Jump to content

User talk:Pdfpdf/Archive03

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

African Americans in Omaha

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. Its that kind of direct feedback that it seems like few people on WP are capable of giving. I've reworded the lead with your considerations in mind, and created an alphabetically-ordered table out of the notable people. Please, share your insights anytime. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are great. I truly appreciate what you've done for the article - cool. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TLA

(material is either redundant with Acronym and initialism or trivial)

I don't agree. At the very least you need to initiate a discussion on the Talk page before you take such steps. I'm not a WP expert and can't point you at the appropriate pages, but I know there are pages to describe the policies and procedures that "should" be followed.

As with most situations, it's not black and white; certainly not as black and white as you have implied/suggested. As the page describes, (described?) the TLA has a history and culture of its own that extends way beyond Acronym and initialism. You may think it's trivial, but if this is the case, then I suggest your opinion is based on ignorance, and I suggest you do a wee bit of research/investigation before unilaterally deciding to make such bold moves. Pdfpdf 14:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went by the guidelines Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections and Wikipedia:Be bold. I don't have to initiate discussion- I've done this with other pages and not received complaints. There's no need to call me ignorant- just tell me you disagree and provide your rationale.-Wafulz 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. This is more complicated than I thought. First, let's deal with your response, and then move on to more useful discussions.

It probably sounds like I'm "splitting hairs", but I didn't "call you ignorant" - I suggested that if you held a particular opinion, then that opinion was based on ignorance. No matter. Let me say that it was/is not my intention to "call you ignorant", and I'm sorry that you feel I did. I apologise for my injudicious choice of words.

As I said previously, this is not black and white. I've done a bit more looking around, and found that it's even more complicated than I originally thought. There seems to be quite a collection of pages involved, including:

No doubt there are others too.
Then there's terms without pages: e.g. "three-letter agency"

The page Talk:Three-letter abbreviation contains:

This article is about three sentences of useful material (defining a TLA and an in-joke) and a bunch of trivia. I don't see why having a separate article is relevant.-Wafulz 13:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm thoroughly confused as to what you are talking about. If you wish to be more explicit, I'm happy to address your points, not the least of which is "I don't see why having a separate article is relevant." I do see why this is the case and, as I said, am happy to address your specific concerns. Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The "references in popular culture" and "trivia" sections are either trivia or random content to "fluff up" the article and give it content- the type of content here is frequently deleted because it's just an indiscriminate collection of information. The only part of the article that is actual encyclopedic material is the history of a TLA, which is about three sentences long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafulz (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I now understand what you mean, and have some sympathy with that opinion. (Though I wouldn't want to delete those sections - I think WP needs to have some component of entertainment when informing.)

I could go on (at length) and develop a justification, but I won't. (I have some domestic matters that need to be addressed, and I'm running out of time.) I'll just present my suggestions/opinions and ask for your opinion.

My suggestions/opinions:

  • None of the content of any of these pages should be discarded.
  • WP does not need three separate (and different) pages for TLA, Three-letter acronym and Three-letter abbreviation. The content of these three pages should be merged into one of the pages (possibly into TLA?) and the other two pages should redirect to that merged page.
  • I agree with you that the case for these three pages being separate from "Acronym and initialism" is not strong. However, they do address a situation that does have a life of its own, so perhaps the so-called "merged page" (mentioned in previous bullet) should be further merged into a new section added into the "Acronym and initialism" page? If so, the pages for TLA, Three-letter acronym and Three-letter abbreviation should all redirect to this new section in the Acronym and initialism page. (e.g. Acronym and initialism#TLA)

What do you think? Pdfpdf 11:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script: A lot of people have put a lot of effort into creating, improving and discussing these pages. No, you dont have to initiate discussion, but the fact that templates and defined processes exist to support discussion of such matters seems to me to imply that it's probably a good idea to use them. At the very least, it would be polite to consult these people before boldly deciding to discard their hard work. Pdfpdf 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rich Farmbrough - Three matters

SmackBot problem

G'day Rich,

I'd like to say "I'm sorry for stopping your bot", but that would be insincere.

Your bot keeps popping up in pages I've been working on turning USA into U.S. I think you've managed to hit about 6 of these pages in the last few days. Given how many pages there are on WP, I'm forced to congratulate you for the thoroughness of your search algorithm. But I digress.

I know this is entirely subjective opinion, but I really don't like this change. I know that what I personally like or dislike is irellevant to this discussion. The reason I'm mentioning it so you have an understanding of where I'm coming from (whether you agree with me or not). So I'll get to the point. (All right, I'll get to my point.)

When I saw the first one of these changes. I shrugged my feelings off. With the second one, I went searching and discovered that there is an unresolved WP debate about the name of the country between Mexico and Canada. I fairly quickly discovered that the "only" reason that (in the WP environment) that WP continues to refer to this country as U.S. is because opinion about whether it should be called U.S. or USA is fairly evenly split, so there is no concensus one way or the other. So, whatever happened to be there before the debate started, was left alone. I gather that "whatever happened to be there" was U.S.

So, I understand that you can use this result to justify a position that says "It should be U.S."

But, if you were to do that, my opinion is that you would be missing the point. My opinion is that the concensus is: given that there is no concensus, things should be left alone until such time as there is a concensus. I quickly and freely admit that this is (only) my opinion.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your opinion is: there is no concensus, so the previous "official" opinion stands - this previous opinion was: "It should be U.S.", so that's what I'm going to use my bot to implement.

