Talk:ALF

• Talk:ALF/Archive 1

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 [1] 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[2]. 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 [3][4] 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)

I withdraw the question, as the matter was closed upon Tom's request. So long as the baseless accusations do not resurface, there is no need to revisit the matter. Time to let it go; we've wasted too much time on this stuff. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you withdrew the question, it wouldn't be above your withdraw. And since you keep deleting my reply, I will again give you my answer: see WP:HA. Now, if that doesn't make sense, please feel free to ask me for specifics, as I would be more than happy to demonstrate them for you. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the matter has been closed. Back away slowly and go about your business. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:28, 11 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 [5][6] 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 [7]. 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. [8]

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 [9]. 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. [10]

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) [11] 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)

Correct. See this edit by SlimVirgin at 22:02, 10 June 2007 with the edit summary of "added sources, requested others" and her other comments made to this discussion page around the same time frame. Since she is leading this dispute, I was meeting her objections by fulfilling the refs, which had previously been removed by consensus of other editors. —Viriditas | Talk 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

We know that DAB pages aren't supposed to use citations - the editor in question might have just made a mistake. Rahter than think he was just making a disruptive point, we might be better off AGF. Your words on what DAB are pretty much on par with most of us, except that there shouldn't be a primary page. It should just present a DAB. What we are contemplating now is citing those sources which are notable enough for inclusion, and then sorting them in order of noteworthiness (making sure to try and avoid systemic bias at the same time). That all should keep us busy enough, if we can all focus on what we have to do instead of fighting over what I agree is a lame series of arguments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The references were added back in by SlimVirgin at 22:02, 10 June 2007 with the edit summary of "added sources, requested others" and her other comments made to this discussion page around the same time frame requested sources. See also her comments below. —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We need some sources for this one (though they can be left here, not necessarily on the dab page), because Viriditas has been making them up in an effort to bury the ALF (Animal Liberation Front). This was a version of the page that he wanted, and in fact it got even worse than that. Because there's been POINTy behavior, it would be good to know that these are acronyms that really are in use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked to stop attacking me with false accusations. I have never "made anything up" at any time; nor have I tried to "bury the ALF" or engaged in "POINTy" behavior. Editors have come forward to say that they have never heard of "Animal Liberation Front", and it's a wise bet that more people are familiar with some of the other terms, especially related to assisted living, technology, transportation, and television. Please stop attacking me and focus on this disambiguation page. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 05:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But it's fine for you to continue to attack others? Look at the comments you've left on this and the other talk pages over this issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that she was wrong to reinstate those citations of the actual DAB. You were asked to put them here in the Discussion page, so we could all discuss them, and not have to deal with reverting them at any given moment. As for the accusations, maybe it would be better off if everyone stoppedmaking accusations. It does no good because every time someone makes an accusation they cannot support, we have to spend hours and inches of column space getting everyone to back off. Slim, please stop. You too, Viriditas. I know you are capable of actually doing good editing. Why not stop making personal and uncivil attacks and just edit. Keep it professional. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The distortions need to stop too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; the distortions, accusations, attacks, and incivility need to stop. —Viriditas | Talk 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay. So we are all in agreement. No one makes any uncivil remarks, personal attacks or distoritions from now on. I will hold you to that, V. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, considering that you showed up to this page making nothing but uncivil remarks and personal attacks while I was politely discussing the topic, I think you should hold yourself to your own promise. And stop removing critical comments that point out flaws in your reasoning. That is not and could not be considered a personal attack. If you need to contact a neutral, uninvolved administrator to make the determination whether or not comments could be considered personal attacks, then do so, but please do not remove comments yourself. You have been vandalizing this and other articles for too long, and that too must stop. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, gosh, that didn't last long at all. I am holding myself to that promise, but I am also not going to allow personal attacks or uncivil behavior to disrupt this or any oother article. If that means your comments to me get refactored until you learn to present an argument that isn't an attack, accusation or uncivil remark, it will be removed every time. If you can learn to be more polite, your comments will remain untouched. How you choose to proceed from here is all on you. Please discuss the topic and the topic alone. Learn, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If the base name is to be an article, there needs to be a consensus on the primary topic. If there is no consensus, this base name should be the disambiguation page. I've never heard of the Norse figure. The only usage I'm familiar with is the old TV series (which I agree is not the primary topic) -- more evidence that this base name should be the disambiguation page (which is was even as far back 22:16, 7 September 2005). 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. BTW, some recent moves and overwrites have left Alf (disambiguation) and Talk:Alf (disambiguation) going askew, to ALF and Talk:Alf (name), respectively. -- JHunterJ 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages

