Talk:ALF

Sitcom

The sitcom-specific stuff here needs to be merged with lowercase Alf and moved to ALF (TV show), ALF (sitcom), or ALF (alien) and this page needs to redirect to Alf which disambiguates between Animal Liberation Front, Alf (mythology) and ALF (TV show)/sitcom/alien. Geoffrey 01:39 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I suggest you get to it then, matey!!! quercus robur

I think I have cleaned up all of these that I am sure of JimmB 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front

I've redirected this to the Animal Liberation Front, as that's by far the most common one, and I've put a disambiguation link at the top of that page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not the primary use of the term. Yes, an unrestrained Google search returns Animal Liberation Front as the first hist, but it has many uses as the search return shows. Whether or not the term has been Google bombed or not, I don't know. Most people have no idea who the Animal Liberation Front are, but depending on their age and television habits, they might be able to recall ALF (TV series). Also notice that if one searches Google with a string, the first hit returned is a photo of ALF, the alien. I think the page history clearly demonstrates that there is no consensus for the primary meaning, so the term should redirect to the dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 09:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia:Disambiguation describes this problem. "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." What links here as of this comment is as follows: [1]

   * Situation comedy
   * List of terrorist organisations
   * List of fictional cats
   * Saturday morning cartoon
   * Talk:Alf Garnett
   * Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ
   * Talk:Earth Liberation Front
   * David Ogden Stiers
   * Talk:Animal Liberation Front
   * List of people from Michigan
   * WRAL-TV
   * Chappelle's Show
   * Masters of the Universe
   * Sesamstraße
   * User:The Iconoclast
   * List of Sega Master System games
   * List of catch phrases
   * User:Byrial/Double redirects
   * User:Xphile2868
   * List of acronyms and initialisms: A
   * Len Carlson
   * Adult puppeteering
   * User talk:Jayson Virissimo
   * User:Bonzo the Moon Man
   * User:Jpblo
   * Talk:Rod Coronado
   * Saban
   * Dan Hennessey
   * User:JSmethers/TLA/A
   * User talk:PeterZed
   * Talk:Britches (monkey)
   * User:Spinoza's God
   * User:Crashnburn1988
   * List of fictional crossovers
   * User:*Max*
   * Lewis Arquette
   * User:Killer Panda
   * User:Schmierer/Aktivitäten
   * Talk:Anti-psychiatry/Archive 2

Removing user, talk, and Wikipedia pages and adding name of intended link:

   * Situation comedy - ALF (TV series)
   * List of terrorist organisations - Animal Liberation Front
   * List of fictional cats - ALF (TV series)
   * Saturday morning cartoon - ALF (TV series)
   * David Ogden Stiers - ALF (TV series)
   * List of people from Michigan - ALF (TV series)
   * WRAL-TV - ALF (TV series)
   * Chappelle's Show - ALF (TV series)
   * Masters of the Universe - ALF (TV series)
   * Sesamstraße - ALF (TV series)
   * List of Sega Master System games - ALF (Sega game) based on ALF (TV series)
   * List of catch phrases  - ALF (TV series)
   * List of acronyms and initialisms: Africa Leadership Forum, Alien Life Form (ALF (TV series)), Animal Liberation Front
   * Len Carlson - ALF (TV series)
   * Adult puppeteering  - ALF (TV series)
   * Saban  - ALF (TV series)
   * Dan Hennessey  - ALF (TV series)
   * List of fictional crossovers  - ALF (TV series)
   * Lewis Arquette - ALF (TV series)

Non-linked instances of "ALF" can be found here. Based upon Wikipedia:Disambiguation and the above links, the primary redirect should be ALF (TV series). Therefore, I am changing this redirect accordingly. I've also updated List of terrorist organisations. —Viriditas | Talk 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

After further research, paying closer attention to WP:NCON, WP:DAB, and WP:NCA ("In many cases, though, there is no decision to make, because the acronym has several expansions; meaning that the articles have to be at the spelled-out phrases and the acronym has to be a disambiguation article disambiguating amongst them"), I've come to the conclusion that a redirect to the dab page is more appropriate. —Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And again

