Talk:Alf (name)

Viriditas

V, for some reason whenever I make an edit to a disambig page that has anything to do with Alf or ALF, you revert me. It doesn't matter what I do, you want something else. It has been going on for months. What exactly is the problem? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not V, but: why should Alf redirect to Alf and Alfhild? If it is to redirect, there needs to be a consensus on the primary topic. If there is no consensus, this should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf is the most famous character with that name, a figure from Norse mythology, and possibly the first known use of it, similar to the biblical characters Sarah and Miriam. So I was treating Alf the same way as we treat those names. What do you see as the difference? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Would people please discuss this instead of reverting? I can't see why there are objections to this. Viriditas only added Alf to ALF (disambiguation) because he was trying to bury Animal Liberation Front as a WP:POINT, leading to an absurd dab page. [1] He's been doing it for about a year, perhaps longer, and has now transferred his attentions to this page, for reasons best known to himself. I don't think anyone should support this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that your allegation is completely false and can be seen in this diff:[2] showing the difference between my first edit to the dab page and the last edit by User:Rmrfstar. As you can see from that diff link, "Alf" was already present in the dab article - before I even began editing it. The edit history shows that User:Wik addded it a year or so before I even edited it the page.[3] You know I love you Slim, but this nonsense has got to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 13:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would I try to "bury Animal Liberation Front as a WP:POINT"? Could you please provide some evidence for that accusation? In fact, the complete opposite is true. According to the edit history, this was originally a disambiguation page that you continued to redirect to Animal Liberation Front, against the consensus of multiple editors. That is what has been going on for a year. I've merely been returning it to its original state. So, this has nothing to do with my "burying" anything, and everything to do with you redirecting ALF to Animal Liberation Front against consensus, which you are still doing today. Please don't blame me for your choice to redirect a dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of the Norse figure. The only usage I'm familiar with is the old TV series. More evidence that this base name should be the disambiguation page (which is was even as far back 22:16, 7 September 2005). I support the base name being a dab when there is no clear primary topic, as in this case. -- JHunterJ 20:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The old television series is an acronym, not a person's name. That's why I separated the two. In addition, it would be very Americo-centric to prefer an American television show that stopped 17 years ago to the name of a figure from mythology. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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. And I agree completely that the old television series is not the primary topic, which is why the disambiguation page should be at the base name. -- JHunterJ 20:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ. It is unusual to distinguish between disambiguation pages based on capitalization alone (regardless of whether the term may also be a name). OTOH, if the list of names became lengthy, it might warrant moving to a separate page such as List of people named Alf, but that doesn't seem warranted here at the moment. older ≠ wiser 21:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Bkonrad, please read my post above. It has nothing to do with capitalization. The distinction is between the man's name Alf, and the acronym A.L.F (ALF). Why do you feel we must not make that distinction? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And please read what I wrote. For disambiguation purposes, that a term might be used as a personal name is largely irrelevant, except in cases where the list becomes so lengthy as to overwhelm other entries. Aside from that semantic distinction, the only difference between Alf and ALF is a matter of capitalization. Current practice is that such pages shouldn't be separated, and I don't see that there is any good reason to do so in this particular case. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm de-watching this set for sanity purposes. Give me a yell if anything I've said bears repeating here or elsewhere. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are saying the distinction between a man's name and an acronym is irrelevant, but my question is why. Why is it irrelevant, in your opinion? (It's not that Alf might be "used as a personal name," as you put it: it is a well-known man's name.) Also, you mention current practise: can you give another example of a name and acromym being equated on a disambiguation page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of disambiguation, yes, the distinction is irrelevant. When entering a term into search box or even in ordinary typing, capitalization can be inconsistent or haphazard. I'm not aware of very many personal names that are also acronymns. SAM is one example. I'd be very surprised if there were not others, but none come immediately to mind. older ≠ wiser 21:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Found another: SARA. OTOH, an example where ambiguous usage is distinguished by capitalization (though not strictly because it is a personal name) is Ace and ACE. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, so we don't really have a current practise if there are only two examples. As for the distinction again, you keep saying it is irrelevant, but without an argument. My argument is (a) that a name and an acronym are conceptually different and there's no reason for Wikipedia to ignore that distinction, and (b) that observing the distinction makes each page less cluttered, which is a good thing for a dab page in particular. Viriditas wants the clutter because he is trying to hide Animal Liberation Front. Look at his edits to this and related pages going back a year or so, and you'll see what I mean. It's a WP:POINT, pure and simple, and I'm surprised to see you support it.

