Talk:QQ (disambiguation)

QQ Magazine

Praxidicae (talk · contribs), Leschnei (talk · contribs): QQ Magazine first was deleted because I added citaitons. My bad, but a bit harsh to delete the entry because too much citations was added. So I put it back and added blue link, intnded to point at List of LGBT periodicals#Out of print. Also that entry was deleted, with justifications MOS:DAB and WP:DDD. But; the entry helps to find QQ as an LGBT periodical (second only to its own aritcle) so DAB is fulfilled. DDD is more open, but to me it is clear that the entry fulfil the do:s and that none of the don't:s was pinned. Please advice. LittleGun (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If changing the order of the information in the entry to:

QQ Magazine, a gay lifestyle magazine, (1969 – ca. 1982)

would that make anything clearer? LittleGun (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleGun and Praxidicae: When I removed QQ Magazine it was because of the external link. I didn't find the listing in List of LGBT periodicals - an oversight on my part. I think that the phrasing that LittleGun has above fits with WP:DABMENTION and that the entry should be added back. Leschnei (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added back, according to justifications above. LittleGun (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter quad

64.246.153.174 (talk) is insisting on including this entry. There is no mention of the acronym QQ in the article Quadrangle (geography), so per WP:DABACRONYM and MOS:DABACRO the entry should not be included. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, friend. The article Quadrangle (geography) does in fact include the term "quarter quadrangle". I added it there after your first objection, and I backed it up with three references. The Digital orthophoto quadrangle article includes the term, too, though that is not my doing; it was last edited in June of 2021.

The term "quarter quadrangle" is not a neologism nor is it obscure nor rarely used. A quick web search reveals 10s of millions of search results: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quarter%20quadrangle Searching further on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=quarter%20quadrangle&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 turns up Orthophoto and National Agriculture Imagery Program, too.

This is a non-controversial, common term for a 1:12,000 scale 3.75x3.75-minute map. 64.246.153.174 (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But in the article Quadrangle (geography) there is no mention of the acronym "QQ", let alone any indication that the term "quarter quadrangle" is commonly (or even occasionally) referred to as "QQ". That's the point. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with the IP here—a simple Google search shows a fair amount of use for "QQ" in this context, including by USGS, so I have added the acronym itself to the Quadrangle (geography) article. While WP:DABACRO was a fine response originally, I think that should be enough for this to be included on the dab page now. Dekimasuよ! 12:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was unsourced, and the existing sources do not support it. See WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64, you just reverted for a fourth time, and your edit summary was "rv WP:DISRUPTIVE edit. Once again, there is *nothing* in the cited sources to support this". From my view, you're being disruptive by repeatedly and rapidly reverting the edits by two different editors. Please stop.

The other problem I see is being overly pedantic. Surely at this point you've viewed all the above links, and you know that all three of Digital orthophoto quadrangle, Orthophoto, and National Agriculture Imagery Program include the abbreviation "QQ"; there's even a redirect from DOQQ to the DOQ article. Neither I nor Dekimasu have edited any of those articles; they are long standing revisions. But it doesn't make any sense to point this disambiguation page at any of those other articles. It makes sense to point to the general article at Quadrangle (geography).

The MOS you steadfastly points to suggests, "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It points to the IAR article. IAR is policy where the MOS is a guideline.

Please articulate a more reasonable objection, or let this one go. 64.246.153.174 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what WP:BURDEN intends. WP:V notes that removal on these grounds indicates "concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable", which is a separate question from whether an additional source has actually been added in order to verify the content. The acronym is relatively easy to verify, so I did not expect that you were actually questioning its verifiability. Here, an additional cite on a two-letter acronym appears to be overkill for the Quadrangle (geography) article, which is only three paragraphs long and has three cites on that sentence already. However, here and here are the US government using the acronym (USGS, FEMA, and USDA), here and here are published journal articles that use and define it, here is a doctoral dissertation that uses it in captions, here is the US state of Maine.

I arrived here because of your message at WT:MOSDAB asking for input. I don't have any particular interest in this topic and have no need to be "correct" here, but please be willing to receive the input that you asked for without calling it disruptive when it does not coincide with your original thoughts on the subject. Dekimasuよ! 01:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

64.246.153.174, you state above you just reverted for a fourth time and also claim in this edit summary that that was your 4th revert. Please list all three of the others. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dekimasu seems to have found adequate support for this use of the abbreviation, which was the original point of contention. Instead of debating who reverted what how many times, Redrose, it may be time to take a break. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]