is to find articles that a title corresponds to, not list every possible meaning of a term. If in doubt, only include entries with articles. They're not meant to provide information on their own, just serve as a navigation tool. Therefore references and comprehensive lists of meaning are out of place. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely correct, and before SlimVirgin and Arcayne showed up to edit war, the stable version that meets your criteria could be found here. —Viriditas | Talk 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop these personal attacks for heaven's sake. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We understand, NG, but we are giving the editor who did that the benefit of the doubt that he just wasn't paying close enough attention to what was asked before plowing ahead. As for why we asked or them to be put here, there was concern that some of the DAB links being proposed weren't all that valid. Steps are being taken to ensure that they are. If I misunderstand what you are commenting on, please forgive me, and xlarify. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is this royal "we" and what are you referring to? Consensus was achieved in the last Talk:ALF#Requested_move, and the version was stable until SlimVirgin did a series of "move over redirects" beginning on 9 June 2007 [12][13] against consensus and was reverted back by several editors.[14] [15] [16] [17] Furthermore, your neutrality is in doubt, because you showed up to this page to revert to SlimVirgin's version[18], against the consensus of the active editors maintining this page, who then promptly, and quite correctly reverted you[19] [20]. I hope that I have provided an accurate summation of events. —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry. Did you think I was talking to you? I was pointing out your error in putting citations on the actual DAB page rather than here, as you were quite clearly asked. I was also pointing out how you shouldn't be raked over the editorial coals for making a mistake, especially since it was pointed out to you by others, and you were taking steps to undo your mistake. You can say thank you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read for comprehension. No such "error" was made. SlimVirgin added rerferences back into the article after the consensus version had removed them, and she then proceeded to request more sources, and I supplied them. I hope that clears up your misconception. —Viriditas | Talk 10:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And you know that DAB pages don't have citations, so you know that adding them was a waste of time. Come on. Please stop arguing, and focus on the article. Learn. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been already explained several times, I added the references - in good faith - at the request of the editor leading this dispute. It was not a waste of time. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already made clear that I don't care whether the sources were added to the dab page, or added here. I just wanted to see that we were only adding real acronyms, and that we didn't include the ones you earlier made up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which was the purpose of asking for sources, as some of the authenticity and/or notability were called into question. It worked, as some of theobscure choices added have since been removed. It was a mistake to add them to the Discussion page when the editor adding them was well aware that he had been asked to add them to Discussion, and not punish the reader by making some sort of WP:POINT. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Easy access to the most notable items

I checked the g-hits for many (not all) of the items, and came up with the following results (in K-ghits): TV (166), AR (132), Language (46.6), Liver (26.7), Album (18.8). The rest were lower. I got zero (0) ghits for the psychology item - maybe some tweak in phrasing will yield more. A dab is intended to provide easy navigation, and clearly it should allow easier access to the more notable terms than the obscure ones. I am not saying Google is the only way to measure notability, but it is a good starting point. I also think we need to vet the list to make sure all items are used as a bona fide acronym by published reliable sources. Crum375 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To the last point, I think the disambiguated articles need to indicate that it's known as ALF; the dab page editors shouldn't need to check any resources beyond the articles to be disambiguated. The article editors can reach their own consensus (through application of WP:RS or whatever) to determine the acronym's bonafideness. -- JHunterJ 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, except that some of the linked articles appear to totally lack sources and would be instant candidates for AfD, so we have to do some minimal due diligence. I also added "Assisted Living Facility" (43 K-ghits) to the top 6 - I have googled all items now, and all the rest are lower. Crum375 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google doesn't establish notability. A google test cannot be used to establish that these terms are notable since many of these terms may have been google bombed by certain groups. This is especially true for controversial issues and terms that are used by political and activist groups. One of the reasons that the Wikipedia:Reference_desk is so valuable, is because the most important information cannot be found on Google. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be of use to know have you precisely define notability. Knowing that might very well assist everyone else here understand what criteria you are utilizing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 1

