Talk:Buu

Acronym links

When a disambiguation page relates to an acronym, the full title of the page being disambiguated should be linked. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Check out, say, CSD. or NPR (disambiguation). or TRL. Deiz talk 05:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That disagrees with my understanding of WP:MOSDAB, which encourages the use of redirects that match the disambiguated phrase as opposed to the different-than-dab direct link. Perhaps there is a clearer guideline on acronyms you can point me to (as opposed to just sample pages, since incorrectly formatted disambiguation pages are plentiful). In any event, please do not use administrator protection abilities in edit disputes that you are directly involved in. -- JHunterJ 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I support JHunterJ, and am unhappy by Deiz' recent actions. Though it may be none of my business, I expect better from a sysop, especially Deiz. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Look at it this way. On a page with multiple entities with the same acronym, and given the explicit provision for not using piped links, is it practical to link to them all like this:
• T.R.L. (Total Request Live) or Total Request Live, a television show on MTV
• T.R.L. (Telstra Research Laboratories) or Telstra Research Laboratories, an Australian telecommunications research centre
• T.R.L. (Temporary Residence Limited) or Temporary Residence Limited, an American record label
• T.R.L. (Transport Research Laboratory), a UK research establishment associated with all areas of transportation

etc.? No, we link the title of the article being disambiguated. Until such time as someone can point out why this case is any different (there may be only one articled entity with this acronym right now, but the world will not end tomorrow), I see no reason - and believe me, I've been around mosdabbing enough - not to link the article title. Bear in mind that typing BUU in the search bar brings you directly to Buu. Protection was applied because an unusual, unhelpful edit which negatively affected ease of navigation with no clear rationale in policy or common practice was applied by several editors. I would also point out the final provision of MoSdab: "These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Setting aside the fact there is nothing in the guideline which prevents linking to an article title anyway, there is no reason to create an extra page at B.U.U., when the title of the show can be linked directly from BUU. Deiz talk 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense but I see no good reason coming from you. You protected the page in ill will just so I, a non-sysop, would refrain from editing it. You should not tell others to chill just because you can't except something. There's absolutely no reason why redirects shouldn't be in practice on dab pages. Haven't you heard the wiki-phrase, "Redirects are cheap."? What is so bad about this guideline? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If the B.U.U. redirect should not be, the place to discuss it is WP:RFD. And the protection was a bad idea since it was applied by the only admin/editor who felt the previous edit was unhelpful. -- JHunterJ 01:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is absolutely the least helpful edit I have ever seen defended so strongly. Ever. Did you even read the provision about usefulness to the reader? Let me make it clearer for you: "These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal". We're trying to link our readers to actual pages, not double redirects of acronyms that have been created solely to satisfy the letter, rather than the spririt, of formatting guidelines. Deiz talk 03:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier edit summary, what does Kuwabara have to do with any of this - this is an acronym related issue, hence if you believe Kuwabara is relevant, I think we may have found the nub of why you are insisting on inappropriate formatting for this particular page. Deiz talk 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuwabara is an example of an excellent dab page, please stop undoing the redirects and do not consider protecting this page again. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, its a great dab page but it has nothing to do with disambiguating an article by it's initials. I'm still yet to see one examaple of this happening elsewhere on Wikipedia, yet have provided a great many examples where it certainly doesnt. We don't create new acronyms for things, but on dab pages which relate to the initials of something with an article, we disambiguate the full title of the article in question. I just don't see how that isnt clear from the examples above. Deiz talk 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is to utilise possible redirects, whether it is an acronym or not. Do you recall when JHunterJ told you this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is usefulness to the reader, not creating redirects just because we can. There is simply no reason in precedent, policy or logic to create an artificial redirect page to disambiguate an article, or - far worse - to prove a point. When I write someone a memo, I don't need to waste time and resources by putting it in an envelope with their initials on it, I just hand it to them, and that is exactly how we disambiguate articles by their initials - we let the reader go directly to the page. That's how every other disambiguation-by-initials happens on WP. I am still yet to see ONE other example of an artificial redirect page being created solely for this purpose. RfD has nothing to do with this, B.U.U. can float around in the ether for as long as it wants.. just because it was erroneously created does not mean we have to use it, nor does it have any bearing on the issue of usefulness to WP readers and the extremely clear standard formatting of articles disambiguated by their initials.Deiz talk 08:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to hear what JHunterJ says. You have good points, but I'm sticking to the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guideline advocating this strange method you're using. It's just redundant redirects you're creating and trying to put into use. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Top of the MOS:DP guideline, "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages in the article namespace. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term." You may also want to read WP:MOSDAB#Piping. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with using redirects. You're forsaking the spirit of the page to go by the letter. Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are, like redirects, non-article pages — This has nothing to do with using redirects, hence it does not support your position. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles — Keyword, you are supposed to link to articles. From piping: Exceptions: 1. Use piping if you are linking to an anchor point on the target page. — This is the only point in which piping is relevant. Your citations are not relevant to your position, nor do they advocate it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost, sort of. I've been firmly told to use redirects, but perhaps I've misinterpreted something in the guideline as a result of it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 09:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say you got lost at redirects. You do not have to use redirects. You should make them were appropriate, and even use them where the alternative would be ungainly (i.e. long anchors), but you should not actively enforce their use where there is no valid reason for doing so. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's use a Naruto example, was this edit done correctly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No (referring to redirect use). It was fine as it was. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes (referring to redirect use). Per WP:MOSDAB#Piping, "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not." -- JHunterJ 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So, technically, this edit and this edit by Someguy were done incorrectly, if we go by your arguement. Should the edits be reverted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. -- JHunterJ 10:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In the example given, Delta Quadrant is preferred because it has Delta in it. The same would not apply here. As for Konan and the other guy, piping accomplishes the same thing, and it's not quite as misleading as showing a disambiguation which more or less does not exist. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The principle applies here, although it's not as big of a deal (IMO). I do not think that B.U.U. is necessary, but it is also perfectly acceptable (and if not, should be made an WP:RFD instead), so I do not understand the contentiousness here. -- JHunterJ 10:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I'm aware of here is disambiguating an article by its initials, which - when the dab page exactly matches the initials of the entity - we do by listing the full name of the page and not by creating artificial redirects. That's absolutely common practice, absolutely policy / guideline friendly and certainly the most logical and useful method. Naruto, Kuwabara, pipes... have nothing to do with the Bam's Unholy Union issue. Nothing. If there's another issue here, for example whether to list Majin as Majin Buu or Buu (Dragon Ball), it might be worth starting a new section to discuss it. Deiz talk 23:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Deiz, but it would help if we could settle this all at in one section. From what I understand, Someguy says that redirects should never be used. JHunterJ, on the other hand, demonstrates that redirects should always be used over a pipe link. Someguy, what are you trying to say exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru, stop seeing things as black and white. It's not a never/always situation. Rarely does such a thing exist. It's case by case basis. There are certainly points in which it would be helpful. This is not one of them. As Deiz notes, we list out full names which can be identified by initials (CL does not use C.L. for Code Lyoko, for example). As for the unrelated issue of piping, I feel it's better to pipe and send the editor straight there, and the disambigaution term is already in the pipe. The parentheticals are unnecessary, as five words later we note the series anyway. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Attempted compromise. We have 2 editors who are quite clearly demonstrating we do not create artificial redirects and use full titles to disambiguate articles by their initials, an uninvolved admin who protected the page to prevent this happening again, another editor who has no problem with the full-title formatting, and Sesshomaru - who, lest we forget, created the B.U.U. redirect page - openly admitting to being unsure about how this form of disambiguating works, yet constantly reverting the page. Sess, please - B.U.U. is demonstrably unnecessary and entirely counter to standard practice, and continually reverting the page is only going to lead to long-term protection. Deiz talk 13:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Deiz, I'm not following. I didn't revert anything: compare my old revision and my most recent one. Where do you see me using the B.U.U. redirect in my recent one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

