Talk:S (symbol)

2007-04-24 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a disambiguation page?
Someone has marked this article as a disambiguation page but I, as its creator, don't think so. I moved this article's content from S (disambiguation) for two reasons: Feel free to disagree. --maf (talk-cont) 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a list of stuff that can be represented by the symbol S, but it's not dabbing stuff: S would not be another title for Saskatchewan, S would not be another title for Saturday or for September, and so on.
 * 2) Not being a dab page (which cannot feature content), this article can (and does) include content that stands on its own and also much longer descriptors than would be acceptable in a dab page.


 * It appears very dabby, as a list of "Thingy may refer to:", but I see your point about the title. If it's not a dab, it would appear to be more of a dictionary entry.  There's nothing encyclopedic (that is, linkable from mainspace articles) about it. -- JHunterJ 11:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (I've already stated my opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28disambiguation_pages%29 but I will go into more detail here, as I rethought some details and have slightly changed my opinion.) 1. Keeping list (symbol) entries separate from the main dab page is IMO still a good idea if the dab page gets too long, as it would undermine/discriminate the wiki articles that are really dabby otherwise. 2. I agree with User:Mafmafmaf, Saturday etc. is unsuitable for a dab page. 3. Some of the main symbols are still dab-worthy, even if not in the strictest sense. Example: While an article about sulfur would/should never be called "S" (i.e. not dab), "S" is mentioned in the first line (that alone is still not dabby), and other articles might link to Sulfur, like Sulfuric acid with H2SO4, at least if someone starts a new article about a certain chemical compound. Also, while the chemical symbols are used worldwide, the English name for a chemical element usually differs from language to language and might need to be dabbed, for real and for convenience. From skimming over the other symbol meanings though, I would say sulfur is still only one of the very very few dab-worthy entries, and the symbol list should not be a dab page. 4. To give a quick overview, my (German) paper encyclopedia lists under the letter S: letter; abbreviation for page, South, Austrian Schilling; Sulfur; Second; abbreviation for Saint. So, IMO, if the dab and symbol page are to remain separate, the symbols mentioned above might also be included on the dab page, with an invisible comment to not include other symbols on the dab page but rather on S (symbol) (check an English paper encyclopdia how it's done there). – sgeureka t•c 12:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem with this page (and all other single-letter dabs), is that first sight it looks very dabby, at second sight it looks very dictionaryish, and lastly it looks like some of the symbols should be dabbed after all, like the chemical elements. I purposefully did not touch the contents that I moved to see if others would reach this conclusion too. What I'll do now: a) go through the content of the article and see what dabbable in there, b) put comments on dab and article pages, c) propose a new entry on Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) on this subject. Thank you. --maf (talk-cont) 15:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)