By agreement above, everyone is on the same page that there should only be one dab page. the Alf page and Talk:Alf page redirect to different places. Step 1 is, let's fix the name space problems and move this page, and talk page to Alf.

Step 2, make sure all the relevant existing other dab pages are referenced. I think that is only Alf (name).

Step 3, is to list the disambiguation terms. At ~10 terms or so, it's nice to divide the terms by something, either subject matter headings (Dan), or by whether it is a noun vs TLA (Sam). After some basic headings come in, sort them alphabetically, not by importance, percieved popularity, or some external criteria. Don't use pipe text to hide the disambiguation titles.

Step 4, is to argue about the inclusiveness of the terms. That's happening now. Take a step back please, and take care of readers before taking care of your own passions.

Any admin can take care of Step 1. Step 2 is probably already done. Step 3 should be alphabetized for now, and creation of headings later. For a way out of the argument on step 4, I suggest first being inclusive. Dabs exist for user convenience. Any reasonable claim for inclusion should be entertained. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 3 is by perceived popularity, according to WP:MOSDAB. Breaking them up into subjects, when the list is long enough to warrant that, doesn't mean that the most commonly sought meanings shouldn't be at the top. -- JHunterJ 18:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, just take care of the namespace problem first. SchmuckyTheCat

Notability threads

Another measure of notability

Here is another way to assess notability, based on Google news search, which should be more immune to Google-bombing, and even Wiki articles:

• Animal Rights: 2,100[21]

• TV Show: 820[22]

• Assisted Living: 338[23]

• Liver: 111[24]

• Album: 38[25]

• Language: 11[26]