So, the way I see it, there are two opinions/positions:

  • There is no concensus - leave things alone. (a.k.a. "My opinion")
  • There is no concensus - the previous policy stands. Hence I'm going to use my bot to implement the previous policy. (a.k.a. "My interpretation of your opinion", which is, I guess, also my opinion!)

Now, I'm prepared to concede that I've got it completely wrong. So please, enlighten me. I'm looking forward to reading your reply. Regards, Pdfpdf 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief answer. Yes there is consensus for several years that the abbreviation on WP U.S. - incidentally not what I would chose, but I think the consistency is more important than the choice in this case.

The Winans

Thanks for your efforts.

However, in my newness to and ignorance of WP, there are a few things you've done that I don't understand. I really would appreciate it if you would explain them to me:

  • Wikify dates (where month and day both present). I don't really see the point of this. The only reason I can think of for doing this is so that WP can cross-reference back to all events that are related to that date. Is that the reason? Are there other reasons too? If so, can you point me at them please?
Absolutely, When a date includes a day and month, user formatting preferences ("my preferences" "Date and time") will be invoked by linking it, e.g. [[10 April]] can show as either April 10 or 10 April, and hence should almost always be linked. Any associated year should also be linked viz: 10 April 1962 because the software can display this as 1962-04-10 for those who have their date preferences set to ISO. In due course a feature may be added to MediaWiki allow a different syntax from linking to do this.
  • Date fragments delinked. As you might expect, I can't see the point of linking date fragments either. However, in this case you seem to agree. But if it's desirable to link full dates, it seems inconsistent to not link fragments. Obviously I'm missing something. Can you enlighten me please?
Since the above does not apply to date fragments.
  • Cat sort order. I presume that's the stuff you did down the bottom?
Yes. There were two sort orders in Winans family Winan Family, The and Winans Family, The. Actually "Winans family" is better than either.
  • Headers. I gather "it's not the done thing" to have links from Headers? (e.g. you turned "===Vickie Winans===" into "===Vickie Winans==="). Can you point me at the explanation for this please?
Yes, the (main) reason is that some preference settings don't allow jumping from headers, instead a click will open the section for editing. Style and a historic reason (used to break section links) also figure.

Then there are a few things I disagree with. I haven't changed any of the above, but I've changed a few of the following:

  • Note that the section header is "Recording artists and groups within the family"
    • There is no such artist/group as "Delores and David Winans". There is, however, an artist/group called "Mom & Pop Winans".
OK, so the wording needs to be changed in this section .
    • Similarly "Ronald Winans Family & Friends Choir", and "BeBe & CeCe Winans".
DOn't get this. The text refers to them as "BeBe and CeCe Winans" If you can confirm that "Ronald Winans Family & Friends Choir" is correct, then of course change it back.
    • (Regarding "Angie & Debbie", I don't know, and to be honest, don't really care - in and of themselves, I don't think they're particularly notable. i.e. they're only notable-by-association.)
  • As for changing "*[http://www.dec28th.com dec28th.com], official website of Marvin Winans, Jr. " into "*[http://www.[[28 December]].com [[28 December]].com], official website of Marvin Winans, Jr.", well, I don't think I need to make any further comment.
Yes, that's a kickself.

Cheers, Pdfpdf 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD January 0

You hadn't expressed an opinion last time I looked. What is your opinion? Cheers, Pdfpdf 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, it's keep. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22 6 September 2007 (GMT).

Timezone

You need to weight your probability figures with language and internet access. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23 6 September 2007 (GMT).

LOL! Yes, you're right. I'll look into it. But somehow I doubt that it will come down much. As it is, we're only about 5% of Australia's population, and Aus+U.S.+U.K is about 400million, so we're only 0.25% of that. I'd still class 99.75% as "almost 100%"!! Thanks for the laugh, Pdfpdf 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Rich Farmbrough, 17:51 13 September 2007 (GMT).

PDF (disambiguation)

Hi there.

I saw that you incorrectly marked my edit to PDF (disambiguation) as vandalism. I gave up arguing over the first breach of the manual of style but is there really any need to have three links to the same article on one disambiguation page? One link per destination article is the requirement... two is excessive... but three?

I have started a discussion on this issue on the talk page to attempt to achieve consensus. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'm more than happy with that. I imagine that you are well aware that I disagree with you. It will be a vast improvement to bring other views into the conversation. Thank you for deciding to take a broader view of the issue. Pdfpdf 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overtaken by events?
First, I think I've come up with a way to keep both of us happy.
Second, I have come across new information which (it seems to me) completely changes the situation.
I have changed PDF (disambiguation) to incorporate both of these. I believe that I have managed to do it without using redirects and multiple links, which (if I understand correctly) is what you wish to avoid.
Could you please review the page and advise if it now satisfies your requirements? Pdfpdf 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think we finally have a page we can agree on! ;-) I'd normally take issue with commentary on a disambiguation page, but the text you've put in the Probability density function and Probability distribution function section is concise and will prevent people like me who don't know the subtleties of the differences from sticking their oar in.

Big sigh of relief!!

The only suggestion I'd make is that the See Also section is pretty redundant as I see it:

  1. If we're going to include "principal, diffuse and fundamental are blocks on the periodic table" we might as well also include "p, d and f are letters in the Roman alphabet" ;-)
  2. Mentioning that there is "a disambiguation page for the abbreviation UPDF" is irrelevant - if a user wants to find out about UPDF I imagine they'll type in UPDF rather than just PDF!

