Talk:SLR

Alphabetical order

Please keep the listing in alphabetical order. Thanks. 2404:E800:E61E:452:F93B:EF49:CD4D:963C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DABMENTION

@Bkonrad: You are being unhelpfully bureaucratic here. We don't follow guidelines just because they are guidelines, we follow them because they help to build the encyclopaedia. WP:DABMENTION says this; If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. Do you really believe that a reader who has looked up SLR, and then decided that Sea level rise is the article they want to read will not understand why they have been taken there and will not "find information about the sought topic". DABMENTION is clearly meant to cover cases where the sought topic is only a part, possibly a small part, of the page targetted. It's a useless rule where the whole page is about the sought topic and its patently obvious to the reader why they have been linked there. If ever there was a clearcut case for WP:IAR then this is it. SpinningSpark 21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that justification allows including any and every possible initialism regardless of whether a topic is known as such. No, there's good reason for the rule. If as you say "Sources verifying this are easily found", then it should be trivial to add this to the article. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be trivially easy for you to check for yourself [1][2][3][4][5]. You did not answer my question, do you believe that the reason given for the guideline (it's a guideline, not a rule) in DABMENTION applies in this case? The reason given was definitely not to stop "including any and every possible initialism". SpinningSpark 12:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. I've no interest or special knowledge in sea level rise. As you seem to be more familiar with the topic, please do edit that article such that the use of the initialism is supported. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need any special knowledge to see that the initialism is used. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Not recognising that is being deliberately uncollegial. Imo, adding an initialism that the article does not actually go on to use is just adding unhelpful clutter, especially in the lead first sentence. The clutter in some articles has got to ridiculous proportions. As for BURDEN, I've met that by providing four references that directly support the material. I'll add them to the dab page if you like. SpinningSpark 18:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but disambiguation pages are not meant to be collections of what you might know to be true but are not mentioned in any existing Wikipedia article. References do not belong on disambiguation pages. The rule is very simple and clear. older ≠ wiser 09:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing from rules, I'm arguing from what is beneficial to the encyclopaedia. Plus you are putting up a straw man argument. I am not proposing that dabs should be "collections of what you might know to be true but are not mentioned in any existing Wikipedia article". Of course I'm not, and I understand perfectly why generally that should not be done. Rather, I have put up a case for this one item in particular and it does not go against the stated reason for the guideline. Will you accept a third opinion? SpinningSpark 19:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your position for this case, but it is a slippery slope. I'm happy to have a third opinion. This has been discussed many times on various disambiguation project pages. And it does in fact go against WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABACRO: When considering articles to include in the list, it is important that each individual entry is referred to by its respective abbreviation within its article. older ≠ wiser 19:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]