them at any given moment. As for the accusations, maybe it would be better off if everyone stoppedmaking accusations. It does no good because every time someone makes an accusation they cannot support, we have to spend hours and inches of column space getting everyone to back off. Slim, please stop. You too, Viriditas. I know you are capable of actually doing good editing. Why not stop making personal and uncivil attacks and just edit. Keep it professional. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The distortions need to stop too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; the distortions, accusations, attacks, and incivility need to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay. So we are all in agreement. No one makes any uncivil remarks, personal attacks or distoritions from now on. I will hold you to that, V. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, considering that you showed up to this page making nothing but uncivil remarks and personal attacks while I was politely discussing the topic, I think you should hold yourself to your own promise. And stop removing critical comments that point out flaws in your reasoning. That is not and could not be considered a personal attack. If you need to contact a neutral, uninvolved administrator to make the determination whether or not comments could be considered personal attacks, then do so, but please do not remove comments yourself. You have been vandalizing this and other articles for too long, and that too must stop. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, gosh, that didn't last long at all. I am holding myself to that promise, but I am also not going to allow personal attacks or uncivil behavior to disrupt this or any oother article. If that means your comments to me get refactored until you learn to present an argument that isn't an attack, accusation or uncivil remark, it will be removed every time. If you can learn to be more polite, your comments will remain untouched. How you choose to proceed from here is all on you. Please discuss the topic and the topic alone. Learn, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the base name is to be an article, there needs to be a consensus on the primary topic. If there is no consensus, this base name should be the disambiguation page. I've never heard of the Norse figure. The only usage I'm familiar with is the old TV series (which I agree is not the primary topic) -- more evidence that this base name should be the disambiguation page (which is was even as far back 22:16, 7 September 2005). In general separate dabs for "Title" and "TITLE" are avoided; it's easier for the seeker to find the sought article in one list than two. BTW, some recent moves and overwrites have left Alf (disambiguation) and Talk:Alf (disambiguation) going askew, to ALF and Talk:Alf (name), respectively. -- JHunterJ 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages

is to find articles that a title corresponds to, not list every possible meaning of a term. If in doubt, only include entries with articles. They're not meant to provide information on their own, just serve as a navigation tool. Therefore references and comprehensive lists of meaning are out of place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely correct, and before SlimVirgin and Arcayne showed up to edit war, the stable version that meets your criteria could be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop these personal attacks for heaven's sake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We understand, NG, but we are giving the editor who did that the benefit of the doubt that he just wasn't paying close enough attention to what was asked before plowing ahead. As for why we asked or them to be put here, there was concern that some of the DAB links being proposed weren't all that valid. Steps are being taken to ensure that they are. If I misunderstand what you are commenting on, please forgive me, and xlarify. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is this royal "we" and what are you referring to? Consensus was achieved in the last Talk:ALF#Requested_move, and the version was stable until SlimVirgin did a series of "move over redirects" beginning on 9 June 2007 [12][13] against consensus and was reverted back by several editors.[14] [15] [16] [17] Furthermore, your neutrality is in doubt, because you showed up to this page to revert to SlimVirgin's version[18], against the consensus of the active editors maintining this page, who then promptly, and quite correctly reverted you[19] [20]. I hope that I have provided an accurate summation of events. —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. Did you think I was talking to you? I was pointing out your error in putting citations on the actual DAB page rather than here, as you were quite clearly asked. I was also pointing out how you shouldn't be raked over the editorial coals for making a mistake, especially since it was pointed out to you by others, and you were taking steps to undo your mistake. You can say thank you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read for comprehension. No such "error" was made. SlimVirgin added rerferences back into the article after the consensus version had removed them, and she then proceeded to request more sources, and I supplied them. I hope that clears up your misconception. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And you know that DAB pages don't have citations, so you know that adding them was a waste of time. Come on. Please stop arguing, and focus on the article. Learn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been already explained several times, I added the references - in good faith - at the request of the editor leading this dispute. It was not a waste of time. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already made clear that I don't care whether the sources were added to the dab page, or added here. I just wanted to see that we were only adding real acronyms, and that we didn't include the ones you earlier made up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've made it repeatedly clear that I've never, at any time, made anything up, nor can you show that I have. —Viriditas | Talk 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which was the purpose of asking for sources, as some of the authenticity and/or notability were called into question. It worked, as some of theobscure choices added have since been removed. It was a mistake to add them to the Discussion page when the editor adding them was well aware that he had been asked to add them to Discussion, and not punish the reader by making some sort of WP:POINT. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Easy access to the most notable items

I checked the g-hits for many (not all) of the items, and came up with the following results (in K-ghits): TV (166), AR (132), Language (46.6), Liver (26.7), Album (18.8). The rest were lower. I got zero (0) ghits for the psychology item - maybe some tweak in phrasing will yield more. A dab is intended to provide easy navigation, and clearly it should allow easier access to the more notable terms than the obscure ones. I am not saying Google is the only way to measure notability, but it is a good starting point. I also think we need to vet the list to make sure all items are used as a bona fide acronym by published reliable sources. Crum375 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To the last point, I think the disambiguated articles need to indicate that it's known as ALF; the dab page editors shouldn't need to check any resources beyond the articles to be disambiguated. The article editors can reach their own consensus (through application of WP:RS or whatever) to determine the acronym's bonafideness. -- JHunterJ 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, except that some of the linked articles appear to totally lack sources and would be instant candidates for AfD, so we have to do some minimal due diligence. I also added "Assisted Living Facility" (43 K-ghits) to the top 6 - I have googled all items now, and all the rest are lower. Crum375 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't establish notability. A google test cannot be used to establish that these terms are notable since many of these terms may have been google bombed by certain groups. This is especially true for controversial issues and terms that are used by political and activist groups. One of the reasons that the Wikipedia:Reference_desk is so valuable, is because the most important information cannot be found on Google. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be of use to know have you precisely define notability. Knowing that might very well assist everyone else here understand what criteria you are utilizing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 1

By agreement above, everyone is on the same page that there should only be one dab page. the Alf page and Talk:Alf page redirect to different places. Step 1 is, let's fix the name space problems and move this page, and talk page to Alf.

Step 2, make sure all the relevant existing other dab pages are referenced. I think that is only Alf (name).

Step 3, is to list the disambiguation terms. At ~10 terms or so, it's nice to divide the terms by something, either subject matter headings (Dan), or by whether it is a noun vs TLA (Sam). After some basic headings come in, sort them alphabetically, not by importance, percieved popularity, or some external criteria. Don't use pipe text to hide the disambiguation titles.

Step 4, is to argue about the inclusiveness of the terms. That's happening now. Take a step back please, and take care of readers before taking care of your own passions.

Any admin can take care of Step 1. Step 2 is probably already done. Step 3 should be alphabetized for now, and creation of headings later. For a way out of the argument on step 4, I suggest first being inclusive. Dabs exist for user convenience. Any reasonable claim for inclusion should be entertained. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 3 is by perceived popularity, according to WP:MOSDAB. Breaking them up into subjects, when the list is long enough to warrant that, doesn't mean that the most commonly sought meanings shouldn't be at the top. -- JHunterJ 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just take care of the namespace problem first. SchmuckyTheCat

Notability threads

Another measure of notability

Here is another way to assess notability, based on Google news search, which should be more immune to Google-bombing, and even Wiki articles:

• Animal Rights: 2,100[21]

• TV Show: 820[22]

• Assisted Living: 338[23]

• Liver: 111[24]

• Album: 38[25]

• Language: 11[26]