What are your arguments for ignoring the distinction? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It [the distinction between Alf and ALF] is irrelevant because 1) usage around capitalization can be inconsistent 2) people typing terms into search boxes can be haphazard and 3) it may be confusing to have disambiguations for what are essentially the same letters on different pages. What is the benefit of separating them. I see only disadvantages. Your issues are with Viriditas are irrelevant as well. The issues at hand are 1) whether ALF and Alf are ambiguous terms. 2) whether there is any primary topic and 3) whether Alf and ALF, if ambiguous and without a primary topic, should share the same disambiguation page. I think my take on all three issues are clear {1, yes, 2, no, 3, yes). I think having two disambiguation pages for what are essentially the same three letters is needlessly confusing and produces zero benefit. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue with Viriditas is not irrelevant, as it's the only reason this started, and the only reason you are here.

When you say in the first sentence that "it" is irrelevant, what do you mean? And once again, this has nothing to do with capitalization. It has to do with one being a name and the other an acromym, two entirely different things, just like ACE and Ace (disambiguation), which you pointed out yourself. I fail to see why you're so determined to undo my work, except for the fact that Virditas has asked you to. You should not support anyone who is engaged in WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never been engaged in WP:POINT at any time on Wikipedia. Please stop making false accusations about me and stick to the topic. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're known for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another false accusation that distracts from the topic. I've never engaged in WP:POINT at any time on Wikipedia, nor can you show that I have. Please stop making false accusations about other editors and stick to the topic. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

<< back to left margin << No, the issues you have with Viriditas ARE entirely irrelevant. It is entirely irrelevant how I came to the discussion here. I know absolutely nothing about Viriditas and have no interest in whatever POINT you might think he is pursuing. I work a lot with disambiguation pages and it is my opinion (shared by many others who maintain disambiguation pages) that there is little benefit to distinguishing pages based on capitalization. That is the only relevant difference from the perspective of disambiguation. To be honest, there is a lot less consistency than I expected. Here is a very limited sampling:

• Amy is purely about the name and includes a list of people with that name, Amy (disambiguation) is for everything else, including AMY
• Ada and ADA distinguish capitalization, though Ada is not strictly about the human name
• Ann (which redirects to Anna) and ANA distinguish capitalization
• Ben and BEN distinguish capitalization
• Bob and BOB share a page (although in this case they might be improved by separating)
• Bud (disambiguation) and BUD are separate and contain considerable overlap -- both need cleanup
• Cal and CAL share a page, although the only references to Cal as a human name are indirect
• Dan and DAN share a page
• Deb and DEB share a page
• Don and DON share a page (though when I came across it, DON had only one item on it, whereas Don had other possibilities, so I redirected)
• Emma (disambiguation) covers both Emma and EMMA
• Eli and ELI distinguish capitalization, though they probably should be together ELI has only two items, one of which is on Eli and one that is not and they are not cross-linked
• Emm and EMM share a page, though there are no instances of usage as Emm aside from a curious circular redirect back to EMM
• Hal and HAL share a page
• Ina and INA share a page
• Pam and PAM share a page
• Alice and ALICE distinguish capitalization, though the list of "Alice" entries is very long relative to the ALICE entries
• Amos disambiguates for AMOS
• Eliza serves to disambiguate for ELIZA
• Elisa (disambiguation) serves to disambiguate both Elisa and ELISA

One thing I noticed in this (and this was not a conscious selection bias on my part), is that many of the pages that do distinguish based on capitalization either 1) have the page exclusively about the human name, as with Amy or 2) one or both of the capitalizations have a lengthy list of entries and it makes some sense to separate them. Another observation though, is that on many of the pages that do distinguish based on capitalization, there is often repetition between the pages and significant gaps (in that an acronymn entry might turn up on the mixed case page, but not on the all caps page--and many times the pages are not even cross-linked).

