Talk:NT

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Autism

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles

Nanotesla

Changed nanotesla to nano - tesla to make it clear that nano and tesla link to two different articles.

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.166.178 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I undid your edit User:Swpb as I didn't think it improved it (rephrasing my edit summary: the section names were overly long (not concise per MOSDAB), items were miscategorised and the a-b sorting left a fictional Simpsons WP:DABMENTION entry at the top, which I didn't think was useful for readers). It's BRD (not BRRD) so please come here to discuss your version. I also had some serious fixes (wrong article linked etc) from my previous edit which gave me an edit conflict. I've given quite detailed edit summaries, but the edit you reverted to doesn't have an edit summary at all. Widefox; talk 17:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's the current version? I see MOSDAB today is saying to sort a-b (which is the opposite of previous advice). I've weighted it as such in my trying to follow best practice, and will take that up at MOSDAB as I've not been involved/seen the consensus. Widefox; talk 17:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox I came to this talk specifically to ask why this page's sections aren't sorted alphabetically and what the scheme is. It's so confusing that I can't even work out which sections you've given extra prominence (something I also do, on ocassion, per WP:IAR). Could you explain which ones you want out of alpha order and why so your wishes can be respected? Also, there seem to be various sciences at the end out of the main alpha order and not in the section "Science". Llew Mawr (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Llew Mawr, over 5 years since I did the current layout compared to [1]. I believe the desire for alphabetical section name sort has strengthened over time, with currently WP:MOSDAB saying "should typically be in alphabetical order". Looking at it now, I'd say with this many sections the utility of an AB sort is also high, but it will almost always come at cost of not getting the most likely article or section at or near the top.

Done, whilst trying to eliminate the small sections with two items. As you can see, we now have two small unimportant sections at the top. I personally try to put what I feel is the most likely, or most encyclopaedic enduring section at the top (cf WP:PRIMARYTOPIC selection). As for science, I personally only put hard science in the science section, and not social science. Widefox; talk 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the comprehensive explanation (which makes sense and was informative) and for your re-alphabetising. The hard sciences distinction makes sense (even if it isn't usually followed) from the perspective that we couldn't stretch almost anything into science otherwise, and since users will now (the sections are in alpha order) see "Psychology", "Linguistics" etc. before "Science", any confusion is moot. As I said, I'm not at all opposed to prioritising some sections if reasoning is given on the talk page (and preferably in HTML comments). Llew Mawr (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox As an addendum, the current layout is certainly much better than the previous one you linked to from 2016 (which was a mess). I've made some edits, but not messed with the sectioning as, on thinking it over, I appreciate what a hard job it it is to organise this page (with lone entries from very disparate topics). Given that, you've done a valiant job organising it so well. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks indeed Llew Mawr. Not often does a bit of mopping get nice feedback. Well thank you for spotting the things I missed like the "." and spotting the duplicate entry that I had an inkling was there but didn't see. Good work. Widefox; talk 20:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]