I have only done the top 6 (by standard web-based ghits) so far - interesting results. Crum375 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the entries aren't ordered by notability -- as far as I can tell, notability in Wikipedia is absolute: a subject either has it or it doesn't. Dab entries, one the other hand, are ordered by frequency of use. We tend to use the terms interchangeably, but (for instance), the guidelines for determining notability don't necessarily apply to determining frequency of use. Google is a good exhibit for frequency, but of course not the only one. I don't have another to offer in opposition though. :-) -- JHunterJ 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't absolute on Wikipedia: BLPs, for instance, can be marginally notable, and titles are directed to the most notable, if there is one. It's only because some people are arguing that there is more than one "most notable" that it isn't being directed to one of them. As a compromise, we agreed to list the most notable ones at the top. I hope everyone will stick to that compromise, because neither side can have 100 percent what they want here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The same search yields 102,000 hits for "tv" and ALF, not 820. And, "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338. Without constraining terms, acute liver failure and ALF yields 571 hits, not 111. Removing the word "album" from the string yields 58, not 38 hits for Moyet. Please don't skew the results of these searches by changing the search string. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please watch your tone, and try to focus on the message, not the messenger. I provided my search strings, so as to avoid any appearance of 'skewing' - can you provide yours? Crum375 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went over this above. I don't see the need to provide links, because Google news is not used to determine navigation preferences on dab pages. This is a red herring. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The important point here is that, no matter how you search, ALF comes up for Animal Liberation Front more than twice as often as the second one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not important to dab pages at all. —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The MoS is just a guideline, and a widely ignored one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even support you. It says "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So because you ignore the MoS, we're supposed to as well? And how is this supposed to support me? Exactly what I am supporting? There is nothing about Google news in the dab page or MoS dab page guidelines, so it doesn't support you. And, the statement about "most-used meanings" does not mean, most used by Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean then? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is used to create an order of importance, so it implies notability. But using Google news to determine notability has to be done very carefully. And, Crum is mixing notability with frequency of use of the term ALF which presents additional problems. Just because many sources refer to the Animal Liberation Front as "ALF" doesn't make it more notable, then let's say, "Assisted Living Facilities", which returns 22,200 Google news hits. A search for "Animal Liberation Front" on Google news only returns 4,860 hits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I specifically included the acronym as a term, because we need to assess the probability that someone will come to the dab page, and for that the acronym itself must be notable. Crum375 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how notability is assessed. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you don't say it is. We have WP:N, we have the previously cited MoS which determines order of importance on dab pages based on notability of the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. This is really transparent. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See below. WP:N doesn't help us when we need grays. Crum375 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage does not imply notability. They are two, distinct creatures. Usage verifies, confirms, and supports notability, but it is not the sole criterion, nor could it be. —Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Useage correlates fairly well to notability, and is easy to gauge. So we rely on it in lieu of something better. Crum375 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Undue weight. For WP:N, usage applies to the topic, not to the acronym. A skewed search for acronym usage does not make the topic more or less notable; it only shows that some media outlets are using it, whereas a comprehensive search of all search indexes would show that terms like "Acute Liver Failure" are just as widely used in their appropriate books, journals, publications, etc. The "Animal Liberation Front" doesn't even exist as an organization, so its notability isn't based on anything real or tangible, like a disease or a brick and mortar group, but instead, is solely based upon and exemplified by public relations - unlike the other listings on this dab page, the Animal Liberation Front is uniquely obsessed with increasing the frequency of their name in the popular media by engaging in acts of terrorism and then claiming that the "Animal Liberation Front" is behind it; in fact no such group exists. As the page itself says, it is "a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action on behalf of animals." And their agenda is to get their name in the papers. That's why the notability of this organization is highly suspect -- it is not notable through actual usage, but through manufactured notability. Most people, if you ask them, have absolutely no idea who the Animal Liberation Front are, and have never heard of the term. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority." —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:UNDUE will not help much here, as it can only determine main streams of thought on topics. It also requires a large amount of work, often with multiple editors debating various sources and their credibilities. This is not practical or reasonable when you have a dab page and need to decide on simple prioritization. Also, I don't think that NPOV governs here, since all we are doing is making life easier for our readers, so that on the average they will spend the least amount of effort to get to what they want. This is not like telling them about creationism vs. evolution. Crum375 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is most assuredly relevant here, especially in the context of notable dab entries, many of which are more prominent than others. The order of importance on the dab page is not reflected accurately as a result. —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I would disagree. NPOV, of which UNDUE is a subset, applies to presentation of different points of view in an article, where we need to be sure that our presentation fairly presents the various opinions on a given topic. Here we are talking about an indexing or navigation function, and all we want to achieve is least average effort by our users. So we need to predict how many will look up a given acronym, and make sure that the most likely searches will take the least amount of time. Pure efficiency issue - nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Crum375 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with NPOV; significant dab entries are being placed out of order of importance because you and Slim are claiming that a Google news search supports reordering; it does nothing of the kind. The search is being manipulated to give undue weight. I can alter the results simply by removing the acronym or a string, and this is not what the MoS dab page regarding "most-used meanings" implies. Finally, the fact that the Animal Liberation Front doesn't exist as a real group, but exists solely to get their name in their papers, as opposed to the other groups which are either real, brick and mortar organizations or legitimate concepts, technologies, and places, shows that there is undue weight being placed upon a non-existent organization. Topical searches of Google news show "Animal Liberation Front" coming far below other terms like "Acute Liver Failure", which receives at least 306,000 hits on google alone, far more than the Front, and somewhere around 25,900 hits with the acronym. Clearly, this is undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are not following. NPOV is a policy that applies within a single article. It does not apply when comparing apples to oranges on dab pages. There, the only issue is efficiency of access for the average user, not NPOV. Crum375 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I hope that clears things up for you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not apply to the sequencing of indices of different articles - there are no 'Points of View' in a dab - it's only a navigation tool - and our job is to make it as efficient and as easy to use for the average user as possible. This is not NPOV at all, as we are not comparing points of view. Crum375 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why collation solves this problem. You and Slim did not want collation, hence you have a NPOV dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't an NPOV dispute just because you say there is one. This has nothing to do with NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with NPOV, as I have explained several times previously. —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have to agree with Slim here; you have three editors telling you that you are observing/evaluating the matter incorrectly. It is time for you to either follow the consensus, or request an admin to weigh in on the matter. We understand (mostly) what you are saying; we simply and respectfully disagree. Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, who other than you says this is an NPOV dispute? You haven't made a single edit to that policy or its talk page, so you can't claim any special expertise that the rest of us don't have. Please show us which section, or which argument, or which person backs you up. Don't say UNDUE, because it doesn't. Don't say you have already explained, because you haven't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've explained this many times on this page. I'm not explaining it again. You can keep claiming that I haven't explained it all you want. Skewing search results to support your position is intellectually dishonest. —Viriditas | Talk 03:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you've made this accusation before, higher on this thread. I explained to you my rationale, and I included the search strings for transparency. I also asked you for your search strings and rationale, which I have yet to receive. So before accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, please provide the requested information. Thanks, Crum375 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gave them to you in plain text without URL's. I can easily add the markup and such, but it's a red herring. This entire discussion is a red herring because the search criteria is bogus. —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please give them to me with the exact URLs you used - that provides maximum clarity and transparency. And then please explain the rationale. We can only compare our results rationally if they are in the same format. Thanks, Crum375 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's a red herring and a complete waste of time. And, I already gave them to you in plain text at 00:38, 12 June 2007: "The same search yields 102,000 hits for "tv" and ALF, not 820. And, "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338. Without constraining terms, acute liver failure and ALF yields 571 hits, not 111. Removing the word "album" from the string yields 58, not 38 hits for Moyet." This was one example. Google news results do not prove notability; they are in fact contradicted by Google web results, which show the Animal Liberation Front to be less notable than Assisted living facilities and Acute liver failure, terms that make extensive use of acronyms, but are not covered as much on Google news because those things are not non-existent, activist organizations that exist solely to generate sensationalist media buzz through terrorist acts; Assisted living facilities (956,000 ghits) and Acute liver failure(306,000 ghits), are real, notable concepts and ideas that have greater significance and greater notability, which explains why their Google hits outnumber the Animal Liberation Front (262,000 ghits). —Viriditas | Talk 04:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, look at my results at the top of this thread. See how simple they are. They are open to inspection, the rationale is clear. All you need to do is provide the same information, instead of a lot of rambling text. In my result presentation, all one needs to do is click, see the strings and the results, and understand the rationale. In yours we can't really tell too much. In any case, since you make an accusation of 'skewing', you need to provide the same format so that we can compare and judge. Thanks, Crum375 04:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly straightforward and clear: "Assisted living facilities" gets 1,150,000 ghits [27], "Acute Liver Failure" gets 306,000 ghits [28], and "Animal Liberation Front" gets only 265,000 ghits [29]. Acronyms are used extensively for all three groups, regardless of how you measure acronym usage in Google news, which does not represent an accurate count. There are thousands of uses for ALF as Acute Liver Failure in the medical literature. Most importantly, many of the Ghits for the Animal Liberation Front are on non-notable websites, whereas the hits for Assisted Living Facilities and Acute Liver Failure are highly reliable. It's obvious that you are using Google news to skew the notability requirement. —Viriditas | Talk 04:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, this section is specifically about the news search measure. Clearly you'll get different results if you search the web at large, which is more prone to Google-bombs and wiki articles. In addition, by leaving out the acronym, you are not telling us the likelihood that the readers will visit this dab page. IOW, we specifically need to know that the acro is being used, otherwise they won't come to us at all. Remember our goal is to allow the average reader the easiest and quickest access to his/her article, given the acronym. Crum375 04:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a subjective criteria. We know the acronyms are used, and we know that they are in use. We also know that the sole purpose of the non-existent animal rights group, Animal Liberation Front, is to use the media in order to get attention for their issues, so every news story represents some kind of terrorist action, threat, trial or action they have taken. This doesn't make use of their acronym notable; it merely means that the group is actively using the media for attention. On the other hand, real, established concepts and ideas, like Assisted living facilities and Acute Liver Failure, do not use and manipulate the media; rather these concepts are notable for being notable in and of themselves, and their ghits outnumber the Animal Liberation Front in the thousands, with reliable websites and publications. The notability for these things is significant. Assisted living facilities are notable for their presence as established institutions, and Acute Liver Failure is notable in the medical community as a liver condition that is discussed in thousands of reliable sources and treated in real medical facilities. On the other hand, we know that the Animal Liberation Front's main purpose is to use terrorist tactics to get media coverage for their issue du jour; it's a fleeting, ephemeral activity. Issues come and go, members are rarely caught or named, and the publicity is fragmented, as is the nature of anonymous activists who belong to a group that "doesn't exist". In other words, the real notability lies with real things, substantive institutions and scientific ideas that are not subject to the vicissitudes of newspaper editors and "if it bleeds it leads"; No. The ebb and flow of terrorist activity within the animal rights community may be notable for them, since they are only trying to get the word out through their acts of violence, so surely they consider these things notable. But in the real world, after the newspaper has been read, and the days events forgotten, the Assisted living facilities are still here. Acute Liver Failure is still here, still a problem, still omnipresent in the world of human affairs. Where is the Animal Liberation Front? —Viriditas | Talk 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget Animal Rights, OK? Let's assume all you have are a bunch of entries with acronyms, that need to be prioritized. We are looking for a rational and objective way to do it. We have two easy ways: use ghits on the general web, with both the topic and the acro, or use google news archive search, again with both the topic and the acro. Why the acro? because we need to know the reader will come to the dab page - no acro, no dab page visit. Both tools, general web and news archive, are just tools - they are limited in what they can do, but they are objective. Of the two tools, I personally feel more comfortable with the news archive search, because it is fairly immune to google-bombing and wiki hits, and in general emphasizes real usage, which I think correlates better with the odds that a reader will come to the dab page looking for the main entry. Bottom line: we have two tools, both need the acro, both have known limitations, but they are objective. If you have other tools you think can better predict our traffic flow here, let's have them. Crum375 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf and Alfhid