B.U.U. linked or unlinked is completely artificial. Just leave the title of the show. Deiz talk 23:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What does "completely artificial" mean or have to do with it? I do not think that B.U.U. is necessary, but it is also perfectly acceptable (and if not, should be made an WP:RFD instead), so I do not understand the contentiousness here. I stated this above. -- JHunterJ 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be acceptable under a very literal interpretation of the guidelines, but it is not supported by common practice, absolutely contrary to the core provision that disambiguation pages should be useful to the reader, and does not actually refer to anything - B.U.U. is not an official acronym for anything, it's something Sesshomaru made up because he was confused about disambiguation formatting. It is not the job of Wikipedia to create acronyms, but common practice to disambiguate article titles by their initials. Deiz talk 01:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If "B.U.U." is not a acronym used for Bam's Unholy Union, then Bam's Unholy Union should't be listed on the dab at all, and Buu (Dragon Ball) should be moved to the base name Buu article. The acronym doesn't have to be "official", but it should be in use. And if it's not in use, then the redirect B.U.U. should be deleted. The "very literal" interpretation of the guidelines is just a simple reading of the guidelines -- I have no subject-matter expertise for DragonBall or Bam's Unholy Union.

Wikipedians are welcome to create redirects if they like for abbreviations where applicable (WP:R#Spellings, misspellings, tenses and capitalizations). It is not the job of dab pages to disambiguate article titles by their initials unless the acronym is in common use. -- JHunterJ 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In which case it is entirely in keeping with WP guidelines and common practice to disambiguate Bam's Unholy Union on this page, in the style exemplified by all other dab pages where articles are disambiguated by their inititals, i.e. by the title of the article. As Sesshomaru has stated, this has been concluded... let's move on. Deiz talk 14:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We can conclude with this edit, in favour of Deiz' complaint. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up tag

I've removed the CU tag for the moment, as this seems OK to me. If anyone thinks it still needs clean up, please make the corrections and/or put the concerns on the discussion page and re-tag it. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)