If you think the See Alsos must be kept, I'd suggest integrating them into the appropriate section. I think you've done a great job with the page. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think we finally have a page we can agree on! ;-) - Big sigh of relief!!
I think you've done a great job with the page. - Thank you.
The only suggestion I'd make is ... - I can live with that.
  • The "UPDF" was there before I came along; I have no opinion one way or the other.
  • Regarding the periodic table: Another typo! It should say: p,d&f are adjacent groups. (So actually, it's not quite the same as your analogy.) However, with the word "adjacent" missing, your point is well made. I'm neither a chemist nor a physicist, so I have no idea how important/significant this is (if at all); it's just a fact I came across whilst looking for information. Again, I have no opinion one way or the other. In other words, do whatever you think gives the best result.

So, issues resolved? Pdfpdf 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator redux

I'm so sorry that I forgot that! I forgot the original question though, so just wait about five minutes or so and I will look and see what it was. As for the purple—I can change the font colour to white for my page, but the default is always black and so for my talk page, I tried to tone it so that it was still purple (naturally a dark colour of course otherwise it would be pink) but didn't screw up in quite so many people's browsers. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Why would anyone want to be an administrator?" I don't really know 100% to tell you the truth, and I can't speak for everyone, but I think it would be to help the community in deleting nonsense, &c. as well as blocking the bad apples, as well as the other duties an administrator does. As for "Why do I want to be an administrator?" The answer is probably the same. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I don't vehemently disagree with people who want to be administrators—I myself see the (slightly) heightened stress that usually resultes from it, but I do think that the extra good I could do to the community probably outweighs it. And really the only difference between them and me is that they as a person do not want to be an administrator, and I as a person do. Not a big difference at all. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple

Well it is my favourite colour. :) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEK: Creeping POV

Hi, I returned the PEK article back to August 27. Some IP addresses have been nibbling at the article. Take a look when you have time to check my hacking. jmcw 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddfellows

Thanks for the message - he may well be right, but concerns about POV should be raised on the article's talk page (which I see he did), rather than in the main article. That's why I removed the text I did. DuncanHill 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity

Replied at Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars. Regards —Moondyne 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, they did it again...

So this user comes in and re-adds all the information that you and I were trying to keep out :-). Needless to say, I reverted it. If this user does it again, I will leave a message on their talk page explaining why it cant be in there. Jgcarter 12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd...

No problems! (I read you have teenage children! You could say I'm a teenager as well. Phgao 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, did I mention I'm in Australia too? Phgao 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding my comments on my page! Melbourne is a fun place... Unfortunately I haven't been up to Adelaide. Phgao 16:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually prefer not to put too much personal details up there. Got to be careful sometimes. But I see you even have your suburb! Phgao 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to define what native is. Since even the first settlers in a way cannot be considered native. Phgao 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. 2.45am here. Oh well... burning the midnight oil... Phgao 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Response to your Heart question

The info I have is from Heart's performance on Decades Rock Live on VH1 Classic. You can check out the show page on vhiclassic.com or check the video on youtube. Anselmo performed with Alice In Chains, but I do not recall him performing specifically with Heart, though Alice In Chains did perform with Ann and Nancy. That info is not all mine, my only addition was Phil Anselmo. Hope this helps. Awalrusdarkly (talk • contribs) 06:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of synagogues in Omaha

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synagogues in Omaha
I have looked again at this article and responded to the comments on the AfD page. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier - I have to sleep sometimes ;) --carelesshx talk 13:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for piping up on the Jewish community in Omaha article. Its funny, because I actually did intend for it just to be a list; it falling into my ethnicity in Omaha project is just serendipity. Thanks again. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello again. I don't quite understand what exactly you are advocating for me to do. Yes of course, the edit summary is for others to understand what I have done. You have said ""rv" is less cryptic, but still doesn't add any information to what is already obvious." So what is it exactly you would like me to do? At the end you also say "they have no idea what you mean ..." and you finish with "...", which sort of implies, there is something missing, or the train of thought is broken; you have not really offering any suggestions, and finish with a generalised statement defining the edit summary (I agree with your statement).

Furthermore, you say "It's bleeding obvious you reverted it!", I'm not sure what you imply with that, is it that i should instead leave the edit summary blank *gasp*, as anyone who looks at history will see it was a revert, as not to confuse others to what my intention is, or get them to waste time thinking what *r* could possibily mean, or are you trying to say something else? Thank you for your comment, I look forward in hearing back from you. Phgao 10:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the clarification. I will clear things up a bit as well I hope. I added "r" to The Chaser article, as I made a split decision that now I see as wrong, as I do on RC Patrol, that firstly it was an ip which itself did not leave a edit summary, secondly I thought why would someone add who they were when the article itself is about "The Chaser", and thirdly, why would someone add who they were at the bottom of the paragraph, instead of adding it directly into the line where it would have said "the three"; and so I assumed from that, that it was already there (who they were) and thus not needed again as that would be repetitious and superfluous. However, after reviewing the edit I see I was mistaken, and have since added the info direct into the paragraph instead of at the end from the ip. [[1]]. So yes it was a mistake, and I will make those as to err is human.
Might I add, I was indeed wondering why you brought it up, and it was good you mentioned exactly where you got it from. ie the chaser article.
I will take your concerns into account, for obvious vandalism I will use r as well as rv and I will review some edits more to verify they indeed are vandalism. (So I'll stay away from any contentious edits). Also I just want to point out a slight misquoting, you quoted me "as anyone who looks at history will see it was a revert," - but only if they know what "r" means. and that was your reply. But my comment was related to the fact that I was alluding to leaving the edit summary blank and that editors who then click on history, or "diff" will see it was a revert. (So your comment was not applicable, as there would not have been a r.)
But all in all I appreciate your comments and feel free to drop a note anytime. (as well as replying to this message as you see fit). Phgao 11:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TLA - "Professional" opinion requested ...