JHunter, can you say why you feel this belongs here, and also with the names, but the other names don't belong on this page? [30] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are known as simply "Alf", they belong here. If they are not (for example, if they have a last name), they don't. It the usual dab rule, no different when applied to people. -- JHunterJ 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would they belong here if known simply as Alf, and not on the list of names? When you say it's the usual dab rule, do you have a link to the rule? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:D, WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. I'm at a loss, really -- this is the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation; what else would usually get dabbed, if not pages with the (disambiguating phrase) behind the disambiguated title? -- JHunterJ 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going by the MoS, it says that most commonly used items should be placed at the top. The most common use of ALF is not Alf and Alfhid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. And it's not at the top. -- JHunterJ 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be anywhere near the top. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also a problem with that article, which needn't directly concern us here, but it's worth bearing in mind. When I first read it, I thought that Alf should redirect to it as the oldest use of the name. But then when I looked for sources, I realized I was thinking of a different Alf, and it's not completely clear this one exists as described. There is only a primary source for it, and I see someone else has raised the same issue on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion needs a break. All of Crum's results are hopelessly skewed, and if one goes by order of importance by MoS guidelines, ALF comes much, much lower on the scale per Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'skewing' - the acronym is needed, per my reply to you above, and let's stay on one thread please. Crum375 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's completely skewed, and that's not how we determine notability. Order of importance on dab pages, or notability, refers to the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that apart from you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying we determine notability the way you are skewing it? —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't answer a question with a question. You keep telling us how to determine notability, but you don't say where you're taking your opinion from. Unless you can cite something in support or mount an argument, which you haven't done yet, it remains your opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is us? I've established that your criteria for notability is in question, not my own. You invented one using Gogole news and a skewed topic/acronym search which does not reflect actual notability, but in reality distorts it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You need both the acro and the topic - if the acro is not notable - no one will ever come to the dab page for it. Crum375 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I can go into the medical literature and get thousands of references to ALF as acute liver failure, does that make it more notable than the TV show? Notability exists independently of usage, and the dab page orders by notability, in which case, Animal Liberation Front would appear close to the bottom. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What we are assuming is that people look up entries and acronyms based on their notability. That correlates fairly well to their appearance in the news, which correlates to the Google news search. Is it perfect? of course not. But nothing ever is. Crum375 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Please stop just posting guideline names without saying what you mean. First, they're only guidelines, and secondly, they don't back up anything you seem to be saying anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please try to be more civil. Your behavior is creating a disruptivbe influence in the discussion. Either be polite or step back fromt he article. You won't appreciate the third choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained it in the above section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above - UNDUE does not apply. Crum375 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And, please see my reply to your reply; it most certainly does apply in terms of prominence, which is the inherent criteria for dab order. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it apply? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It applies in many ways, many of which I've repeatedly explained in the previous section. One, in terms of NPOV. Why is one topic more notable than another? Two, in terms of significance. How is a group that does not exist more significant than a group that does, or a real medical disease, or an NGO? Three, in terms of notability. Google, Google news, and related discipline indexes do not make Animal Liberation Front as notable as you are claiming it to be. You are appealing to a skewed acronym search that shows usage, but does not show notability. Removing the acronym from the search term, places the notability of the Animal Liberation Front much farther down on the scale. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, see my other messages. I think you are simply confused about NPOV - it only applies within one article, not when comparing articles to decide on dab page sequencing. Crum375 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No confusion whatsoever. I explained in full, my response in the above section. Crystal clear, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are really missing the point. See my response elsewhere - NPOV only applies within a specific article not when comparing priorities on dab pages. Crum375 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you're posting about this unnecessarily in multiple sections, then when asked to explain something, you point to a previous non-answer in another section, in order to confuse people. I've watched you do this before. All it achieves is that people get annoyed with you, and you look bad because you have to post more often than is sensible; you've already posted to this page 164 times, more than twice as often as the next poster. It's not going to make the issues go away, so I hope you'll change your approach. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I've explained things several times in multiple sections. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never done that, because I think it's inane. Please show me some diffs if you think otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Programming language

How commonly used is this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is my link from above: [31]

Run it to get the number, then replace 'ALF' by 'Perl' or any other language and compare. Crum375 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's hardly used at all. That should be moved down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my statement two sections above. You are misinterpreting notability by skewing Google news searches. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response to you above - the acronym must be part of the search term. Crum375 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not how we determine notability. Read the guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you determine notability objectively? Crum375 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument over objectivity, but you are free to read WP:N. —Viriditas | Talk 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is designed for a black and white answer, here we need grays. So it doesn't help us at all. Crum375 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The topics can be shown to be notable, and their importance on the dab page should reflect that to ease navigation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:N can only give a black and white answer, so it won't tell you if organization A is more notable than B which is more notable than C. Crum375 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So, a listing for Animal Liberation Front is pushed down to the bottom based on Google, Google news, books, scientific literature, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing WP:N black and white notability which determines WP article eligibility with the relative notability we need to prioritize dab page entries. Crum375 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't confused a thing, and I'm seeing everything crystal-clear, with adamantine vision. The MoS on dab pages states, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." The fact that some acronyms do not appear in a Google news search says nothing about the notability of the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You see "everything crystal-clear, with adamantine vision"? I hope that includes the way you're coming across here.

When the MoS says to place the items in order of usage, by items it refers to the subject of the page. The subject of the page is ALF, not the subjects of the articles we link to. Therefore, we should place the list of possibilities in order of the use of ALF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is any topic that uses the acronym ALF. The MoS dab does not refer to the notability of the acronym, and as I showed above, you are placing undue weight on an organization that has little notabiilty. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

UNDUE does not apply here, per my above reply. Crum375 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It applies absolutely in terms of NPOV, fair representation, and proportion to the prominence (notability) of each dab entry. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not any topic that uses ALF. The subject is the title of the page. And if you remove anyone else's post again, I'm going to request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed an off-topic threat that had nothing to do with this discussion. The subject is the importance of the topic that uses ALF, not any topic. The title of the page represents an acronym that each topic uses. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very much on-topic, because it's about the way you're disrupting the discussion, which the post removal ironically demonstrates is indeed an issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Countering your claims with evidence is not disruption. When a term like "Acute Liver Failure" gets 306,000 Google hits, and "Assisted Living Facility" gets 956,000, while "Animal Liberation Front" gets 262,000, yet you place one above the other, shows there is a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is about the acronym, not about the topics. We're discussing to what extent the acronym is notable, as you know very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the acronyms have been established by reliable, print sources. The notability of the topics determine their order on the page. "The most-used meaning" is not solely determined by Google news, nor could it be. Furthermore, the Animal Liberation Front is less notable per Google, than Assisted living facilities and Acute liver failure. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself. Who says "The notability of the topics determine their order on the page," as opposed to the notability of the acronym, apart from you? Please answer that question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's right there on the MoS for the dab page (as I have explained several times), the one you say nobody follows. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please quote what it says, because I can't find anything relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Already did, several times. You can continue to claim that I haven't, however. —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, you are confusing issues. Notability for WP inclusion is not the issue here - we are assuming all passed that bar. The issue is how to compare relative notabilities, and for that you need some objective tools, like the google hits and news archive searches. Those tools are not perfect, but our goal is statistical - we simply want to make the aveage reader's trip to his/her article as fast as possible. Crum375 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confused. I know perfectly well that these entries are notable, and I know that using the Google news results to order these entries is skewed. I've already discussed this. —Viriditas | Talk