Viriditas, there's no question that the most common use of ALF is to describe the Animal Liberation Front. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Going through the web, the academic literature, and print sources, I do not find that to be true. Can you provide some evidence? I just sourced the entire dab page, and will be adding more entries. "ALF" is used to refer to many things. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is used most commonly to refer to the Front. You're denying that only because you have an anti-AR POV. If you could put that to one side, I think you'd agree. If you were to mention ALF to any journalist, they'd assume you meant the Front. Ditto any law enforcement officer, mainstream publisher etc, and this is global, not just in the U.S. Who outside North America has ever heard of ALF the sitcom that stopped running 17 years ago? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never represented any type of "anti-AR POV" at any time on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have consistently and repeatedly demanded accuracy in AR-related articles and categories. "ALF" is used commonly to refer to many things. Why don't you want it to point to the dab page? —Viriditas | Talk 03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You've represented a strong anti-AR POV; and what you were calling for did not resemble accuracy in the opinion of the people who opposed you.

ALF is not used commonly to refer to many things, and the fact that you're having to add phrases with no articles that most people won't have heard of (and likely won't ever hear of) is testimony to that. ALF is understood by most reliable published sources to refer to the Animal Liberation Front. It is the organization for whom the abbreviation is most commonly deployed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've never represented a "strong anti-AR POV" at any time, and I challenge you to show diffs proving as such. It will be impossible for you to do so. As for what "most reliable published sources refer to", it depends on the context of the usage. ALF refers to many things; more than just an organization. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin on this. The series 'Alf' from many years ago is not as widespread as the front. To claim that is preposterous. The little analysis from above doesn't prove anything - just that the show's actors are linked to the page etc... I support redirecting this back to how it was.-Localzuk^(talk) 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the two of you are in agreement, as you are both active members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights. Also, you are misinformed as to the status of redirection. This page was always a disambiguation until SlimVirgin began redirecting this article against the consensus of many editors. You can see the page history for yourself. So, in fact, this page "was" a disambiguation page, not a redirect to Animal Liberation Front. Slim's recent "move over redirect" appears to have resulted in the loss of some of the previous page history, although I am not quite sure if that is or is not the case. I believe it to be so, because there appears to be missing page history entries, although I am willing to admit that I am wrong, if the need arises. Finally, neither you nor SlimVirgin have offered any reason why the term "ALF" should redirect to Animal Liberation Front. As far as I can tell, there is no reason, only strong feelings from the both of you. Please see the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline. "When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such consensus, there is no primary topic page." It would be to your benefit to invite neutral Wikipedians to this discussion, such as editors who are not members of the Animal Rights WikiProject like yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to lend my opinion since I do a lot of my work with dabs, so I will. SlimVirgin's statement that "there is no question" is not a valid argument. Primary topic distinctions are usually done on the basis of links, and Viriditas has shown that the links favor the television series. If someone wants to make a broader statement that the links are not reflective of the preponderance of searches, that's fine too (I attempted a similar argument recently at Talk:Enfield), but the argument can't consist of calling the other editor's opinion "preposterous". WP:DAB notes that "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)"." Please present some form of evidence; for example, my Google search ALF+series got about 1.25 million hits, and ALF+animal got 1.1 million. It's inexact, but it's an attempt at research.

This page has been moved by other administrators to the plain title twice in the last year, because it represented a malplaced disambiguation page. In other words, the status quo is not a redirect from ALF to Animal Liberation Front. My suggestion is to create a standard discussion space suggesting a move from ALF (disambiguation) to ALF, and to list it at WP:RM. Consensus for a move would indicate that there isn't a primary topic. The setup of a disambiguation page shouldn't have anything to do with any (anti-)animal rights agenda, so just show the debate to fully neutral parties. Dekimasuよ! 08:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more things: I have removed dab page entries that had no red or blue links and I've marked the page for cleanup - several of the others are piped, don't have articles, and need to go as well. And the links on the page are supposed to be arranged roughly according to frequency. ALF (TV series) and Animal Liberation Front should certainly be the first two entries here, in some order. Dekimasuよ! 09:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding frequency, the current entry, "Alf is short for the names Alfonso and Alfred" should probably be modified to include a reference to Norse, Viking or Scandinavian names, and bumped up higher per the search results below. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously a question of the most common use of ALF. Asking Google to define it (searching on define:ALF), yields three non-Wikipedia definitions: Jabhat At-Tahrir Al-‘Arabiyya, Alien Life Form, and Australian League Football. The base name ALF should be the dab, and ALF (disambiguation) should be moved there. In other words, I agree with Dekimasu's conclusion. -- JHunterJ 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that the disambiguation page should be located at ALF. The TV show and the animal rights organization should probably get some sort of special billing as the most likely targets. older ≠ wiser 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • PS, I think page does need some cleanup per WP:MOSDAB though. For one thing, piped links are discouraged on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