I've replied at Talk:Three-letter abbreviation. Regards, Jogers (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Gospel music groups structure

I have added a proposed Gospel music group structure to the Gospel music project page (see the Structure section on the page). Please take a look and let me know that you think. Absolon S. Kent 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Gospel music groups structure

Hi. I had a quick look. I don't think I have any major or significant comments. Minor comments:

The top level headings are:

==Early years==
==Musical career==
==Personal life==
==See also==
==External links==
==References==

"Musical career" contains sub-sections:

===Discography===
===Videography===
===Awards===
===Music=== The style of music, important albums, etc should be expressed here.
===Influences===

Comment: "Musical career" is a very big section, AND it contains sub-sections. In general, I would think that "Musical career" would be the focus of the article; I would be tempted to make the sub-sections into separate sections following "Musical career".

I'm a bit confused about the "Music" section. To me it seems that is an integral part of the Musical career section - I don't think you can successfully separate it from that section, (even into a sub-section.) Similarly "Influences".

What do you think of:

==Early years==
==Musical career== The style of music, important albums, influences, etc should also be expressed here.
==Discography==
==Videography==
==Awards==
==Personal life==
==See also==
==External links==
==References==

(BTW: I won't be upset if you completely ignore this; you have spent much more time thinking about this than I have - I personally would pay much more attention to your opinion than mine, and I think you should do the same.)

I hope this is useful. Cheers, Pdfpdf 13:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks. Changes have been incorporated. I think I included everything except "Personal life". BTW: Constructive comments are always welcome and never ignored. Absolon S. Kent 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winans family

FYI, on 6 September, Rich Farmbrough went through and removed all those links you just put back in. Personally, I'm with you and would prefer them in, but I don't have a strong enough opinion to object. However, I did ask (and got an answer):

Headers. I gather "it's not the done thing" to have links from Headers? (e.g. you turned "===Vickie Winans===" into "===Vickie Winans==="). Can you point me at the explanation for this please?
Yes, the (main) reason is that some preference settings don't allow jumping from headers, instead a click will open the section for editing. Style and a historic reason (used to break section links) also figure.

Pdfpdf 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted

Thanks. Noted. Who am I to argue with reason...but it's interesting there was a header link to "The Winans" in the article. I simply changed the other ones. I'll leave this one alone...this time (smile). Thanks for watching this article for us. Absolon S. Kent 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

I want to know where you found the two versions? Wow. And no worries about OBMHoF - that's the wonder of WP, isn't it? – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What perplexes me is that you found info on Amazon - because I had looked there. Oh well. Congrats on such an obscure find. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooohhh... well, then, if that's the case, I rescind my early congrats. I didn't read the talk page that closely. Well then, if that's all done you must be on to some other wonderful obscure WP topic? – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 13:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TLAs

Hallo, I think it's a pity not to have the disambig page just titled "TLA" - you say you moved it there and weren't happy with that. We've now got the situation where typing in "TLA" gets you to the disambig page (good) ... but only via a redirect, which is clumsy. If you look at the "What links here" for Three letter acronym, the vast majority of links are from "ABC" rather than from "ABC (disambiguation)". Apart from that everything seems to hang together, thanks, though I'm not sure I've looked at every reasonable variant! PamD 14:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the wording on the various talk files, to discourage people from having current discussions on obsolete pages - I hope you don't mind me changing your wording! (I have a feeling that if we'd done it all by using "Move" the talk pages would have followed their leaders, but given the spaghettoid history of this lot it mightn't have worked anyway). Cheers. PamD 12:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alone But Not Alone

Haha, I wasnt aware that it was changed...I was like "I coulda sworn I changed that!". Well, we'll see what happens...Jgcarter 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 much speed

Mid importance - ie quite important Old 4 Os - Wee if it was China or Arabia who have had schools for 1 or 2 thousand years then this is not an old school.... but it in Australia and therefore quite old

hope this helps Victuallers 08:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: HQJOC & Russell

My only suggestion would be that you continue working in material from the defence website. The service newspapers which are available via http://www.defence.gov.au/index.htm have been running stories about the interim HQJOC at Russell since it was set up in July(?) so they could be useful. I'd definetly agree that Russell Offices should be a seperate article - it's arguably the most notable office complex in Australia and is a seperate complex from Campbell Park. --Nick Dowling 04:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Nathan

Regarding your edit(s) to Lion Nathan, in the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your message it too cryptic for me. I do use the review button. Is your message saying that if I used the review button, I would have picked up the spelling error? Well, I did use the button, and I didn't pick up the spelling error. So there is a flaw in your logic. However, you did pick up the spelling error! So, in the end, these's no real problem, is there? And you correcting the error took much less time than you posting that message on my page, and me trying to work out what you are on about, and then me typing this response. Suggestion: Instead of doing things semi-automatically, think first. (And if you can get WP to implement a spell-checker, many of these problems would go away anyway.) Pdfpdf 14:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Evidently errors are human. I send this message to anyone making a spelling error because some users are not using the preview button. It was just to inform you, it wasn't a warning message or anything else: just information. About your last suggestion: a javascript spell checker is available on Wikipedia, refer to the Help to find out more or contact me if you don't find. Martial BACQUET 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TLA vs TLA (disambiguation)

