Talk:Tea (disambiguation)

Redirecting TEA
You redirected TEA to tea, and reverted the dab header on Tiny Encryption Algorithm with edit summary "TEA is widely in use for the Texas Education Agency and the federal Transportation Equity act". This is of course true in the outside world, but not on Wikipedia. Check "what links here" on TEA and you will see the most common meaning is Tiny Encryption Algorithm.

Now, of course this is only because we have a lot of people working on encryption-related articles and not because TEA is the most common expansion in the real world. But if readers follow a link to TEA in other articles, they must end up at the right place. Compared to that, it's a minor inconvenience for people who type TEA in the "go" box to have to follow a link to a disambig page.

The alternative is to fix every link to TEA to explicitly go to Tiny Encryption Algorithm. That's a good idea, but the redirect shouldn't be gone before all that is done. Otherwise we'll get some very confused readers when the links break. JRM 17:08, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)


 * The results of Special:Whatlinkshere/TEA are misleading because most of the articles link to TEA via Template:Block ciphers. The template used to have a link to TEA; this has now been changed to Tiny Encryption Algorithm. The Whatlinkshere list lags behind because it is only updated when the article using the template is edited. There were a few other links to TEA not via Template:Block ciphers. I fixed these (there were 4 wanting Tiny Encryption Algorithm, 1 wanting Texas Education Agency, and 1 wanting TEA (publisher)). So now it's safe for TEA to be a redirect to Tea (disambiguation) without anyone being surprised by a link. I hope this helps. Gdr 18:58, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thank you very much for catching that template link. Obviously I was foolish for taking so many links at face value. I'll take good care to check for that in the future. JRM 21:06, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Page spinning out of control - needs cleanup
If this disambig page is for listing articles that might otherwise be titled "tea" or "TEA," then articles such as tea ceremony, Bubble Tea, or the band The Tea Party should be delisted. —Tokek 18:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hum. I just did, as a matter of fact. Not "bubble tea", though, as that is, well, not tea, but it can certainly be called that. If you ask me herbal tea isn't tea either, but most folks seem to think it is... It probably pays off to keep those links in so as to not force people to search the main article for them. Tea ceremony and The Tea Party definitely don't belong, though. JRM · Talk 19:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The important thing to remember is that dab pages exist for reader convenience, not defining or categorizing articles.
 * "Would a user who typed "Tea" be looking for this article?" If the answer is yes, then it's reasonable to include it. SchmuckyTheCat 01:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But I've all too often found that people instead use "does the title of this article include the word(s) being disambiguated?" as a criterion, leading to dab pages that are free association games&mdash;unwieldy to read and hard to maintain. They're not there to replace "search", nor to serve as replacements for the "see also" section of articles. If I wanted The Tea Party, I'd probably search for "tea party"... and end up at Tea party (disambiguation). JRM · Talk 07:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Tea/Dinner
Where I grew up, in tasmania (australia), tea unambiguously refered to the evening meal, lunch unambiguously refered to the midday meal, and dinner refered to the main meal, at either midday or the evening. I think the word "tea" to refer to the evening meal is understood by other australians, but I've tried to stop saying it, it sometimes confuses people.

Also, the late afternoon/early evening break during cricket test matches is called tea. -- unknown

Yes the material on Australia is wrong. Dinner can refer to either lunch or tea, depending on who you speak to! 115.64.190.214 (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Polemic
I think this edit is entirely correct, and for the reasons given. -MBHiii (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Is it because its another one of your many sockpuppet postings? See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mbhiii.   12.184.187.210 (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...because it is reasoned, consistent, and to the point. Whose little sockpuppet are you? -74.162.147.56 (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ANOTHER SOCKPUPPET?! MBHiii, you are simply priceless! The Squicks (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's another. You people (and some Admins) seem to get confused over what a sockpuppet is. It's an anonymous site used deliberately to circumvent WP policy. Mistakes don't count, but they sure make a good diversion during an edit war. Anonymous editing is otherwise allowed at WP. -74.162.131.186 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And another! It's like every single second you want to shriek "Please ban me! I really want you too!". The Squicks (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)