Please explain how you feel these results are skewed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Even bought the t-shirt. —Viriditas | Talk 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Do it again, please. It's a valid question, and perhaps your reasoning as to how it has been skewed has been lost amongst the other arguments. I am presentingyou an opportunity to explain yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I asked you above to provide your rationale and search strings. I am still waiting. Crum375 03:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And they were provided, in plain text. —Viriditas | Talk 03:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of threads here, so perhaps I missed it. would you mind pointing me to it? Crum375 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, read up a bit. —Viriditas | Talk 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, I am still waiting for your URLs and rationale. Otherwise we cannot rationally compare our methodologies. I can't find any such items from you on this page. Crum375 04:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, editors are asking you for information, and you seem hesitatn to provide it. When you do this, it slows down the editorial process. Please. just comply with the request or withdraw from the discussion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Put on your reading glasses and take a gander. It's all there. —Viriditas | Talk 04:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, it is not there. All you have is rambling text. I asked you for your URLs with the strings and rationale, so that we can click and compare to my results above. Crum375 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look again. I see it in several places. —Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Viriditas, if people are asking you to present the info, it is not apparent enough to "gander". Point it out here, or withdraw. If you cannot present your arguments when asked, and continue to argue terms that you are unwilling to define, it constitutes a disruptive influence. Disruptive influences can and should be removed. Please provide the information that has been asked of you or withdraw from the article. Consider this a formal request to present your sources. Now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been posted, pointed out, explained, discussed, and reposted several times. —Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, all you've given us, and just now, are the URLs for the full web search, which as we know are prone to google-bombing and wiki contamination. We still don't have your apples-to-apples results showing why the results that I presented, which are based on google news archive search, are 'skewed' as you called them. Crum375 04:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Read above. —Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Post it again. Explain it again. Discuss it again. We don't see what you are, and are offering you a final opportunity to present your information before labelling your participation as disruptive. You have been asked pointedly and politely several times. Why are you unwilling to present what we are asking for? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Already done. —Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, providde diffs wherein you have done so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have yet to see your news archive search results, showing why my results were 'skewed'. Also, the general web search results you did provide did not have the acro in the search string. As I am sure you realize, if the reader doesn't have the acro, s/he won't come to this page. So please provide results that we can compare to and evaluate rationally. Thanks, Crum375

I've disputed your conclusion above many times. Readers may very well have found the acronym on the thousands of web pages that outnumber the Animal Liberation Front, as I've shown above several times. And they may search Wikipedia based on that acronym. The notability of the acronym is not in question. We already know that these groups use it. What is in question, and what you continue to ignore, is that the Animal Liberation Front is less notable than Assisted Living Facilities and Acute Liver Failure - across the board. So it is safe to assume that readers will be looking for those things as much or more so than for an animal rights group that doesn't even exist in the real world. I think this issue is very clear. —Viriditas | Talk 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is nearly as clear as you are trying to make it. The animal rights group has evolved - through your subsequent descriptions from a small group outside the US (despite it being in multiple countries), a terrorist group (the proof of that particular descriptot is yet to be provided) to a "non-existent" group. Perhaps you will take this opportunity to see how your method of arguing for a specific change by denigrating the other choices - instead of comparing merits - allows your to be perceived as disruptive and disingenuous. Maybe you can restructure the method by which you form your arguments to maike them more cogent and somewhat less biased. We don't really tolerate pet theories here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read Animal Liberation Front. According to that article, "(ALF) is a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action on behalf of animals...The ALF is not a group with a membership, but an example of a leaderless resistance...Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF...The ALF has been described as a domestic terrorist threat in the UK,[9] and in January 2005, it was named as a terrorist threat by the United States Department of Homeland Security...ALF activists operate under cover, at night, wearing balaclavas and ski masks, and in small cells of a few people...The ALF's roots can be traced to 19th century England, and a small group of activists...Wilkinson argues that "a cluster of small groups such as the so-called Justice Department of the Animal Liberation Front, and the Animal Rights Militia, have crossed the threshold from extra-parliamentary protest and demonstrations to what can only be described as acts of terrorism; incendiary attacks on shops and other premises and letter and parcel bombs." So I stand by all of my comments as I always do. —Viriditas | Talk 05:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we using Google News to search for notability? It may be less susceptible to google bombing (which I doubt is happening enough to skew the results too much in this case), but it skews the results highly to those acronyms that are affecting current events. For instance, you'll barely find any hits when searching for the Afar Liberation Front, as it was a major mover during the 1970s and 1980s and is now largely marginal in Ethiopian politics. On the other hand, you'll find plenty of hits for the Animal Liberation Front, as it's actively making news. This doesn't make one more notable than another or the acronym used for one over another per se. For example, a search of Agaw on Google news only gets 4 hits, all related to the Phillipines, but a regular google search shows the Agaw of Ethiopia (today a small community, but historically very important) as the most common meaning, along with "Agaw Agimat," a Filipino music group in a close second. This also shows another point, that we should be careful when relying only on internet assessments for notability and commonness in use. Some subjects are not necessarily as notable in the English-speaking world and/or may be less represented on the internet compared to print. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Description of ALF

Night Gruy, regarding your edit, [32] the reason I added "when engaged in direct action" is because lots of people think the ALF is a group with membership, when in fact it's just a rallying cry, in effect. Is that clear enough without mention of direct action? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A radical suggestion

Frankly I fail to see why the ordering of this page is such a big deal. Perhaps the following suggestion would be agreeable to people? Many longer dab pages have subsections by topic (i.e. "people", "organizations", "media", "science"). Those subsections would then be short enough that the ordering within those doesn't really influence looking things up, so I'd suggest alphabetical ordering within sections. Good idea? Bad idea? >Radiant< 08:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, but SV or Viriditas might have a problem with it, depending on how we decide which topics go first. If the topic group organization is alphabetic, then SV might have a problem with it, as it would put the TV show (media) before the Animal rights activists (organizations). It's a good idea for organizing all these diverse subjects, though, as there are too many terms to have in a single undifferentiated list. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yom, you're attributing something to me that I haven't said. I'm fine with the way the page is now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I support it 100%. Unfortunately, all forms of collation have been removed by the resident tag team. Radiant's proposal was successfully implemented by SchmuckyTheCat earlier today,[33] reverted by SlimVirgin, [34] restored by yours truly,[35] and reverted by Crum375.[36]. —Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. Yom, Radiant was suggesting putting the sections are put into alphabetical order, How they are listed in these sections can still be up to debate (which will happen simply because some see it as debatable). It;s a grand idea, Radiant. Thanks for chipping in. Yom, do you want to do it, or do you want me to? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please recuse yourself from any action on this page, due to your incessant vandalism of comments. —Viriditas | Talk 08:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that will be happening. If you are uncivil or make personal attacks, your comments willbe removed. Every. Single. Time.

Please be more civil. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Both of you please stop bickering. Have some WP:TEA instead :) >Radiant< 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I would love some tea. I would also like Arcayne to stop deleting my comments. —Viriditas | Talk 09:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't include uncivil, attack-y naughty bits in your posts, there would be no need to remove those parts. People don't like to be insulted, Viriditas; it creates an unpleasant work environment. When you are polite, you note that your posts aren't touched. Only those posts where you are uncivil do they get refactored. Simple as that. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, that's what I was referring to. If the sections are ordered alphabetically, then the TV show will always be higher than the animal rights organization, which may cause SV to disagree with it. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 09:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I've said I'm willing to compromise on that. The only thing I want to see is that the very common acronyms are up top so people don't have to search for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, if we set it up like all other DAB pages (like Radiant suggests) then ther is nothing to say about it. The list of 'alf' entries is too big to dispense with a categorization of those entries. Cie la vie. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a reason we cannot use the DAB ed as a guide for this one? I chose it because it seems to have all the relevant subcategories, and is also a name. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Further comment