I'm confused. You seem to have killed the history of TLA (disambiguation). Why? Pdfpdf 15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, when a page is moved the history goes with it as well. The hisory is at the TLA page. Duja► 06:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does the TLA (disambiguation) history get merged into the TLA history, or does it replace the TLA history? If it replaces it: You seem to have killed the history of TLA. Why? Pdfpdf 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. By default, it replaces the old history, but I can merge them as an administrator. I always take a look at history when I do the obstructed moves, and don't do the merging if everything that was there was only messing with redirects (merging tends to scramble browsing through edit histories). Now, on a closer look, there is an edit of yours which wasn't a redirect, but it looks identical to this one. In sum, it's difficult to analyse what was a copy/paste and what was a "proper" contribution. I can restore it if you want, but why is it so important? The diff I provided above seems to be it. For your info, the deleted history is:
  • 14:20, 19 September 2007 . . Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (←Redirected page to TLA (disambiguation))
  • 12:43, 19 September 2007 . . Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs | block) (1,177 bytes) (Make this the disambiguation page for TLA)
  • 11:46, 19 September 2007 . . PamD (Talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (part of rearrangement, temp move)
  • 19:36, 10 September 2007 . . Dark Shikari (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (fixing double redirect)
  • 02:26, 6 September 2007 . . Circeus (Talk | contribs | block) (34 bytes) (rv to original redirect)
  • 15:53, 3 September 2007 . . Wafulz (Talk | contribs | block) (36 bytes) (double redirect)
  • 17:00, 16 June 2007 . . Goldfritter (Talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (fixing double redir)
  • 03:37, 2 August 2006 . . Daniel Olsen (Talk | contribs | block) (Redirecting to Three-letter acronym)
  • 21:06, 23 June 2006 . . Adambiswanger1 (Talk | contribs | block) (TLA shouldn't be the primary page)
  • 12:14, 5 April 2006 . . Off! (Talk | contribs | block) (moved TLA to Three-letter acronym)
Duja► 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the next-to-last diff, everything else was changing of redirect. Duja► 09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but I can merge them as an administrator - Now that would have to be the first (and so far only) advantage I have seen of being an Administrator! And yes, that was a very poor attempt at humour. ;-) Pdfpdf

Oh, no, you can also delete pages and block naugthy users, which provides a god-like feeling.
Lol! Well, we all have to have some god-like feelings every now and then ...
In turn, you can get harrassed by discontent cranks either online or in real life, if you're stupid to make your real-life identity available, like me :-) Duja► 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the sort of thing that that causes me to want to avoid being an admin!!

I can restore it if you want, but why is it so important? - I don't know that it is important! ("don't know" is the most significant part of that sentence.) It's just that I was very careful not to disturb edit histories, because I thought that doing so was "unacceptable behaviour". You came along and, with your administrator rights, stomped on them. I don't know if they were important; I assumed that people did what they did for reasons that were important to them, and didn't think it was my right to stomp on it. To be honest, I don't really care - I was just trying to be a "good and considerate citizen", and assumed that an administrator would be an "even better and even more considerate citizen". (P.S. I'm not asking you to restore it.)
For your info ... - Thanks. No, there doesn't seem to be anything important, significant (or even useful!) there, does there. (?)

So thanks for the info. To recap:

  • My question was: "Why?".
  • I think your answer was: "Because it didn't remove any significant/useful information." (Did I get that right? If so: "OK, that makes sense.")

However, why do anything at all? Wasn't it OK as it was? Why actually do something, (rather than nothing), when it appears that it wasn't necessary to do anything? (Not an earth-shatteringly-important question, but I am a bit puzzled.) Regards, Pdfpdf 12:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why, albeit succinct, was a terribly broad question
True
—I should probably have asked "do you want a long or a short answer" :-). Since you again ask another "why", I'll try to be reasonably succinct:

Fair enough. (And yes, you were succinct.) Thanks, Pdfpdf 14:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent Category changes to Adelaide Private Schools

I think I don't agree with some of your recent changes, and thought I'd ask you before reverting them.

  • FYI, (as if you didn't already know!), we're different in South Australia. Primary is R-7 and Secondary is 8-12 (or 8-13 if you prefer). (I understand the rest of Australia is R-6 and 7-12.)
  • Prince Alfred College is, in fact, K-13. So changing "Category:Schools in Adelaide" to "Category:High schools in South Australia" is just plain wrong.
  • Same comment for St Peter's College, Adelaide. (Though, if we're being pedantic, they may be R-13 rather than K-13.)
  • Concordia College, Adelaide is unusual, in that it's 7-13, (rather than the "normal" South Australian 8-13), so it's not "just" a secondary school.
  • And why have you changed the categories from "in Adelaide" to "in South Australia"?
  • No doubt you've changed other schools as well; they're not on my watchlist.

Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made about ten of those edits, yes. Technically speaking, a school that is K-13 is a high school, as 8-13 is part of that, so technically it does belong there. This has been done in all School categories in Australia.
Im not sure what "R" is, so i cant comment there? is that like Kindy or Pre-primary (im from the West, we have Kindy, then PP, then grade 1 etc.)
I have changed from Adelaide to SA, basically because it creates too many categories, and defining Adelaide is also slightly ambiguous (the ABS has a definition, i know).
Any problems with that? Twenty Years 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, im trying to make all the School categories (eg. Schools in SA, Schools in WA) all uniform, so we dont have different standards for each state/territory. Twenty Years 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How remarkably sensible and logical of you! In principle I agree and support you; unfortunately, in practice, I have some problems ...