I have only done the top 6 (by standard web-based ghits) so far - interesting results. Crum375 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the entries aren't ordered by notability -- as far as I can tell, notability in Wikipedia is absolute: a subject either has it or it doesn't. Dab entries, one the other hand, are ordered by frequency of use. We tend to use the terms interchangeably, but (for instance), the guidelines for determining notability don't necessarily apply to determining frequency of use. Google is a good exhibit for frequency, but of course not the only one. I don't have another to offer in opposition though. :-) -- JHunterJ 22:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability isn't absolute on Wikipedia: BLPs, for instance, can be marginally notable, and titles are directed to the most notable, if there is one. It's only because some people are arguing that there is more than one "most notable" that it isn't being directed to one of them. As a compromise, we agreed to list the most notable ones at the top. I hope everyone will stick to that compromise, because neither side can have 100 percent what they want here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The same search yields 102,000 hits for "tv" and ALF, not 820. And, "assisted living" and ALF yields 856 hits, not 338. Without constraining terms, acute liver failure and ALF yields 571 hits, not 111. Removing the word "album" from the string yields 58, not 38 hits for Moyet. Please don't skew the results of these searches by changing the search string. —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please watch your tone, and try to focus on the message, not the messenger. I provided my search strings, so as to avoid any appearance of 'skewing' - can you provide yours? Crum375 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went over this above. I don't see the need to provide links, because Google news is not used to determine navigation preferences on dab pages. This is a red herring. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The important point here is that, no matter how you search, ALF comes up for Animal Liberation Front more than twice as often as the second one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not important to dab pages at all. —Viriditas | Talk 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, in this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The MoS is just a guideline, and a widely ignored one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even support you. It says "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So because you ignore the MoS, we're supposed to as well? And how is this supposed to support me? Exactly what I am supporting? There is nothing about Google news in the dab page or MoS dab page guidelines, so it doesn't support you. And, the statement about "most-used meanings" does not mean, most used by Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean then? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is used to create an order of importance, so it implies notability. But using Google news to determine notability has to be done very carefully. And, Crum is mixing notability with frequency of use of the term ALF which presents additional problems. Just because many sources refer to the Animal Liberation Front as "ALF" doesn't make it more notable, then let's say, "Assisted Living Facilities", which returns 22,200 Google news hits. A search for "Animal Liberation Front" on Google news only returns 4,860 hits. —Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I specifically included the acronym as a term, because we need to assess the probability that someone will come to the dab page, and for that the acronym itself must be notable. Crum375 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how notability is assessed. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says it isn't? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you don't say it is. We have WP:N, we have the previously cited MoS which determines order of importance on dab pages based on notability of the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. This is really transparent. —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See below. WP:N doesn't help us when we need grays. Crum375 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Usage does not imply notability. They are two, distinct creatures. Usage verifies, confirms, and supports notability, but it is not the sole criterion, nor could it be. —Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Useage correlates fairly well to notability, and is easy to gauge. So we rely on it in lieu of something better. Crum375 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Undue weight. For WP:N, usage applies to the topic, not to the acronym. A skewed search for acronym usage does not make the topic more or less notable; it only shows that some media outlets are using it, whereas a comprehensive search of all search indexes would show that terms like "Acute Liver Failure" are just as widely used in their appropriate books, journals, publications, etc. The "Animal Liberation Front" doesn't even exist as an organization, so its notability isn't based on anything real or tangible, like a disease or a brick and mortar group, but instead, is solely based upon and exemplified by public relations - unlike the other listings on this dab page, the Animal Liberation Front is uniquely obsessed with increasing the frequency of their name in the popular media by engaging in acts of terrorism and then claiming that the "Animal Liberation Front" is behind it; in fact no such group exists. As the page itself says, it is "a name used internationally by animal liberation activists who engage in direct action on behalf of animals." And their agenda is to get their name in the papers. That's why the notability of this organization is highly suspect -- it is not notable through actual usage, but through manufactured notability. Most people, if you ask them, have absolutely no idea who the Animal Liberation Front are, and have never heard of the term. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority." —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:UNDUE will not help much here, as it can only determine main streams of thought on topics. It also requires a large amount of work, often with multiple editors debating various sources and their credibilities. This is not practical or reasonable when you have a dab page and need to decide on simple prioritization. Also, I don't think that NPOV governs here, since all we are doing is making life easier for our readers, so that on the average they will spend the least amount of effort to get to what they want. This is not like telling them about creationism vs. evolution. Crum375 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is most assuredly relevant here, especially in the context of notable dab entries, many of which are more prominent than others. The order of importance on the dab page is not reflected accurately as a result. —Viriditas | Talk 02:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I would disagree. NPOV, of which UNDUE is a subset, applies to presentation of different points of view in an article, where we need to be sure that our presentation fairly presents the various opinions on a given topic. Here we are talking about an indexing or navigation function, and all we want to achieve is least average effort by our users. So we need to predict how many will look up a given acronym, and make sure that the most likely searches will take the least amount of time. Pure efficiency issue - nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Crum375 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with NPOV; significant dab entries are being placed out of order of importance because you and Slim are claiming that a Google news search supports reordering; it does nothing of the kind. The search is being manipulated to give undue weight. I can alter the results simply by removing the acronym or a string, and this is not what the MoS dab page regarding "most-used meanings" implies. Finally, the fact that the Animal Liberation Front doesn't exist as a real group, but exists solely to get their name in their papers, as opposed to the other groups which are either real, brick and mortar organizations or legitimate concepts, technologies, and places, shows that there is undue weight being placed upon a non-existent organization. Topical searches of Google news show "Animal Liberation Front" coming far below other terms like "Acute Liver Failure", which receives at least 306,000 hits on google alone, far more than the Front, and somewhere around 25,900 hits with the acronym. Clearly, this is undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are not following. NPOV is a policy that applies within a single article. It does not apply when comparing apples to oranges on dab pages. There, the only issue is efficiency of access for the average user, not NPOV. Crum375 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I hope that clears things up for you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This does not apply to the sequencing of indices of different articles - there are no 'Points of View' in a dab - it's only a navigation tool - and our job is to make it as efficient and as easy to use for the average user as possible. This is not NPOV at all, as we are not comparing points of view. Crum375 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why collation solves this problem. You and Slim did not want collation, hence you have a NPOV dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't an NPOV dispute just because you say there is one. This has nothing to do with NPOV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Alf and Alfhid