The list should have the most used items at the top, followed by lesser used ones. This doesn't refer to the subject matter, it refers to the acronym itself. As ALF is used mostly to refer to the Animal Liberation Front (it is a current front and receives a lot of press with that acronym) it should be at the top. Alf the tv show isn't actually making use of the acronym at all (it is never fully capitalised) so should not be at the top, same with the name.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF is used mostly to refer to the television show, no matter what kind of search you do, on virtually any search index, and yes, it does refer to the acronym "alien life form". Google itself, has more than a million hits for the show. The reason Crum's search only gave 820 hits is because he restricted his criteria to "tv series"; many articles relating to the Alf television show don't use that exact criteria. Using any other combination other than the one Crum provided yields thousands of hits, not hundreds. "ALF" television yields 25,600 Google news hits, not 820. "alien" ALF yields 11,000, not 820. [37]. Please compare this with Crum's search for Animal Liberation Front, which only returns 2,100 hits.[38] There are many other concerns as well. For example, Assisted Living Facilities returns 22,200 gnews hits, while the front only gets 4,860. And we know that using ghits, Assisted Living is referred to as ALF 225,000 times. Doing a Google search on the topic itself, pushes the Front even lower. So, I don't know why you claim that the Animal Liberation Front should be at the top. —Viriditas | Talk 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't "mostly used to refer to the television show no matter what kind of search you do," and you've been given examples above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF is referred to as the television show more often than Animal Liberation Front is referred to as ALF in every search possible. Crum's Gnews listing of 820 results was flawed because it restricted the string to "tv series". Using alien instead, (ALF is an alien, and the acronym refers to alien life form) we get 11,000 gnews hits, not 820. [39]. Further searches return a significantly higher number of results than Animal Liberation Front across the board. We also know that many searches return more hits for ALF and Acute Liver Failure, as well as ALF and Assisted Living than any searches for ALF and Animal Liberation Front. —Viriditas | Talk 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What you've argued throughout is that every search string that contradicts you is "flawed." Every one that supports you is fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact, the search strings do not support your claims. —Viriditas | Talk 20:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, are your results always with the acronym string included in the search? If not, they are not relevant for us, as I explained yesterday, because if someone does not have the acronym, they won't come to this dab page. So the acronym must be part of any search string. Also, it's best to always present your results as a URL, otherwise we are never quite sure what you are doing exactly, and it becomes harder to get any meaningful comparisons. Crum375 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of URLs linking to gnews in my above comments. Assisted Living and ALF gets 5,610 hits on Gnews.[40] Alien and ALF gets 11,000 gnews hits, not 820. [41]The same search using Animal Liberation Front only returns 2,180 hits. [42] —Viriditas | Talk 20:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And the point is, Gnews is not the only indicator for the use of ALF as an acronym. See Yom's comments addressing this problem. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you don't enclose a multi-word string in quotes, then the results are meaningless, as in the Assitend Living URL you include above. Are the rest of your numbers based on such mistakes? Crum375 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The results are not meaningless, nor are they mistakes; assisted living facilities go by several different names. Please point out flawed results that were returned. Please also point out the flaw in the alien and ALF search that returned 11,000 gnews hits. [43] —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is your search string: 'Assisted Living ALF' - the quotes are mine. In your search, any article that has the individual words Assisted and Living and ALF, anywhere in it would count as a 'hit'. 'Assisted' and 'living' are both common English words, so they would cause a huge number of hits, as long as 'ALF' is also somewhere in the article. This is absolutely wrong. If the rest of your results are based on such work, then that could explain a lot of the confusion here. Crum375 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no confusion. It doesn't change the numbers for the Animal Liberation Front. They are the same. By restricting for an exact phrase or not, Animal Liberation Front and ALF still return 2,180 gnews hits. By restricting assisted living, you are limiting the results because that term is used in many different ways, such as with a hyphen, or in reference to ALF but separated by other words in between. The searches are accurate. Especially in terms of the televsion show, which still outnumbers the front. As I said before, you are skewing the searches to limit valid results. Please show me false positives. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no confusion??? Are you saying that your search string for Assisted Living is correct? Please address this point only. I'd like to understand your rationale for searching for common English words and coming up with huge hits. Crum375 20:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me the false positives. Removing the quotes from the Animal Liberation Front search only adds 80 additional hits, a meaningless number when we are talking about thousands. —Viriditas | Talk 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're deliberately creating confusion, and have been doing it for days (currently amounting to 226 posts to this page alone). There's no point, because no one understands what you're saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I have been absolutely clear. The difference between a restricted and unrestricted search of Animal Liberation and ALF is 80 hits, a meaningless result. The difference, however, is huge for Crum's restricted searches of ALF, Assisted Living, and all the rest, which evidently seek to lower the gnews hit results for anything but the front. —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please try to remain focused on my question, which I will repeat. Are you saying that your search string for Assisted Living is correct? Please address this point only. I'd like to understand your rationale for searching for common English words and coming up with huge hits. The reason I am focusing on this issue is that if you believe this is correct, it indicates a major flaw in your results, that could explain a lot of the confusion. So again, please focus on my question - we can deal with other issues separately, after we resolve this crucial point. Crum375 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please show me the false positives. The irony, is that I've shown the "major flaw" to reside with your restricted results, especially in terms of the ALF television show, which is what I was originally responding to, here. You limited that search to "tv series", when many other types of searches, such as "alien ALF", and "tv ALF", "tv alien ALF", ""television" ALF, etc. returned far more hits. So, you are restricting gnews searches to exact phrases which skews results. And as I've shown with the Animal Liberation Front, the difference bewteen an unrestricted and restricted string is 80 hits, a meaningless number when we are dealing with thousands. See for yourself: [44][45]. —Viriditas | Talk 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been involved in a discussion on Wikipedia with someone who has posted so much and has been so unhelpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) How about this?. Crum375 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify to those not following, this was your original search. Hopefully you can clearly see that most of your hits are bogus. Can you not see that? Crum375 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But at 5 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC), you claimed there were only 330 hits![46] That link shows 880! (now showing up as 856 [47]) And just to clarify for you, that's exactly what I told you in my original response [48] at 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) which you and others ignored: "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338". So, contrary to what you claim, an unrestricted search was not my original search. —Viriditas | Talk

Viriditas, why are you finding it so difficult to focus on my question? I asked a simple question, that can impact much of the results you have posted here, and I have yet to receive a simple answer. Regarding the number you just asked about, clearly adding the word 'facility' is the reason for the difference. But again, let's keep our eyes on the ball, please. Please answer my question - don't you think that searching for individual English words will rack up huge hits? And if so, why are you doing it? Can this (and your last question too) explain the confusion here? Crum375 21:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Explained above, and there's been absolutely no confusion. You were originally given restricted search results and ignored them. I gave you the unrestricted search, you showed the false positives, and now we're back to my original number of 856, which I gave a long time ago. Now, as I've also shown above, Gnews is not the end all and be all of determining which term is used the most. Gnews is selective, in that it only shows who is getting PR, and unlike all of the other concepts, ideas and groups listed on the dab page, the Animal Liberation Front is soley dedicated to promotion and dissemination of its name in every media outlet possible, so this is not an indicator of notability or usage but merely activism. The google links I've given above are restricted, and they still show Assisted Living Facilities and Acute Liver Failure coming out far above the Animal Liberation Front, whose job is to specifically uses the media to promote their name. —Viriditas | Talk 21:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you believe that searching for "assisted living alf" on Google [49] is going to give you a meaningful result. Please restrict your answer to that one point. And the ALF does not use the media to promote its name. Quite the opposite. The media coverage of them is almost always negative. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A restricted (not unrestricted as you provided abvove) search for assisted living and ALF [50] gives me a significant result of 91,700 hits, most of which are reliable, and link to real, notable concepts, facilities, institutions, and publications. On the other hand, the same restricted search of Animal Liberation Front[51] returns 132,000 hits for mostly animal rights activist websites, in other words, the usage is being promoted by ALF itself.

The equivalent search to "'assisted living' ALF" would be "'animal liberation' ALF", and the result is 162,000. But it's also helpful to do a Google news search if you're trying to assess the notability of two terms that are commonly used in the media, and the liberation front comes up with far more hits there too, none of them from their own websites. Whichever way you look at it, in fact, you get more hits for the liberation front. Ask any journalist what ALF means to them and, if it means anything, it will be the liberation front. It's pure Americocentrism to assume that people outside North America will be focused on long-gone American television shows. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only does the ALF use the old and new media to promote their name through their actions, but anyone is encouraged to call themselves ALF (Robin Webb, who runs the Animal Liberation Press Office in the UK, has said of this model of activism: "That is why the ALF cannot be smashed, it cannot be effectively infiltrated, it cannot be stopped. You, each and every one of you: you are the ALF..Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF). The "meaningful results" obtained from searching for "assisted living" and ALF are obvious. These things exist, they are real, and they are used by people every day in notable, reliable sources. Yet, the ALF is using the media to promote its name by taking responsibility for direct action - but according to Webb, there is no group, no official members, and no contact headquarters where we can sit around the water cooler and discuss vegan cuisine. The group doesn't exist. So, the meaning lies with real usage regarding real things, as found in real websites and real journals. Is the ALF, best representative of the Animal Liberation Front, and not some other concept, idea or thing? I decided to find out. I began asking everyone I know, everyone I met, random people on the sidewalk, calling distant relatives, and chatting with strangers. It turns out, nobody has ever heard of them. Not a single person I have asked has ever heard of this group. That doesn't mean much, but it tells me that a small group of activists are playing with reality. I went over to Talk:PETA to see what was going on, and noticed they are doing the same thing with "companion animal", claiming that nobody uses the word "pet" anymore. None of the google searches bear that out, nor does any other kind of search. It's the same strange arguments, everywhere I look. We're supposed to believe that a non-existent group that nobody has ever heard of is more notable than Assisted Living Facilities and Acute Liver Failure? —Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is your diff where you posted the URL that you used to find the hits for Assisted Living. You will note that in it, you have this search URL, which produces a huge number of hits on common English words.[52] I have tried to explain to you that is incorrect. You have yet to explain your reasoning for using it. If you have this type of approach to searching, it can explain much of the confusion we have on this page. Please answer my questions directly: Why are you using common English words in your search? Don't you understand this will create false results? Crum375 21:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The diff you provide takes place twenty hours after I explained the restricted search results to you[53] at 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC) which you and others ignored: "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338". So, contrary to what you claim, an unrestricted search was not my original search. —Viriditas | Talk 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, the previous diff you include makes some unpleasant and rude personal attacks, and I have a tendency to ignore such posts (my trick for keeping civil). I fail to see, however, what relevance some previous message has to do with the one in question. I ask you again, in the hope that perhaps this time you'll respond directly: 'Why are you using common English words in your search? Don't you understand this will create false results? Crum375 22:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling an idea "ridiculous and absurd" is not a personal attack, however I did originally remove it because it seemed to bother you greatly. In any case, you claimed your diff was my original search, when it wasn't. The diff given to you shows that I pointed out a problem with your search twenty hours previously, but you never altered your results. Since you posted a false positive that shows 800+ more results than the 300+ you claim, perhaps you will now change your data? —Viriditas | Talk 22:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, if you call something that I do or say "ridiculous and absurd" or say that I "skew" the data, those to me all personal attacks, as they directly attack my intellect and integrity. You should focus on the message, not the messenger. Now let's get back to my question, to which I still have no answer: Why are you using common English words in your search? Don't you understand this will create false results? And will you ever directly and simply answer it instead of telling us a large number of other incidental things while ignoring this simple question? Crum375 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely agree. Perhaps the next time others do the same to me you will take them to task? And just so we are both clear, the restricted data that you listed in original search is skewed; there were more results than you listed, and the unrestricted searches were given to weed out the false positives and show that your data was in error. Even with these facts, you still haven't updated your original search. —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