At the present time, I just don't see that entries for either Alf or ALF are so numerous as to make it difficult to identify them in a combined list. older ≠ wiser 03:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I'm working with User:Crum375 to make the list shorter by removing non-notable entries. —Viriditas | Talk 12:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DAB#Page naming conventions says "[u]sually, there should be just one disambiguation page for all cases (upper- or lower-case) and variant punctuation.' --Kusunose 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kusunose, this isn't just a question of upper and lower case. One is a man's name, and the other an acronym. Whether the letters are upper or lower case is a red herring in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the difference in capitalization is precisely the case. That one capitalization happens to be used as a name is not particularly important for disambiguation purposes. You've turned Alf (disambiguation) into a list of people named "Alf", I don't particularly object to, though it should be named something like List of people named Alf and the two capitalization still be treated together on the same page. older ≠ wiser 11:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But why? I've never seen anything like this in my entire time on Wikipedia. I decided yesterday to create a dab page for the name Alf, because when I last looked at this a few weeks ago, I saw how many Alfs there were. Suddenly, the three of you turn up, no doubt because Viriditas asked you to, to try to thwart it. You redirect, you remove material, you remove links, you revert. I find it utterly bizarre. Why not leave people alone to add their content, while you go off and add yours? What difference is the existence of this dab page making to you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:DAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, a disambiguation page is not the place for a list of people named X, especially when it becomes long. If you want an article for people named Alf, then you should name it as Alf (name) or Alf (given name) as suggested in the guideline. I also thought to name it as List of people named Alf but it seems List of people named X is not a common naming convention. --Kusunose 12:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting Slim's accusations to rest

If the edit history is intact, my original edits can be seen here:[4]. One can clearly see that my great crime, according to Slim, was adding five entries, alpha sorting, and formatting: Australian Labour Federation, Australian Lebanese Foundation, Alternative Liquid Fuel Industries, American Leprosy Foundation, and American Liver Foundation. That's the extent of my great crimes. Now, prior to this great transgression, the version of the dab page from 07:11, 1 September 2005 was ok for her [5], as was the version from 16:29, 7 April 2006[6]. Both of those versions listed Animal Liberation Front on top, without collation. So by adding five entries to a dab page and collating this material, I am guilty of WP:POINT. Does that make sense to everyone? —Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what you did in an effort to bury the ALF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize how silly you sound, Slim? How is using the reference work, "ALF. Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary" an "effort to bury the ALF"? Can you not see how your POV is overshadowing external reality? My effort was to expand a dab page. Why do you think I am concerned with ALF in any way? No, the fact is, you continued to redirect the dab page to Animal Liberation Front and I merely restored the dab page that has always existed, long before I ever edited this page - a dab page you agreed with by consent [7][8] until I made an effort to collate the entries. From what I can tell, that collation lowered the placement of Animal Liberation Front from first to twenty-something place, and this is what gave rise to your current conspiracy theory. It's silly, Slim. If your only interest in this dab page is either redirecting to Animal Liberation Front or placing that group at the top of the list, then I suggest that you might have a conflict of interest that is at odds with Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines. My only interest is improving this encyclopedia. —Viriditas | Talk 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You first turned up on April 7, 2006 to undo my direct of ALF to Animal Liberation Front. You did it again on May 12 and again on September 18, 2006. At 02:22 on May 22, 2007 (an edit now deleted for some reason; admins see here, I redirected ALF to ALF (disambiguation) and argued on talk that ALF was most used by reliable sources to refer to the AR group, and that it was the best known acronym on the page. Just over one hour later, at 03:38, you created this mess, full of red links and acronyms no one had ever heard of, as a WP:POINT to bury the ALF. Anyone wanting only to improve Wikipedia would not have added those entries.

By the way, why are a lot of the edits to this page visible only to admins? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I undid your redirect to ALF; it wasn't the primary dab. We've been over this several dozen times. —Viriditas | Talk 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Links

Bkonrad, you keep removing links, citing the MoS. Can you show me which section of the MoS you're referring to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. older ≠ wiser 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they're just advising against overlinking. There's no harm in linking to something directly relevant and interesting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the practice is well-established. If you doubt it, ask on the talk page there. older ≠ wiser 22:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you respond to my query about your abuse of admin tools, please? You deleted the ALF dab page to make way for a move. Not only has this lost us some history unnecessarily, but you should not have done it, as you're a principal in the content dispute. Please undo your move and the deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, there were no admin tools involved. When a page is a redirect, you can move the page over the redirect. WikiMedia records a deletion of the redirect. It does not require a separate deletion (and in the case where the redirect is to the target page, I don't think it is even necessary to check the box on the move page). older ≠ wiser 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page without having to delete. If you have to delete, it means you should ask an uninvolved admin to do the move for you. This has been mentioned several times by ArbCom. Any and all use of admin tools to benefit yourself in a content dispute is forbidden. Please undo it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I've solicited opinions on some issues raised here. Hopefully we can keep the focus on substantive issues and avoid petty vindictiveness. Your comments are welcome at Talk:ALF#Request for Comment regarding ALF, Alf, primary topic, and appropriate disambiguation standards. older ≠ wiser 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)