  • FYI: K=kindergaarten=pre-school=pre-primary. R=reception=first-calendar-year-of-primary-school; as SA allows entry at start-of-the-term-after-the-kid-turns-five, The amount of time a kid spends in reception is a function of birth-date. 1=the first "full" year of primary education.
  • Well yes, technically they address the "high school" population, but they also address the primary school population. I'm not happy with you changing "school" to (just) "high school". I can live with you changing it to both "high school" AND "primary school". But really, "Schools in Adelaide" was perfectly adequate, whereas your change is neither accurate nor adequate.
  • I can live with either SA or Adelaide, though I don't know of any private schools in SA that are NOT in Adelaide. (e.g. The 3 on my watchlist are in inner-suburbs of Adelaide.)
  • Yes, I have some problems - already stated.
  • And yes, I'm all for consistency and simplicity, (but my first priority is accuracy).

Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the simple answer would be to create a "Category:Primary schools in South Australia" (or whatever you call primary school), and then populate this category with schools, even if they have "Category:High schoongs in South Australia". Problem solvered? Twenty Years 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer would be to revert what you've done and leave it as it was!
(Yes, we call it a primary school.) (I'm a bit confused by your suggestion.)
What was wrong with "Schools in Adelaide"? (Or, if you prefer, "Schools in South Australia"?)
I'd be amazed if you didn't have schools in WA that weren't didn't educate students of both primary and secondary age. Certainly most private schools in "The East" do that too. How have you been handling them?
As I said before, changing "Schools in SA" to "Secondary schools in SA" is just plain wrong, and chaning it to two entries of "Primary schools in SA" and "Secondary schools in SA" isn't much better; it implies they are two schools, which they are not.

I can live with you changing "Schools in Adelaide" to "Schools in SA" if you must, but I don't see the value of changing one category into two categories, particularly when both are inaccurate descriptions of the situation!

So: "No, problem not solvered (yet)." Pdfpdf 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with creating a category like that is that it is likely to be CfD'd because in the eyes of wikipedians "primary schools are generally non-notable", but i am more than willing to have one. Twenty Years 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! This just gets more complicated as we go!
Remind me please: What was wrong with "Schools in Adelaide"/"Schools in SA"? Pdfpdf 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just butt in with one relevant observation - with the pre-school years Twenty Years has done nothing wrong - K in WA is the year before year 1. There is indeed a year before that (i.e. 2 years before year 1), which is not accommodated by the primary system. In SA, that K year is called R or Reception. Just to confuse the crap out of everybody, in both states, *both* years are often administered by child health centres or kindergartens. Like us they divide at 7|8 instead of 6|7 (the Vic/NSW way). I have friends who have grown up in a range of systems across Australia so got my head around it years ago :) Orderinchaos 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you?? ;-D Pdfpdf 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(And yes, the K/R/whatever end isn't the problem.) Pdfpdf 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the bright light of a new day, I have broadened my POV, and have a broader understanding of what I think your POV is. In summary, I can live with the changes you've made. However, I do have some comments/questions:

  • The categories seem to be of the from "type-of-school in location". i.e. There seems to be two aspects to the categories: type and location
  • I think your major aim is to reduce the number of locations by merging Adelaide and SA into the same location. Yes? If so, my POV is "Good idea."
  • So, looking at the "type-of-school", just how many types are there? (Without looking or straining my brain, I can think of: private, secondary, boarding. Presumably there are others too.) Given that "primary schools are generally non-notable", that tends to complicate the matter a little, because such a category would/could never be populated representatively. (i.e. It would/could only be populated with "notable" primary schools.)
  • Although changing "Schools in Adelaide" to "Secondary Schools in South Australia" is "wrong", adding "Secondary Schools in South Australia" to a school in SA which contains a secondary school is sensible, and changing Adelaide to SA is sensible.
  • So, I think my POV on type-of-school is "I can live with your changes."

OK? Cheers, Pdfpdf 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many types of schools: eg. private, public, primary, secondary, boarding, religious (eg, christian brothers, anglican etc), single-sex (boys or girls). The bigger states will naturally have more sub cats. Have a look in "Schools in Australia", that has most of them. Twenty Years 01:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pdfpdf 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Spell Checker

a javascript spell checker is available on Wikipedia, refer to the Help to find out more or contact me if you don't find. Martial BACQUET 15:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a Wikipedia spell checker. I use the spell checker built into my Mozilla browser. Further information can be found here: Wikipedia:Tools/Editing_tools#Spell_Checkers. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find wikEd running in Firefox very elegant with wiki syntax highlighting, spell checking and preview features. jmcw 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you gentlemen! (This is even more effective than "help me"!!) Pdfpdf 10:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really did enjoy your "I'm sorry, but ..." shaggy dog commentary. jmcw 10:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

single vs 12" single vs EP vs album?

I've noticed that What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco 12" Vinyl) was tagged jazz-stubb in June and jazz-album-stubb on 10 September. Also, Talk:What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco 12" Vinyl) was tagged album|class=Stub today. I have a couple of questions:

  • This recording is an "EP" not an "album". With-respect-to tagging, does it matter if it's an EP and not an album?
  • What's the difference between tagging the article, and tagging the talk page?