V's vitriolic comments about the ALF confirm what I said right at the start of this. He's engaged in a WP:POINT to bury the ALF because he doesn't like them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you've been saying that I'm engaged in WP:POINT to bury the ALF for a long time, so the more you say it, the more it must be true, right? My comments concerning the ALF are in an effort to address your comments directly, in order to determine the placement on the dab page. If you read my comments, you'll notice that I ask quite plainly, "is this the most notable use of ALF"? I have never tried burying anything. —Viriditas | Talk 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you agree, then you should not attack your fellow editors, even if you perceive them attacking you. Regarding my own search, I simply used the terms in the dab page, both the topic and the acronym, and searched. I included the URL for full transparency, so my methodology would be obvious. Certainly any methodology can be improved - I have yet to be convinced any changes are needed, but I am open minded. In the meanwhile, you have yet again avoided answering my question - please focus on the ball - we can't move on unless I understand your work methods. So I repeat: Why are you using common English words in your search? Don't you understand this will create false results? And will you ever directly and simply answer it instead of telling us a large number of other incidental things while ignoring this simple question? Crum375 22:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I answered this question several times, and will not answer it again. You were wrong to assume that was my original search; I gave the diffs above showing I had restricted the search in my original reply twenty hours previously. You refused to acknowledge that your numbers were in error and that you had skewed your restricted search. I appealed to an unrestricted search, at which point you were forced to weed out the false positives, leaving 800 or more results, in effect proving my original point. —Viriditas | Talk 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I am asking a simple question, you have not yet replied, and frankly I am losing hope you will. Please focus on the question. Not on what I did, or what I 'skewed', or anything to do with me or anyone else, for now. We can always address my actions separately later. I am focusing on you, and on a search you did, with common English words, that clearly provides bogus results, and I am asking you why you did that. If you refuse to answer, or have no answer, just say so. To keep shifting the focus to other people and issues, does not reply to the simple question. And don't say "I've already answered it - scroll above to XYZ". Just provide your direct and simple answer, right here, without mentioning any other person or issue. Can you do that for us? Crum375 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your question was directly answered above your query. —Viriditas | Talk 22:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What keeps sticking out to me is the claim that Alf (tv show) is the primary reference for the English language. I mean, if we avoid the systemic bias of living in America where the tv show originated, what would happen?

I checked in on Yahoo (Ireland &UK), Yahoo (Australia) and Yahoo (New Zealand) and a great many different entries come up. Alf is indeed the first choice amongst each of these searches, and oddly enough, Animal Liberation Front is second in Australia and first in New Zealand. I chose those three different Yahoo portals as they were both English-speaking countries (ergo, inclusion in the English-language wiki).

Whether someone likes or likes one of the choices is immaterial. It is apparent that while they may not be getting a lot of attention here, they are noticably more well-known in other English-speaking countries. To avoid Ameri-centric bias, we have to acknowledge that the top two choices are the tv show, and the animal liberation group. Everything else is secondary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments, but unfortunately those types of searches are problematic due to google bombing. —Viriditas | Talk 22:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was also a news search, which tend to be less sensitive to Google bombing. I also conducted an Ask.com search for both the US and the UK (not NZ or AU option there), wherein it is presumably not susceptible to the same type of Googl-bombing. The results were identical, with the African political group popping up a bit more noticeably. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't see a simple direct response to my question there or anywhere else. A simple direct response would have nothing to do with me, or my actions. This is a question about a search that you did which produced bogus results. I would like to understand why you did that, and your answer should focus on you and your actions. I still have no idea why you did that, and if you feel this is good work, then it could explain much of the confusion on this page. Crum375 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Look a little closer, since I've repeated it many times; I'm sure you'll find it. Look for the numbers 800, as that represents two-hundred more hits that you failed to account for in your original, skewed search. —Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please don't tell me to look, or to scroll, or to search, when I am just asking a simple question - please paste your answer right here, below my message. And please don't provide an answer that mentions me or anyone else, or other issues - the question is simple: why did you perform a search on plain English words that produces a large number of bogus hits? Can you simply answer that without talking about other issues or people, or asking me to scroll or search somewhere? Crum375 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained it to you several times. You can find it above your repeated queries. Please look carefuly. —Viriditas | Talk 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I have yet to see any direct answer to my question anywhere on this page. Can you give me a diff? Crum375 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I answered this question several times, and will not answer it again. You were wrong to assume that was my original search; I gave the diffs above showing I had restricted the search in my original reply twenty hours previously. You refused to acknowledge that your numbers were in error and that you had skewed your restricted search. I appealed to an unrestricted search, at which point you were forced to weed out the false positives, leaving 800 or more results, in effect proving my original point. And now, the search results are continuing to be skewed with Slim's new section below. —Viriditas | Talk 23:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, your refusal to provide me with a diff to your answer, or to paste here the simple answer can only indicate to me that you have no good answer. I will have to assume good faith and conclude that you did it not to mislead or misinform us, but the end result is the same. Crum375 23:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop replying to questions with more questions, handwaving, and vague referrals to other sections. If you have already answered, give a diff. If not, answer. If you're willing to do neither, please take this page off your watchlist. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Answers and diffs have been provided. —Viriditas | Talk

(outdent) Viriditas, your refusal to provide a simple diff to a simple answer to a simple question as to why you posted bogus information is very unbecoming, and could lead one to believe that your behavior here is WP:POINT. I suggest that either you come up with a good answer, or stop posting here. Continuing to post, while not responding to simple questions about your posted data, amounts to disruption. Crum375 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I go away for 12 hours and this lot occurs. I am finding this entire discussion impossible to follow - the answers are so full of accusations of 'skewing' and other such vagaries that it renders it pretty much useless. Please can Viriditas restate his answer so we can end this back and forth 'go and read it' 'I can't find it, repost it' nonsense.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor and invite the entire membership of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights to this discussion? I only see three of you here. —Viriditas | Talk 23:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You can only see two of us here: Localzuk and myself. The other two have nothing to do with it, so you'll have to find another reason to discredit them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm noting here that Localzuk left two comments on Viriditas's talk page in an effort to reason with him, [54] [55] which Viriditas has removed with the comments "intimidation" and "harassment." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite worrying that civil comments asking for Viriditas to clarify/repost his answer so we can move on have been called intimidation and harassment. How else am I supposed to make a civil suggestion?-Localzuk^(talk) 00:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Far more worrying, is that when an editor answers a question and then is told they didn't several times. I'm sorry you don't like the answers. Try reading the discussion page. —Viriditas | Talk 01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, Arkayne, Localzuk, and I have all said that we don't understand or can't see your answers, so there's no point in continuing to repeat that they are somewhere that no one can find, and which you won't provide diffs for. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's it? Four editors? Surely you can recruit more members from WikiProject Animal rights and articles I've been working on to harass me than just four? Anyhoo, I've answered all of the questions asked of me, so no matter how many times you claim that I haven't, you're free to look above this text and see that I have. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Search engine hits

SlimVirgin's

Just to be clear, by every measure, the Animal Liberation Front is the most common use of ALF on Google, Google News, and Google Books. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Google.com (the U.S. site)

• "'Animal liberation front' ALF": 132,000 [56]
  • "'Animal' ALF": 1,120,000 [57]

• "'Assisted living facility' ALF": 43,100 [58]
  • "'Assisted living' ALF": 99,900 [59]

• "'Alien life form' ALF": 18,600 [60]
  • "'Alien' ALF": 859,000 [61]
  • "ALF 'television show'": 31,400 (many not for the Alf show being discussed here, but for others) [62]

Google.co.uk (results are the same as for the U.S.)

