Talk:Fido

FIDO

I've moved the references to FIDO to their own page. Fido is a name; FIDO is an acronym. Xyl 54 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Name of a dog

Does anyone have a good source for this etymology? It's given here as deriving from fidelis, but I've seen suggestions that it comes from the verb fido, "I trust, I put faith in", or, seemingly more likely, from the adjective fidus, "faithful, trusty", which Wiktionary gives as the root of Italian and Spanish fido with the same meaning. --Kineticman (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. There should be an article Fido (dog name) for the same reason that the article Smith (surname) exists. Chrisrus (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New referent

Although at this moment there is no article Fido (dog name), there is now a new article called Fido (dog), which is about a famous dog. Unfortunately, until there is such an article, it really should be here because this page is not an article, it's a navigation page, and so every entry should have an artile. I'm not going to delete it right away, first I'm going to add Fido (dog) and see how things look. Please comment. Chrisrus (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Fido (dog name)

Even though this is the probable primary referent searched for by a user, I have removed Fido (dog name) on the grounds that no article about it exists. This is a navigation page, not an article, and should be only a list of articles with the same name or very similar names. I decided to put Fido (dog) as the primary, and we could add more information there about the common dog name, but there is some there about it already, so it's pretty close. I hope that works for you/the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

I suggest that this page be merged with FIDO (disambiguation) on the grounds that it'd be more helpful to "F-i-d-o" searchers. Chrisrus (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a merge would be a good idea. I just merged the two German disambigs: de:Fido and de:FIDO. Greetings --Teilzeittroll (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I’d say No; what would be the rationale? And what would be the point?

The two are discrete subjects, despite the similarity in spelling; Fido is a name, and all the items here carry it; FIDO is a an acronym, and the items there are unrelated to the name or to each other. If I‘m looking for something with that name (say, fido the band) I’ll come here; if I want something with that acronym (like FIDO the anti-submarine device) my search will take me there.

And the less items there are on a dab page, the easier it its to find what you want, so cluttering this one or that one up confers no advantage.

If you are looking for something to do here, you could always fix it so that the page confoms to WP:DAB. At present the title suggests there's no primary topic, but the lead sentence says otherwise; either it should be re-written, or moved to Fido (disambiguation). The FIDO page is fine (another reason not to merge; not adding a good page into a poor one...) Xyl 54 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a "f-i-d-o" searchers uses capitals or not doesn't seem to me to be a good indication as to whether or not he wants the "Fido" or "FIDO". There are many reason users search with caps or without, and as there aren't so many "fido" entries I don't see why we shouldn't keep them all in the same place. Also, CAT and Cat have the same disambiguation page, as do "pig", "dog" "horse" and just about all the others I tried. Is there any other word that has two disambiguation pages, one for all caps and one not? I this is the only one I can find. Also, at least two are written both ways. I don't see what the big difference is between all caps and no caps and just initial caps. Navigation pages shouldn't be so case sensitive. A searcher might miss or misunderstand the "see also" with caps or without caps. It's weird to do it this way. Chrisrus (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Cat (disambiguation) page probably isn’t the best example to use. It has over 50 items on it (half of which are acronyms) plus “see also” links to “The cat” (28 items) and “Cats (disambiguation)” (18 items). So there’s nothing outlandish about having separate pages, and 50 items is well past “inconveniently long”. That would be an argument to split the CAT entries out, in my estimation.

As far as this page goes, WP:DAB does say it’s all right to combine terms that differ in capitalization (or punctuation or diacritics) but that doesn’t make it mandatory; it is left to editorial judgement to decide. OTOH it says pages that are inconveniently long should be split. In my view any dab page that needs scrolling down (ie that can't be taken in in one glance) is too long

And you still haven’t said what the rationale for a merge is, apart from it looking "weird" to you.

Also, If the "see also" section is too easy to miss (debateable) we could always put it at the top, as with a hatnote. Xyl 54 (talk)

I agree. Let's merge them. The rationale to merge them is that they are the same four letters in a row, and differ only by caps. Chrisrus (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this still going on? And what are you agreeing to? Are you voting twice? And what kind of rationale is "they are the same four letters in a row"? All the items on this page have the same four letters in a row; do you want to merge them all into a single "fido" page?

And the objection hasn't changed; the name, and the acronym, are separate subjects, and separate search terms; merging would make searches more difficult, not less, and create a page that is inconveniently long without any saving or advantage. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup and old merge topic

I agree with the old merge discussion above, which has been done and I've cleaned up. I removed a duplicate link on an article, so there may be others. Widefox; talk 12:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)