JHunter, can you say why you feel this belongs here, and also with the names, but the other names don't belong on this page? [27] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are known as simply "Alf", they belong here. If they are not (for example, if they have a last name), they don't. It the usual dab rule, no different when applied to people. -- JHunterJ 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would they belong here if known simply as Alf, and not on the list of names? When you say it's the usual dab rule, do you have a link to the rule? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:D, WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. I'm at a loss, really -- this is the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation; what else would usually get dabbed, if not pages with the (disambiguating phrase) behind the disambiguated title? -- JHunterJ 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going by the MoS, it says that most commonly used items should be placed at the top. The most common use of ALF is not Alf and Alfhid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. And it's not at the top. -- JHunterJ 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be anywhere near the top. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There's also a problem with that article, which needn't directly concern us here, but it's worth bearing in mind. When I first read it, I thought that Alf should redirect to it as the oldest use of the name. But then when I looked for sources, I realized I was thinking of a different Alf, and it's not completely clear this one exists as described. There is only a primary source for it, and I see someone else has raised the same issue on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion needs a break. All of Crum's results are hopelessly skewed, and if one goes by order of importance by MoS guidelines, ALF comes much, much lower on the scale per Google news. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'skewing' - the acronym is needed, per my reply to you above, and let's stay on one thread please. Crum375 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's completely skewed, and that's not how we determine notability. Order of importance on dab pages, or notability, refers to the topic, not the acronym used to describe the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that apart from you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying we determine notability the way you are skewing it? —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't answer a question with a question. You keep telling us how to determine notability, but you don't say where you're taking your opinion from. Unless you can cite something in support or mount an argument, which you haven't done yet, it remains your opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is us? I've established that your criteria for notability is in question, not my own. You invented one using Gogole news and a skewed topic/acronym search which does not reflect actual notability, but in reality distorts it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You need both the acro and the topic - if the acro is not notable - no one will ever come to the dab page for it. Crum375 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As an example, I can go into the medical literature and get thousands of references to ALF as acute liver failure, does that make it more notable than the TV show? Notability exists independently of usage, and the dab page orders by notability, in which case, Animal Liberation Front would appear close to the bottom. —Viriditas | Talk 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What we are assuming is that people look up entries and acronyms based on their notability. That correlates fairly well to their appearance in the news, which correlates to the Google news search. Is it perfect? of course not. But nothing ever is. Crum375 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Undue weight. —Viriditas | Talk 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about it? Please stop just posting guideline names without saying what you mean. First, they're only guidelines, and secondly, they don't back up anything you seem to be saying anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, please try to be more civil. Your behavior is creating a disruptivbe influence in the discussion. Either be polite or step back fromt he article. You won't appreciate the third choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained it in the above section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my reply above - UNDUE does not apply. Crum375 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And, please see my reply to your reply; it most certainly does apply in terms of prominence, which is the inherent criteria for dab order. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way does it apply? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It applies in many ways, many of which I've repeatedly explained in the previous section. One, in terms of NPOV. Why is one topic more notable than another? Two, in terms of significance. How is a group that does not exist more significant than a group that does, or a real medical disease, or an NGO? Three, in terms of notability. Google, Google news, and related discipline indexes do not make Animal Liberation Front as notable as you are claiming it to be. You are appealing to a skewed acronym search that shows usage, but does not show notability. Removing the acronym from the search term, places the notability of the Animal Liberation Front much farther down on the scale. —Viriditas | Talk 02:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, see my other messages. I think you are simply confused about NPOV - it only applies within one article, not when comparing articles to decide on dab page sequencing. Crum375 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No confusion whatsoever. I explained in full, my response in the above section. Crystal clear, here. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are really missing the point. See my response elsewhere - NPOV only applies within a specific article not when comparing priorities on dab pages. Crum375 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, you're posting about this unnecessarily in multiple sections, then when asked to explain something, you point to a previous non-answer in another section, in order to confuse people. I've watched you do this before. All it achieves is that people get annoyed with you, and you look bad because you have to post more often than is sensible; you've already posted to this page 164 times, more than twice as often as the next poster. It's not going to make the issues go away, so I hope you'll change your approach. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I've explained things several times in multiple sections. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never done that, because I think it's inane. Please show me some diffs if you think otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Programming language

