Talk:A380 (disambiguation)

Disambiguation superfluous
A380 refers in 99.9% of cases to the aircraft. This page should redirect there. At most there should be a link from the Airbus A380 page to the disambiguation. Causantin (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto. - SSJ ☎ 22:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 99.9% simply is not true. I know, because I went through all the links to A380 to disambiguate them properly. Unfortunately I didn't keep formal records, but at least six articles with links to A380 were obviously intending to point to A380 road, against perhaps 100 that were intending to point to Airbus A380. That might be 94%, but it is way off 99.9%.


 * The problem with doing what you have done is that there is no software way of detecting incorrect links. With A380 as a dab page, there are existing scripts that will flag links to dab pages for resolution. By making this change, you have ensured that policing of incorrect links has to be a time consuming manual process. Which is absolutely fine if you are prepared to commit to that. I'll keep my eye on this; if the number of incorrect links seems to be building up again, I'll take steps to revert back to the A380 is dab page situation. -- Starbois (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Two points: First, I did not do the revert, user Ssolbergj did. Secondly, and most importantly, Wikipedia focuses on the needs of the users, not the editors. The number of articles that link to A380 the road is irrelevant, as it is the authors' responsibility to disambiguate them (and test them) properly. On the other hand, I am willing to bet that 99.9% of users that search for "A380" are looking for the plane. Of course I cannot prove this, but I think most people would agree with me. Causantin (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hum. I'm not still convinced about 99.9% or anything close to that. See my comment that Ssolbegj has read in below, on the fact that there are 60 million or so UK residents who have been brought up to read an A999 style reference as a road name. This convention dates from the beginning of the 20th century and is pretty well inculcated. People involved (or interested) in aviation around the world may well think of the Airbus A380, but with only 12(?) aircraft delivered, fewer in service, and only a handful of airports with scheduled service, there hasn't been much general public exposure to the aircraft yet. Heck, I live 30 minutes drive from one of those airports, and am interested in all things transportational, but I've only glimpsed one once in the distance. I think you could make a better case for redirecting 747 to Boeing 747, as the 'Jumbo' is a much better known aircraft to the general public after nearly 40 years of service. Of course, all that may change if and when the Airbus A380 proves to be a commercial success, but it is probably a year or two out before we know that for sure. The history of aviation is littered with types that began with as much hype as the Airbus A380, but are little remembered now. -- Starbois (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not particularly interested in the subject, but did you just compare the world's first double-decker aircraft with one of approximately 600 roads in England? You seriously suggest that Wikipedia users will come in looking for the 10 lines that are written about the road? Even if the aircraft were a flop (which it isn't, it has 200 orders and is in full-scale production), its revolutionary character would make it noteworthy. As for the 747, it is a number, making it a completely different case from an alphanumeric code. B747 already redirects to the aircraft by the way. Causantin (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation superfluous (reprise)
COPIED FROM MY TALK PAGE: - SSJ ☎ 16:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Hi.

You recently re-redirected A380 to Airbus A380, presumably in response to the comment in Talk:A380:


 * A380 refers in 99.9% of cases to the aircraft. This page should redirect there. At most there should be a link from the Airbus A380 page to the disambiguation.

Unfortunately 99.9% simply is not true. I know, because I went through all the links to A380 (as well as A300, A310, A318, A319, A320, A321, A330 and A350) to disambiguate them properly. Unfortunately I didn't keep formal records, but at least six articles with links to A380 were obviously intending to point to A380 road, against perhaps 100 that were intending to point to Airbus A380. That might be 94%, but it is way off 99.9%.

I suspect it is not true in common usage either. The vast majority of UK residents would certainly read an unqualified A380 as a reference to a road, and there are 60 million of them. The vast majority of people associated with aviation would see it as a reference to the Airbus A380. I don't know how many of them there are, but I doubt it is as many as 60 million, and I'm certain sure it is not the 59 billion that 99.9% would imply. The rest of the world would just be puzzled. In short, it is genuinely ambiguous.

The fundamental problem with doing what you have done is that there is no software way of detecting incorrect links. With (eg) A380 as a dab page, there are existing scripts that will flag links to dab pages for resolution. By making this change, you have ensured that policing of incorrect links has to be a time consuming manual process. Which is absolutely fine if you are prepared to commit to that. Although I disagree quite strongly with your changes, I won't attempt to revert them. However I will keep my eye on this; if the number of incorrect links seems to be building up again, I'll have to reconsider that decision.

Incidentally, there is (I suspect) an even bigger problem, where the boot is somewhat on the other foot. By long standing WP convention, all three/four digit numeric article titles refer to years in the current era. So articles 737 and 747 have absolutely nothing to do with aviation. But as a side effect of my dab efforts on A???, I found a good ten cases where editors of aviation based articles linked to them in the clear misapprehension that they were referring to articles on the Boeing 737 and Boeing 747. I fixed the ones I found, but I suspect there are many more. This just makes the source articles and WP look silly. Any thoughts on what can be done.

- Starbois (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)