Thanks, Pdfpdf 12:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EPs fall under the auspices of the Albums Project. Is that really an EP, though? It looks like a 12" single. I notice it's not listed on Matt Bianco's discography. Also, I think it is named incorrectly. It should be What a Fool Believes (Matt Bianco single) (or EP, whichever). In addition to that, this article could be speedily deleted, since it doesn't assert its own significance. Is this song or record significant? Did it chart? Is it on a major label? I recommend you expand it as much as possible. -Freekee 16:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, except it should be "(Matt Bianco song)", not "(Matt Bianco single)", per WP:SONG#Naming conventions. --PEJL 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time for a full answer now, but:

  • Is that really an EP, though? It looks like a 12" single. - I agree, but that's the label have classified it as ...
  • No, it shouldn't be renamed to either be "song" or "single", because they would refer to a different recording of a different version.
  • However, perhaps it should be merged into a page with that name that mentions all of their different versions of this song. Yes, I'd agree with that.
  • I notice it's not listed on Matt Bianco's discography. - Significance of comment? I'm sure there are many recordings "not listed on Matt Bianco's discography".

More later Pdfpdf 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't a record be listed on a band's discography? If it's not even important enough to be listed in the band's discography, I question whether it should have its own article. Since the article doesn't assert the song's significance, I don't know whether it should be an article. I trust you will have time to expand this article in the near future. And unless it's going to be deleted, the name needs to be changed from 12" Vinyl to EP. Articles should be about releases, not the physical format. In other words, you don't find one article entitled Joshua Tree (LP) and another Joshua Tree (CD). -Freekee 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't a record be listed on a band's discography? - One reason might be: because the list is incomplete.
Articles should be about releases, not the physical format. - That seems sensible. Sometimes it can be ambiguous; e.g. many artists have separately released a '12" single' which is a quite different version of a song than the "original" single (mostly, much longer), and these are known as the '12" single' version - this is a different situation from your Joshua Tree example, but I still think your point is relevant.

So, I'll go back to asking questions:

  • Can someone explain the difference between tagging the article, and tagging the talk page please?
  • It seems to make a difference whether it's classified as a 12" single or an EP. Can someone explain the significance of the difference in their treatments on WP please?
  • How do you decide if it's a 12" single of an EP?

Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"*How do you decide if it's a 12" single of an EP?" a single is a promotion of one track or song, an EP is a release that doesn't have that many tracks on it. If it's only boosting one song, then it's a single. -Violask81976 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to tell is to see what the record company calls it. As for how we treat full albums versus EPs... we treat them the same. Same templates, same project guidelines. The only difference is that we call them EPs or albums. EPs really are just short albums. Singles, on the other hand, like Viola mentioned, are intended to sell a single song, even though they have other tracks added, to make them more appealing.
That's a good point that the format sometimes differentiates different releases that have the same title. But I would also point out that these different releases would most likely be included in the same article here at Wikipedia. For example, a band could release a song as a CD single, a 12" vinyl single, and again as a CD, but with different songs as "b-sides." All three of these releases should be included in the same article, since we write articles about the songs, rather than the plastic. We really are most interested in the song itself. How it is released is part of that, but the different formats can be included in the text of the article. Also, keep in mind the (currently vague) notability requirements. Although we write articles on every album ever released (if by a notable band), we only write articles about notable songs and singles. Usually this means a single has charted. -Freekee 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response - I didn't notice your reply.
I found your and Viola's replies quite helpful. Thank you.
Applying all of the advice above, I would conclude that this information (data?) should appear on the Matt Bianco page, and that the What a Fool Believes page should contain a link to the relevant section on the Matt Bianco page.
Do you agree? Pdfpdf 00:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the song, should be wikilinked to that article. I would have set it up exactly that way, with the exception that I would not have made an article for the three-track 12" vinyl. I recommend grabbing the infobox template from this project page and filling in the info for the album articles. That's pretty simple to do. -Freekee 00:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Discuss where?" / Rhodes

On the disussion page :-) See here. I've put there my rationale for removing the 'oldest' claim. Let us know if you think I've missed something Robkenny 09:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters Joint Operations Command (Australia)

I think I fixed the stub now. Please let me know if there is any problem with the edit. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 11:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Smith

I'm trying to figure out where you found Leslie Smith's middle name; except for some of your articles and one other site that doesn't make the connection clear, the most substantiative references I can find online are to "Leslie O. Smith".
Any pointers? –Unint 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sharp intake of breath.) Good question! I'm afraid I can't remember where I saw it.
I can remember seeing "Leslie O. Smith" many times, so on the occasion that I saw "Orlando", I noted it. But as I said, I'm afraid I can't remember where I saw it. (And, of course, now I can't find that reference!)
I'll ask Freechild - he's good at finding things - and get back to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Which is the "one other site that doesn't make the connection clear"? Pdfpdf 02:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freechild! How goes it? (I'm nearing the end of Notable Rhodes Scholars, but have been doing income tax - yuk!. On Saturday the whole family is off to http://www.dunk-island.com for a week!) Changing subject - I've been asked a question I can't seem to answer. Can you help? Thanks and cheers, Pdfpdf 02:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I've found in a quick look is at http://www.sharewaremusicmachine.com/smm/wwwboard/messages/90950.html - but I'll keep looking. • Freechild'sup? 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the other site I was talking about. –Unint 03:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. No, that wasn't the site I got the name from. I'll keep looking, and when (not if, when) I find it, I'll get back to you (unless Freechild finds it before I do!). As I'm away next week, it might be a couple of weeks before I reply. Sorry to be so vague and unhelpful. Cheers, Pdfpdf 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it!:

