Talk:TNA

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC) TNA (disambiguation) → TNA — There are multiple items that use the acronym TNA, not just Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Naming conventions (acronyms): Acronyms as words in article titles states because of that, the article TNA should be a list of what could TNA stands for.PepsiPlunge 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC) PepsiPlunge 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support - I would suggest that the most common usage is actually the one which is currently on top of the list, and not the wrestling reference. Chris cheese whine 07:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be T & A and T and A, not TNA. TJ Spyke 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've seen it as T&A, T and A, and TNA. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have, I have never seen TNA used for it. TJ Spyke 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course that means that it's not important, right? Chris cheese whine 05:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I suspect the wrestling thing might be the most important, but not to the exclusion of all others. As per WP:MOSDAB, "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." --DeLarge 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no extended discussion. No one had a problem with this until this user unilaterally change the page. TJ Spyke 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The TNA history log begs to differ from you opinion that no one has a problem with TNA redirecting to Total Nonstop Action, since there have been several edits by multiple people redirecting it to TNA (disambiguation). PepsiPlunge 02:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't constitute a extended discussion, or any discussion actually. TJ Spyke 05:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyer much? Chris cheese whine 05:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not wikilawyering. Comments in an edit summary is not a discussion. TJ Spyke 06:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're putting forward an asinine argument about what does or does not constitute "discussion", in a rather lawyerly fashion. It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck ... Chris cheese whine 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. As per Chris. I feel like a pervert now. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support tits and ass is the most common meaning of this (also spelt TnA, T'n'A).. and Trinitroaniline would also be more significant than wrestling. I dare say, someone could be searching for some form of nucleic acid as well (Threose Nucleic Acid). 70.51.8.242 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Tits and ass are almost always "T & A" or "T and A". I know Google searches aren't conclusive, but a search for "TNA" has 9 of the first 10 being for the wrestling fed (the 10th was for the Texas Nurses Association). TJ Spyke 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you're clearly the ultimate arbiter on how people render "tits and ass", right? Exclude the word "wrestling", and the top 10 includes The National Archives and an "adult BitTorrent tracker" called PureTNA.  Since you want to deal in personal experience, I asked a dozen red-blooded males what they thought I meant by "TNA".  I got 11 "tits and ass", and one who said "tits and ass, though I think it has something to do with wrestling too".  Chris cheese whine 22:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting a little defensive, aren't you? I said Goodle isn't conclusive, but most of the hits for "TNA" are for the wrestling fed. In fact, "TNA" -wrestling drops the count from 5.1 million to 1.78 million (so the strong majority are for wrestling). TJ Spyke 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Too many other articles share the TNA initials. Besides, TNA is not that big at all. Mshake3 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Seems totally the right thing to do here.  Vegaswikian 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) Strong Oppose Total Nonstop Action Wrestling is the most common use for TNA. There is already a link at the TNA Wrestling article for those who might be looking for other uses. TJ Spyke 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that as an unbiased observer or a wrestling fan? PepsiPlunge 02:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both. From what i've seen, TNA has been used almost exclusively for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. TJ Spyke 05:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't be both. Chris cheese whine 05:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bullocks. TJ Spyke 06:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are being biased. Tits and ass is the most common usage. 70.51.8.242 10:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tits and Ass (from what I have seen) is always T & A or T and A. TJ Spyke 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not for the rest of us. I'll admit I have never even heard of TNA as wrestling. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move reverted
It appears that has reverted the above rename, and redirected TNA to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. I've left the user a note with a link to this page. If we don't hear back soon, I think a move back would be fair, but I don't want to engage in a move war, so if we haven't heard a compelling argument in a day or two, I'll ask another admin to carry out the move. In the meanwhile, very little harm will be done, as readers can still find whatever they're looking for.

Whoever carries out the move might want to add a R to disambiguation page template, which is appropriate anyway, and also has the nice effect of creating a non-trivial edit history, thus avoiding this kind of situation. I forgot to do it myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to have a disambiguation page for this but it should definitely redirect to TNA wrestling. really, who the hell is gonna look up the "thai news agency"? hmm? KP317 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking in plain English
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what TNA stand for the main part is what the letters is commonly known for. the name TNA can be found on National TV in America ex Spike TV and all these other TNA references can even be put on a disambiguation page or just not needed I mean really all thoes articles are not even visited. The National Archives I feel does not evolves around the letters TNA as you can see in this picture on the right it doesn't even have the letters TNA So I feel that TNA should just go to TNA Wrestling page and the rest to the disambiguation page   iCEMAN  247   03:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversionary edits
Here I made a substantial edit to this page. Here (revert 1), user user:bkonrad made an edit the effect of which was to revert some of those changes. The curt edit summary "Useless redundancy" did not explain WP policy violations. I reverted the edit and in my edit summary "Not useless or redundant but explanatory. eg 2,4,6-Trinitroaniline is not obviously TNA. eg2 the language code is tna not TNA. See also MOS:DABMENTION" I attempted to explain my reasoning. Here (revert 2), user user:bkonrad made an edit the effect of which was to revert with edit summary "Completely redundant as there is no nothing should be listed that is known as some variant of tna)", which does not cite policy, does not address the oreasoning in my edit summary, and by using reversion instead of discussion does not follow WP:BRD. I reverted the edit and in my edit summary "There is a difference between TNA and tna. Discuss on Talk page if required. And read MOS:DABMENTION" I further explained my reasoning and inferred that user:bkonrad should avoid WP:edit warring. [Here]  user:bkonrad wilfully ignores my request to discuss on the Talk page and uses edit summary "I know WP:DABMENTION well and nothing in this edit applies, it is completely redundant and unnecessary verbiage".