How commonly used is this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is my link from above: [28]

Run it to get the number, then replace 'ALF' by 'Perl' or any other language and compare. Crum375 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, it's hardly used at all. That should be moved down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my statement two sections above. You are misinterpreting notability by skewing Google news searches. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response to you above - the acronym must be part of the search term. Crum375 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not how we determine notability. Read the guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you determine notability objectively? Crum375 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a philosophical argument over objectivity, but you are free to read WP:N. —Viriditas | Talk 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:N is designed for a black and white answer, here we need grays. So it doesn't help us at all. Crum375 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The topics can be shown to be notable, and their importance on the dab page should reflect that to ease navigation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) WP:N can only give a black and white answer, so it won't tell you if organization A is more notable than B which is more notable than C. Crum375 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." So, a listing for Animal Liberation Front is pushed down to the bottom based on Google, Google news, books, scientific literature, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing WP:N black and white notability which determines WP article eligibility with the relative notability we need to prioritize dab page entries. Crum375 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't confused a thing, and I'm seeing everything crystal-clear, with adamantine vision. The MoS on dab pages states, "In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below." The fact that some acronyms do not appear in a Google news search says nothing about the notability of the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You see "everything crystal-clear, with adamantine vision"? I hope that includes the way you're coming across here.

When the MoS says to place the items in order of usage, by items it refers to the subject of the page. The subject of the page is ALF, not the subjects of the articles we link to. Therefore, we should place the list of possibilities in order of the use of ALF. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is any topic that uses the acronym ALF. The MoS dab does not refer to the notability of the acronym, and as I showed above, you are placing undue weight on an organization that has little notabiilty. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

UNDUE does not apply here, per my above reply. Crum375 02:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It applies absolutely in terms of NPOV, fair representation, and proportion to the prominence (notability) of each dab entry. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not any topic that uses ALF. The subject is the title of the page. And if you remove anyone else's post again, I'm going to request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed an off-topic threat that had nothing to do with this discussion. The subject is the importance of the topic that uses ALF, not any topic. The title of the page represents an acronym that each topic uses. —Viriditas | Talk 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very much on-topic, because it's about the way you're disrupting the discussion, which the post removal ironically demonstrates is indeed an issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Countering your claims with evidence is not disruption. When a term like "Acute Liver Failure" gets 306,000 Google hits, and "Assisted Living Facility" gets 956,000, while "Animal Liberation Front" gets 262,000, yet you place one above the other, shows there is a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is about the acronym, not about the topics. We're discussing to what extent the acronym is notable, as you know very well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The notability of the acronyms have been established by reliable, print sources. The notability of the topics determine their order on the page. "The most-used meaning" is not solely determined by Google news, nor could it be. Furthermore, the Animal Liberation Front is less notable per Google, than Assisted living facilities and Acute liver failure. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself. Who says "The notability of the topics determine their order on the page," as opposed to the notability of the acronym, apart from you? Please answer that question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Viriditas, you are confusing issues. Notability for WP inclusion is not the issue here - we are assuming all passed that bar. The issue is how to compare relative notabilities, and for that you need some objective tools, like the google hits and news archive searches. Those tools are not perfect, but our goal is statistical - we simply want to make the aveage reader's trip to his/her article as fast as possible. Crum375 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Description of ALF

Night Gruy, regarding your edit, [29] the reason I added "when engaged in direct action" is because lots of people think the ALF is a group with membership, when in fact it's just a rallying cry, in effect. Is that clear enough without mention of direct action? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)