While looking, I also found:

(I haven't been able to check http://www.danubemusic.com/bio1.html)
(I was also surprised to see how many people mirror WP! e.g.:

http://0po0.com/Lester_Abrams
http://www.britain.tv/wikipedia.php?title=Lester_Abrams
http://www.medlibrary.org/medwiki/Lester_Abrams )

Cheers, Pdfpdf 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Actually this was for another site: I suspected that this and this (save for those 2007 credits) should be the same person, and it appears that I can go ahead with it. I also submitted a short profile based on all this information. –Unint 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Jolly

Yep; he's clearly Australian, and I've edited his article to reflect that. At the time I wrote the initial stub I only had Cricinfo's bio to go on, and that says "England" under his name. The various sources added since make it pretty clear that he was much more Australian than English, hence the change. Loganberry (Talk) 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


St Peter's College, Adelaide#Emblem

Hi. (In my POV), "nn" seems a strange reason/justification for deleting this section. It also seems (to me) to be a somewhat subjective judgement. In my POV, the section is interesting and/or informative - notability isn't a relevant criterion here. For example, how/why is the "House system" section notable? (I don't think it is notable). However, I do NOT think the "House system" section should be deleted, and given that you haven't deleted that section, I gather that you also do not think it should be deleted. In other words, I don't follow your reasoning. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Thanks (in anticipation of your enlightening reply). Cheers, Pdfpdf 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i see your point, my issue with something like this is that this is largely built on one interpretation of the image. The motto section is repeated in the infobox, so that is unnescessary duplication. The major issue is sourcing something like this, if the article were to go to FA it probably would need a source. If you can source it, then by all means go for it. Another side issue is that the information is just plain boring, in reality who gives a stuff that the schools emblem has two summounted keys which represent something; a solution to the problem is to sell it to the school, so they can use it in their student handbook. Long story short: It wont help the article get to FA. Twenty Years 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. Very interesting, and yes, I am now enlightened as to your POV. Thank you. I'm not sure where to go from here. I guess my response is something like: "Well yes, but ... "

  • this is largely built on one interpretation - Well yes, but on the other hand, the image is one visual interpretation of some idea that somebody wanted represented visually ...
  • The motto section is repeated in the infobox - Well yes, but if you're going to have a section describing/interpreting the image (which includes the motto), then it would be a bit strange not to include the motto ...
  • The major issue is sourcing something like this - "The major issue". Really? I wouldn't have thought it would be all that difficult to source. (I imagine it might have been copied from their student hanbook!) Perhaps I'm wrong ...
  • if the article were to go to FA it probably would need a source - I agree.
  • Another side issue is that the information is just plain boring, in reality who gives a stuff - (Lol!) Well yes, but that's hardly NPOV, and presumably the person who wrote it, (or more likely, copied it), "gives a stuff"! Unfortunately, the "who gives a stuff" criterion probably applies to 99.9% of the article, and indeed to 99.9% of WP, but that doesn't stop either you or me spending hours at our keyboards ...
  • Long story short: It wont help the article get to FA. - It probably won't hinder it getting there either! ;-) (In any case, "Who gives a stuff" whether it does or doesn't?)

So what? As I said above, "I'm not sure where to go from here". (My primary interest was to understand your reasoning, which I now do. As for me, I don't really have any strong opinion on the subject either way, but I do find it's inclusion informative ...). I shall leave it in your hands. Again, thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i just monitor the article for vandalism and care not one bit, so i might aswell leave it. My POV here is that i got absolutely blasted for writing stuff like this in this article, which was basically the main focus of an essay entitled Aquinascruft, which was later named schoolcruft. It has some mighty funny stuff in the references section, definately worth a look at. Cheers. Twenty Years 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i just monitor the article for vandalism - Largely, so do I, but occasionally I get the uncontrollable urge to "improve" things. (Yes, I know, I need to get a life.) definately worth a look - Thanks. Will do. Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Schools?

I recall that in an earlier discussion we had you said something like "Primary Schools are generally nn". However, I see that about 50% of the List of schools in South Australia is red links to Primary Schools. Have you got any knowledge about the rationale behind this? Thanks, Pdfpdf 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I only spotted one blue link to a Primary School, (Woodend Primary School), and that's a redirect to the "Schools" sub-section of the suburb it's in, but I digress ... ) Pdfpdf 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt have a clue. Ive just finished cleaning up Category:Primary schools in Australia and got rid of all the nn ones. My suggestion is basically that remove all the red links, because if the article was going to me made (and is notable) it woulda been made by now. Ive probably AfD'd a few of them. Twenty Years 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds logical/sensible/reasonable. Pdfpdf 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between Three letter acronym and TLA

Must have been an oversight, sorry. Though it may be better as a dab link on the top of the page, something like "For other uses, see TLA", don't you think? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 17:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. I have mixed feelings. Three letter acronym is a subset of TLA, so it would have to say something like "For other uses of TLA, see TLA." which (I think) would look a bit weird at the top of an article called "Three letter acronym". Not surprisingly I guess, I prefer it as it currently is.
(i.e. "A three letter acronym (commonly referred to as a TLA) is ... ").Your thoughts? Pdfpdf 16:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf/Archive03&oldid=1182936808"