    Cleaned up pipelinks, references, entries with no WP articles, entries whose articles didn't mention them or ALF, etc. -- JHunterJ 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More search results

10,400 hits from en.wikipedia.org for ALF -Animal -Liberation -Front [2]
 8,190 hits from en.wikipedia.org for ALF -television -Alien -Life -Form -Animal -Liberation -Front [3]
 2,320 hits from en.wikipedia.org for ALF alien OR television OR alien OR life OR force [4]
   667 hits from en.wikipedia.org for Animal Liberation Front [5]
   128 hits from en.wikipedia.org for allintitle: ALF [6]
    93 hits from en.wikipedia.org for ALF Animal Liberation Front [7]
    72 hits from en.wikipedia.org for allintitle: ALF -missing -image -project -mask -adminship -series -user -talk -television -user -talk -Alien -Life -Form -Animal -Liberation -Front [8]

—Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ALF (disambiguation) → ALF — A request is made to move ALF (disambiguation) to the dab page ALF, due to its alleged status as a malplaced disambiguation page; the article has been moved twice in the last year for this reason. WikiProject Animal rights disputes this move, preferring to redirect ALF to Animal Liberation Front, with the rationale that the term "ALF" is most commonly used to describe that group. Internal Wikipedia links and reliable, external print and electronic sources do not concur on a primary topic. Previous discussion has occurred here. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support per my comments above: there is no clear primary topic. -- JHunterJ 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support There is no clear primary topic. Since I tend to think of the T.V. show (although I can't recall ever watching it), maybe I should claim that all those opposed have an anti-Cheesy 80s sitcom POV. <rolls eyes>RobDe68 22:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. —  AjaxSmack  02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I've never heard of the Animal Liberation Front, and the sheer number of pages on this list militates against a primary topic. --Smack (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support, there are too many topics referred to by "ALF" for it to be restricted to the Animal Liberation Front. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Viriditas has been engaged in what I see as a WP:POINT by adding lots of groups that might use the term ALF to this page, whether they actually use that abbreviation or not, and I hope he'll soon supply sources showing that they do use it. The fact is that most mainstream sources use the term ALF to apply to the Animal Liberation Front. Viriditas opposes ALF being redirected to the Animal Liberation Front, but that's no reason for this page not to be called a disambig page, because that's what it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  This is a disambiguation page, yes, and will be categorized as such. It only needs to include a disambiguating (disambiguation) tag in the title, however, if there is a primary topic at the base name. If there is no primary topic (as in this case), the disambiguation page occupies the base name. Many examples are listed here: Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages. -- JHunterJ 11:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. older ≠ wiser 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• To answer SlimVirgin, all of the groups listed in section zero are already sourced to reliable sources describing them as "ALF" and can be shown whenever possible to use that acronym. That's why they are listed in a reliable reference work. Additional reliable sources can be provided showing that each acronym is supported by both mainstream and self-titled sources. As only one example, the Afar Liberation Front is referred to as "ALF" in the mainstream media, by academia by the United Nations, in books and in papers published by the group referring to themselves as "ALF". —Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed from ALF (disambiguation) to ALF as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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 [9] 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[10]. 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 [11][12] 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)

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)

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 [13][14] 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 [15]. 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. [16]

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 [17]. 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. [18]

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)

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)

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) [19] 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)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Viri claims a lot of things that sometimes just aren't so. 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)