From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

William M. Connolley (SAR and Sar not same: add see-also for SAR.)[edit]

Hi, Sar and SAR are different by a matter of alphabetical case. They are both disambiguation pages, not content. I don't understand why putting the contents from SAR into Sar matters at all. Disambiguation pages are a matter of user convenience. Users tend to type in lower case into search bars so Sar shows up first. Why make them make an extra click in order to get to SAR? The only problem I can see is that the two lists could get out of sync. that cn be solved by redirecting SAR to Sar, and I believe that is wht should be done. Is there some policy that a disambiguation page should be case sensitive? SchmuckyTheCat 03:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Will you kindly explain why you've listed SAR on VFD?
  • because it should be merged here. SchmuckyTheCat 02:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I really don't see the point of what you're doing. SAR needs to continue to exist - its an acronym. You can't link from Sar in an article when you mean [[SAR}} it would be silly. So there is no call to delete SAR, at the very worst it needs to remain a redirect. But... I've now decided I care about this and want them to stay separate.
  • why would you purposefully link to a disambiguation page when you can point to the real article? the point is to merge it and redirect the all caps one. SchmuckyTheCat 15:39, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:05, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Because when I'm writing an article I'm likely to write SAR because I've forgotten the exact form for the one I want. None of this explains why you want SAR (or Sar, or whichever it was) deleted.
  • I want it as a redirect to one page that lists all case insensitive disambigs of the three letters sar. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Spiffy. I disagree with you, of course. And until you listed SAR on VFD, I was prepared to let it ride.
  • I listed SAR on VfD because there is no VfMerge. SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)) That sounds really silly, since when you listed it on VFD I'd agreed to accept, though disliking, your preferred version.
  • I didn't see that at the time. It's on the talk page of the other SAR. So is there a reason not to merge it at this point? What's the issue where we have disagreement? SchmuckyTheCat 23:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

policy on abbr and disambig[edit]

I found the relevant policy page that agrees this should not be two pages. See Au for an excellent example.

VfD was obviously the wrong place to have a discussion about a disputed merge. Someone else pointed to that and this discussion was added to disputed merges. The above policy about Disambig and Abbr is pretty clear that this should be one article.

(William M. Connolley 23:15, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Yes, you made things worse by listing it on VFD. As I said, I really didn't undersatnd why. But you did it, and the response is keep don't merge, so you're stuck with that. I don't see anything in the page you quite to support what you're saying. Could you quote the relevant section.

SchmuckyTheCat 00:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) how about the parts that say:

(William M. Connolley 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Err, so why are you making SAR the redirect, given that you think that abbrev replace the others?
  • because Sar is the least case sensitive. don't game the rules, it's obvious what they mean. SchmuckyTheCat 00:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb.
(William M. Connolley 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Usually. Not always. One of the non-usual cases would be pages surviving VFD/merge.
  • bah.

(William M. Connolley 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)) You are removing the VFD notices in your versions: why? Since you yourself started the process. Can't you wait till the result is declared?

  • Because VfD was an inappropriate listing to begin with. I didn't actually complete the listing there, I started it and abandoned it and someone else (Radiant!) completed it. SchmuckyTheCat 00:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VfD and merging[edit]

I'm not standing by the VfD for this page, it didn't reach any consensus anyways. Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation_and_abbreviations brought this page up, where nobody has brought any reason not to merge them. Neither has any objection been made on the requested moves page.

So, if there is some rational and practical objection to these being merged, make it and get someone to agree with you, but don't de-merge them. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I really don't know what you're doing here. First you start a totally pointless VFD, then you ignore its result, which was keep. You're also ignoring the ob jections to merge: which are the obvious: that Acronyms and Things are different. This has been pointed out to you before, so please don't pretend not to have seen it. The talk page you refer to doesn't show consensus. If there should be a merge, which I dispute, then its pretty obvious that Sar should be merged into SAR.
How many times have I said that I didn't complete the VfD listing?
  • 1. VfD was inappropriate, I didn't complete it. It isn't binding.
  • 1a - "Wikipedia isn't a democracy" - Jimbo Wales, see reason 2.
  • 2. Policy exists on what to do with two dab pages that overlap namespace - merge them.
  • 3. I really don't care whether the merge is Sar --> SAR or SAR --> Sar.
No, I don't understand "acronyms and things are different" in the context of dab pages. These are two dab pages, every other case sensitive dab page is merged I am absolutely clueless to how your objection makes any practical difference. Dab pages are for the convenience of the reader - not for organization or definition. Not merging them creates inconvenience for the reader, which is a practical PROBLEM. SchmuckyTheCat 15:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Policy exists" - yes, but that doesn't mean it's set in stone. If you can't even get a simple consensus on VfD that supports the policy, then it's not really a usable policy. --Joy [shallot]
VfD was clearly the wrong place to start this discussion. Adding {{merge}} and {{mergefrom}}, or adding something to either talk page, would have started the discussion, but as we are talking about it now: I think it makes sense to disambiguate sar, Sar and SAR all in the same place (viz/ here) - mb, au, de are good examples of where this is done already, and, to show that it is not just two-letter abbreviations/acronyms, bar too.
As a counter-example, what about cab/CAB? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (refactored slightly)
  • yes, why is cab/CAB a counter-example? That looks like a prime merge candidate. SchmuckyTheCat 16:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, counter-example was misleading: I merely meant to point out that there are some other xxx//XXX examples that are not merged, so this one is not unique. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)) CAB/Cab looks like a good example of where people feel no need to merge different things, just like SAR/Sar.
William, you're still reverting this change. I've shown you the policy page about Acronyms and Disambiguation that makes this clear. I brought it up on dab talk pages, and I threw it on the village pump. Wikipedia policy is that dab pages are there for user convenience regardless of what "things" are in them. If you want to revert this and keep it separate, go argue on the policy pages.

SchmuckyTheCat 14:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is currently merged at SAR. I had brought it back to sar, but on reflection there are fewer sars and they are relatively obscure compared to the SARs - there is some more discussion on my talk page.
See also tea (disambiguation) and TEA (disambiguation) - see Talk:tea (disambiguation). There are loads of TLAs. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)