• "'Animal liberation front' ALF": 132,000 [63]
  • "'Animal' ALF": 1,120,000 [64]

• "'Assisted living facility' ALF": 43,100 [65]
  • "'Assisted living' ALF": 100,000 [66]

• "'Alien life form' ALF": 18,600 [67]
  • "'Alien' ALF": 859,000 [68]
  • "ALF 'television show'": 31,400 (many not for the Alf show being discussed here, but for others) [69]

Google News (as of June 13 00:56 UTC)

• "'Animal liberation front' ALF": 56 [70]
  • "'Animal' ALF": 60 [71]

• "'Assisted living facility' ALF": 2 [72]
  • "'Assisted living' ALF": 2 [73]

• "'Alien life form' ALF": 176 [74]
  • "'Alien' ALF": 4 [75]
  • "ALF 'television show'": 1, and it's for the Animal Liberation Front. [76]

Google Books

• "'Animal liberation front' ALF": 296 [77]
  • "'Animal' ALF": 803 [78]

• "'Assisted living facility' ALF": 48 [79]
  • "'Assisted living' ALF": 73 [80]

• "'Alien life form' ALF": 22 [81]
  • "'Alien' ALF": 738 [82]
  • "ALF 'television show'": 22 (many not for the Alf show being discussed here, but for others) [83]

Problems with SlimVirgin's search results

SlimVirgin claims that "by every measure, the Animal Liberation Front is the most common use of ALF on Google, Google News, and Google Books." This is clearly not the case. Sorted by count. —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Google

• king ALF: 1,300,000 [84]
• "Animal" ALF": 1,120,000
  • Again, skewed. Removing references to animal rights and all the rest but keeping animal, I get around 917,000 hits that have nothing to do with the Animal Liberation Front.[85]
• "television" ALF: 1,060,000 [86]
• "Alien" ALF: 850,000[87]
  • Alien Life Form also refers to Extraterrestrial life per acronym and encyclopedia refs.
• "programming" ALF: 552,000 [88]
• "Alta" ALF -"Alf Engen": 505,000 [89]
• king sweden "ALF": 323,000 [90]
• "liver" ALF: 231,000 [91]
• "mythology" ALF: 184,000 [92]
• "tv series" ALF: 160,000 [93]
• "'Animal liberation front' ALF": 132,000
  • Taking five minutes to just remove blogs, personal websites, and activist groups I can chop 10,000 hits off right off the bat [94] Now, what if I spent an hour or two hours? I could probably get this grossly inflated figure down to 50,000 or less. This is most interesting when one sees 97,900 hits for "Assisted living" and ALF. My prediction is that the removal of all blogs, activist websites maintained by ALF supporters, web forums, and other nn sites would push the true figure below assisted living.[95]
• "Assisted living" ALF: 97,900 [96]
• "Assisted living facility ALF: 42,600 [97]
• "liver failure" ALF: 32,800 [98]
• "ALF "television show": 31,300[99]
• "American Liver Foundation" ALF: 21,000 [100]
• "Alien life form" ALF": 18,600[101]
• "American LaFrance" ALF: 10,600 [102]
• "American Legacy Foundation" ALF: 622 [103]

Google News

• "television" ALF: 25,600[104]
• "alien" ALF: 11,100[105]
• "animal liberation front" ALF: 2,100 [106]
• "Alien life form" ALF": 176 [107]
• "American Legacy Foundation" ALF: 103 [108] - sorry, the data you are proffering is under dispute. When it is agreed upon by a current consensus, it will be re-added. Until then, please do not remove my comments. Thanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Google Books

• "television" ALF: 663 [109]
• "Animal liberation front" ALF": 296 [110]
• alf alien television: 138 [111]
• "American Liver Foundation" ALF: 81 [112]
• "'Assisted living' ALF": 73 [113]
• "Assisted living facility' ALF": 48[114]
• "Acute Liver Failure" ALF: 48 [115]
• "Alien life form" ALF: 22[116]
• "television show" ALF:22 [117]

Google Scholar

• "Acute Liver Failure" ALF: 1,060[118]
• "Assisted living" ALF: 299 [119]
• "Animal Liberation Front" ALF: 271 [120]

Alf TV as a search, 2 Million.

Page history

Does anyone mind if I restore the page history? It was deleted to make way for a page move, but the result is that we've lost the previous contribs. These show Viriditas several times moving the page to ALF (disambiguation), but then when I moved it there, reverting me and arguing that it was inappropriate (which is what sparked this dispute). I feel this shows that this current dispute was sparked by ownership issues, rather than anything substantive. However, admins aren't supposed to use their admin tools when engaged in a content dispute, so I want to check here first whether anyone has an objection to the history being restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was sparked by you regarding a simple, procedural Request for move. Anyone can visit Talk:ALF/Archive 1 and view it. The page history became lost because you have been doing "move over redirects" which to the best of my knowledge deletes the history. (see this) User:Bkonrad tried to explain this to you, but you accused him of abusing his admin tools, just like you are accusing me of "owning" this page. Personally, I find these types of accusations disruptive. I wish you could just focus on the topic, and follow the advice laid out in Step 1. I'll repeat Step 1 below to get everyone back on track, but I would ask that you please stop attacking me and accusing admins of abusing their tools. As for the page moves, you are confusing two separate instances of page moves. This is very easy to explain. In the former page move that you describe, the dab page was moved to ALF (disambiguation) because that is where it was stored at the time. In the latter, the consensus of the requested move was not to use the location, and the page was moved to the base name. So, when you reverted back to the pre-consensus version, myself and several others reverted you. I hope that clears the issue up for you and we can move on. —Viriditas | Talk 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted any history. Bkonrad did a few days ago. Stemonitis did in May. And Commander Keane did in November. [121] It was you who was reverting me according to the history.

Anyway, my query was whether anyone objects if I restore it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim, look at your logs. How many times have you performed a "move over redirect"? Each time you did that, the page history was deleted. Read the link I gave you above. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, the logs speak for themselves. My name is not on them. Bkonrad's is. I was very careful not to delete when I moved, because admins aren't allowed to do that if involved in a dispute, which is why I was concerned that Bkonrad had done it. Why must you turn every single point into a row? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

According to that link, a move over redirect will only work if the 'history' is the original creation edit of the redirect. It will not work if there is more than one edit in the history. Crum375 03:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why Bkonrad had to delete it to make the move, which is something admins are meant to avoid when involved in a content dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Slim, here are your logs:

1. 18:49, 9 June 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:ALF to Talk:ALF (disambiguation) over redirect
2. 18:49, 9 June 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved ALF to ALF (disambiguation) over redirect (
3. 02:31, 9 June 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:ALF to Talk:ALF (disambiguation) over redirect (talk page needs to be with the dab page)
4. 01:36, 9 June 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:ALF to Talk:ALF (disambiguation) over redirect
5. 01:36, 9 June 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved ALF to ALF (disambiguation) over redirect
6. 02:22, 22 May 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:ALF to Talk:ALF (disambiguation) over redirect
7. 02:22, 22 May 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved ALF to ALF (disambiguation) over redirect
8. 01:16, 20 March 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved Talk:ALF to Talk:ALF (disambiguation)
9. 01:16, 20 March 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) moved ALF to ALF (disambiguation) over redirect

Now, what happened to the page history? —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs tell you nothing about the page history deletions, because the moves didn't involve deletions. Look at the deletion log for the article. How many times do you need to be told the same thing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your move over redirect which apparently deleted the page history: "The edit history of the page with the intermediate title shows the latest move only. The information about the first move (including user name, date and time) is lost: it is no longer in any page history or on any watchlist or Related Changes page, and not even in User contributions...There is no record at all of a "move war" (except again, on Recent Changes) unless documented on the talk pages." —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question here (Viriditas, please stop trying to bury this): does anyone mind if I restore the page history? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations against me. I would love for you to restore the page history that you deleted (unknowingly) when you performed the move over redirects. Please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, if move over redirect can delete a history where there is more than one edit, then the information here is wrong. Crum375 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you don't know what you're talking about. Look at the deletion logs. I have not deleted this page ever. I'm not going to continue to reply to this, because you're trolling and I'm feeding. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't show up in the deletion log. Tell me, if I'm wrong (which I'm willing to admit) what happened to the page history? —Viriditas | Talk 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bkonrad deleted it to make way for a page move. Why don't you look at the deletion log? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I first observed the missing page history and move over redirects at 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[122] You can see my comments in the archive. Bkonrad deleted ALF at 03:11, 9 June 2007. This page history is intact, as it was moved to ALF (disambiguation) and then simply moved back. Could you explain what dates you are looking for, because I think we are looking for the same history. —Viriditas | Talk 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, why are you accusing SlimVirgin of deleting the history, when she clearly did not do so? If you said it in error, you should just apologize and move on, but this dragged out accusation of something SlimVirgin clearly did not do is beyond inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can restore the history and keep it coherent. Since there were edits going on when the page was at other titles, the page will seem to disappear and reappear without reason. What's the point you're trying to make? Please don't hold it against me that I supported the move of the dab page to this title, but I'm really not sure I understand. It appears that what he did was change the redirect, not move the page. That causes the page to show up at WP:MDP, which eventually can convince someone to move the dab page to the plain title, and that's what he's been suggesting. Dekimasuよ! 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 1

By agreement above, everyone is on the same page that there should only be one dab page. the Alf page and Talk:Alf page redirect to different places. Step 1 is, let's fix the name space problems and move this page, and talk page to Alf.