First, addressing content. WP:DABMENTION applies to Thornton Abbey railway station and Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport. My interpretation is that "Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, China, by IATA code" is incorrect (and unhelpful). The entry is about the abbreviation TNA not about the airport. The link starts the entry (incorrect) and does not anywhere refer to "TNA" (unhelpful). A better entry is "TNA, IATA code for Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, China". Many other dab pages use this format. The same logic applies to the railway station code. Next, this dab page is about abbreviations TNA and tna but the title of the article is TNA. The language code is tna not TNA and so "Tacana language ISO 639 code" is insufficient because it does not explain why Tacana language is in the dab page, and it does not make clear that the code is tna not TNA. "tna, ISO639 code for Tacana language" is therefore better. Furthermore, the addition of (TNA) to entries that are there because TNA is an abbreviation for them is helpful to a reader to because it explains why the entry is on the page (it is not "unnecessary verbiage"). For example, it is not otherwise clear why "2,4,6-Trinitroaniline, a nitrated amine" is on the list.

Secondly, addressing behaviour. User user:bkonrad is WP:editwarring (and, therefore, I am too). So far there are 3 reverts and there is danger now of breaking WP:3RR. Furthermore, at exactly the same time as this is unfolding, a very similar situation has arisen at MIM where I made very similar changes (including abbreviations and ICAO and language codes) and user:bkonrad has reverted 3 times and is editwarring.

So, addressing user:bkonrad: please stop edit warring. Using my my edit here as a baseline, please discuss here, in detail and not by repetition of curt phrases, why you think changes are required. If we cannot agree because there is no applicable policy then we can take further steps to resolve. I have taken time to outline my reasons and stop editwarring, please now do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to include "(TNA)" etc for the entries under the heading "TNA may refer to..." - and the example given at MOS:DABACRO does not include "(BSA)", which looks to me like the "applicable policy" requested above. Pam  D  09:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see that there is a valid point-of-view (not policy) for not including (TNA) where it is clear. That's fine, delete (TNA) where it's clear.  But is TNA clearly an abbreviation for 2,4,6-Trinitroaniline?  TNA, the subject of the page, is not the  Tacana language ISO 639 code. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no benefit to the reader to include "(TNA)" or some variant on each entry. If the entry were not known by these letters it should not be included on the page.
 * Also, generally, dab entries follow a topic-comment pattern, where the topic is the blue linked ambiguous term and the comment is the description. For example, an entry like
 * TNA, IATA code for Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, China
 * places several more or less useless terms between the reader and the desired link;
 * Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, China, by IATA code
 * places the term referenced by the code in the more prominent position for a reader scanning the list. Of course this isn't applicable when the linked term in an entry is a piped section link or a link to a more general topic that contains information about the ambiguous term. There is nothing in WP:DABMENTION to suggest otherwise. older ≠ wiser 09:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the inclusion of (TNA) I agree with the previous comment that it is not necessary where is clear and where it is correct. Regarding the ICAO code, I disagree with you because my interpretation is MOS:DABMENTION with my italics:  "If a topic (the ICAO code TNA) does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article (Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport), then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink"  That is exactly what my edit does. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you agree misreading MOS:DABMENTION. The topic is the airport. The code is essentially an alternative name for the airport, not a separate topic. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not necessary to include "TNA" in each entry. Readers will generally be smart enough to figure out that these entries are on the page for a reason. bd2412  T 12:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation of MOS:DABMENTION. So that we can move on I propose to make an edit the effect of which will be to roll the page back to the baseline before your 3 reverts, and delete (TNA) wherever it is not necessary, ie where it is clear to a reader why the entry is on the page (that is not every entry). I intend to do the same with MIM.  Do you agree?  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You can do as you like. I will edit likewise. FWIW, questions about entries such as airports by IATA code have come up several times at WT:MOSDAB. There has never been consensus to codify one way or another, but in nearly all proposals and examples, the link to the airport is first, followed by a description mentioning the IATA code.
 * The first instance I find is from 2005: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 9.
 * From 2007: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 35.
 * A discussion from 2008 seems more about inclusion than format Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 37.
 * One from 2012 is more about piping in the links Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 40.
 * I think this discussion from 2014 is the most recent that I recall that directly discusses how to format the entries: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 41
 * At the DAB WikiProject talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 9.
 * However, it is interesting to browse Category:Airport disambiguation for the three-letter and four-letter pages. These show a variety of practices. So while I disagree with your interpretation, as there is no firm guidance I won't revert based on that alone. However, in the course of editing disambiguation pages I will continue to place the links for airports and languages first with the unlinked description mentioning the type of code associated. older ≠ wiser 11:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am trying to get us to a position where you stop reverting my edits. For clarity, can you please confirm that you will not revert an edit the effect of which will be to roll the page back to the baseline before your 3 reverts, and delete (TNA) wherever it is not necessary, ie where it is clear to a reader why the entry is on the page (that is not every entry).  And do you further agree with the same proposal regarding MIM.  I could not interpret "You can do as you like. I will edit likewise" as "Yes" or "No" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't do ultimatums. You are free to edit as you see fit and I shall do likewise. I stated older ≠ wiser 15:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating in a discussion rather than an edit war. I'm sorry you interpreted my trying to reach an agreed position of compromise as an ultimatum. I will make the edit as I suggested. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A page doesn't just belong to one or two editors. You can rest assured that any editors editing the pages will do so in line with their interpretation of WP:MOSDAB. Pam  D  13:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)  oops miscounted the h's:  Pam  D  13:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but I am trying to achieve consensus to end an edit war very close to breaking WP:3RR. I could just go ahead, but I'm trying to determine a compromise.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)