Step 2, make sure all the relevant existing other dab pages are referenced. I think that is only Alf (name).

Step 3, is to list the disambiguation terms. At ~10 terms or so, it's nice to divide the terms by something, either subject matter headings (Dan), or by whether it is a noun vs TLA (Sam). After some basic headings come in, sort them alphabetically, not by importance, percieved popularity, or some external criteria. Don't use pipe text to hide the disambiguation titles.

Step 4, is to argue about the inclusiveness of the terms. That's happening now. Take a step back please, and take care of readers before taking care of your own passions.

Any admin can take care of Step 1. Step 2 is probably already done. Step 3 should be alphabetized for now, and creation of headings later. For a way out of the argument on step 4, I suggest first being inclusive. Dabs exist for user convenience. Any reasonable claim for inclusion should be entertained. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 3 is by perceived popularity, according to WP:MOSDAB. Breaking them up into subjects, when the list is long enough to warrant that, doesn't mean that the most commonly sought meanings shouldn't be at the top. -- JHunterJ 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors. I believe there is consensus for this format. —Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for Alf to redirect to Alf (name). This dab page should be ALF, as most or all of the acronyms are ALF or A.L.F. I have no problem with headings, but whenever I introduced some, I was reverted. My only concern is that the most common ones be at the top so they're easy to find. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the top few entries in notability/useage must be on top for easiest access. The rest can be broken down into subjects. The idea is to make the average trip for the average user as quick and easy as possible. Crum375 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose. All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes. —Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're pretty much on your own in insisting that the common ones not be at the top. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask you to please avoid referring to me and just address the topic? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have become the topic with your behavior. It's like watching someone commit wikisuicide, to be frank. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please control yourself. Just use this section to discuss the topic. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, I have to tell you, your behavior is extremely disruptive here. I am not sure if you are doing it on purpose or not, but the end result is the same. Crum375 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at my disruptive behavior, here:"I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors. I believe there is consensus for this format...Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose. All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes." I don't see anything disruptive there, but I do see a lot of attacks and accusations from Slim after I asked her to control herself. Is that too difficult to do? —Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you provide us bogus numbers and refuse to explain them; we spend hours trying to get you to provide an explanation. You then say you've answered, but refuse to provide a diff with the answer. You claim that SlimVirgin deleted the history, and keep defending it, and finally admit that your claim and explanation are wrong. You add non-notable entries galore, just to create clutter. At some point, this kind of behavior will have to stop, or you will have to stop editing on this site. Crum375 04:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting story, but no, I don't see the truth in any of what you claim. Could I ask you to get back on topic please? I'm just interested in getting back on track here. As I said, "I support SchmuckyTheCat's proposal for collation with headings; this is also supported by Radiant, Arcayne, and several other editors. I believe there is consensus for this format...Notabiilty and usage is problematic as many editors like myself and Yom have pointed out. Many of these terms are highly notable, whereas proving usability of the acronym has become a divisive issues that serves no useful purpose. All of these groups use ALF. I support collation to avoid any future problems or disputes." —Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior issues are unrelated to this specific issue. A dab page must ensure expedited trips for the most common visitors. The way to do that is by ensuring that the highly notable or most used entries and acronyms get the most prominent spot, i.e. at the top. The rest can follow. Crum375 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The most common visitors could be people looking for many different things, from King Alf, to ALF the alien or the television show, to perhaps the programming language, or even the Alta airport. Some might be looking for information about Acute Liver Failure, the American Liver Foundation, Assisted Living Facilities, or even IEEE standard 1603. To best serve the interests of the reader, collation helps give the page order, and navigation is assured simply by scrolling up or down. Furthermore, placement issues are solved. As an active editor, I appreciate collated dab pages, as that is what I have come to expect from a reliable reference work. Notability, importance, and hot issues in the media change (as Yom explained succinctly) so we should insure that we have one foot in the past and one foot in the future. Collation helps everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 05:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we need to prioritize them by expected traffic volume, which logically would be correlated to notability and use. Then we take the top few, give them quick access at the top. The rest can be broken down into categories and listed below if there are a lot of them. Crum375 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Expected traffic volume, while a noble and lofty goal, can only be estimated. And then, we must take into the account the actual notability of the terms, not the sensationalist use of acronyms in the media, or its proliferation through non-notable websites. That is why the importance of the topic is far more important than media usage of an acronym. Usage cannot accurately be determined (Yom addressed this point). I would like to see what other controversial disambiguation pages have settled on as a solution, however I am partial to collation because it is intrinsically neutral and does not impose an arbitrary guess as to usage of a term, which changes like the wind. We must think about the future, not just the present. —Viriditas | Talk 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with some of what you are saying. We need to focus on the issue generically, not this specific case. And getting the expected traffic volume is guess work, but any reasonable intelligent guess will do. As it happens we have fairly objective tools to estimate the traffic, and those are the ones we should use pending availability of better ones. Just ignoring notability and going into categories is giving up totally, and will force the readers looking for a 1M ghit item to wade through obscure categories and entries that have minimal use. Crum375 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have restructured the DAB page as per my earlier suggestions to do so. This follows other DAB pages, such as Ed. The disambiguation terms are divided into two initial categories, alf (as name) and ALF (as acronym). After this initial arrangement, the terms are further categorized alphabetically by use. If other terms belong in the DAB page that have yet to be addded, please go ahead and do so. I converted the See Also of ALFSEA to an entry under the Institutions: Military category. CHeers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted before I saw your post here, so sorry for not discussing it first. Please read my edit summary, though. It's better to base the structure on the suggestions in the manual of style than on other disambiguation pages that may or may not be in top shape. I think splitting the page into sections has merits, but text without links won't help people navigate to articles, and entries shouldn't be included if "Alf" is just included in their names - they should be included only if the thing being mentioned is often referred to as "ALF" or "Alf". Links should be arranged roughly according to frequency, per the manual of style. Dekimasuよ! 11:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment that it needs to follow the MOS, and I submit that it does so. Your argument is that ording by usage is more in line with MOS, but missed the actual wording wherein it suggests that ording in that way is applicable in most cases. It reads on to note that longer lists "may be broken up by subject area". As this list of disambiguations is quite long, it is appropriate, as per MOS to break it up into sections. Utilizing an alphabetical ording system for the categories and subcategories (wherein uses within a category are arranged alphabetically as well) sidesteps the possibility of interpretational error or bias which has been the source of a great deal of wasted time and arguments.

I submit that this is the best solution, as the greater part of the discussionhere has gone precisely nowhere. This matches closely another DAB page (ed) which has seen multiple editorial efforts and very little in the way of discussion/arguement/keening since it's inception and nothing since December of '06. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dekimasu, although you can't fault Arcayne for moving Alison Moyet to the top! :) —Viriditas | Talk 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we were talking at cross purposes here. It's possible to roughly follow the order of frequency and split the page into sections at the same time, but I'm not sure the current edit increased usability. I'm still not sure about adding the places in Germany that have "Alf" as just a part of their names: "List other entries of which Title is a part in a "See also" section unless the subject is very frequently referred to simply by the single name." Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the part about the German city names; my experience is primary - while backpacking through Europe after college, the English nicknamed Alfreton and Alford both 'Alf', and Blankenrath was also nicknamed 'Alf'. I don't speak German, so Alf might not be a nickname, but rather a descriptive term, like 'Mt.' for 'mount' or a simple translation of the word 'of'. Someone who is a native speaker of German could weigh in. I am not opposed to removing them from the article for the time being.

As for readability/usability, I am of the opinion that the splitting into sections saves time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne. It's okay to split up a page into sections when it's particularly long. You were incorrect in your statement as to the inclusion of terms with "Alf" in the name that aren't primarily known as "Alf/ALF," though. See WP:MOSDAB#Order_of_entries:

2.Articles with the item as part of the name (Computer keyboard as part of a Keyboard dab page)

ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant thing there is that you might call a computer keyboard "keyboard", but you wouldn't call, say, the Big Dipper just "big", so it shouldn't appear on a dab page for "big". The sentence I quoted above was from MOSDAB as well. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the edit SlimVirgin made today to pull the two most common uses out of the lists and leave the other categorization alone. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)