Wikipedia talk:Abbreviation expansion

Background
Since 2001, there have been abbreviation expansion articles. Such abbreviation expansions are both encyclopedic (intended as destinations), and serve as a fundamental structure of the entire wikipedia to prevent Special:Lonelypages (aka orphaned pages).

Abbreviation expansion articles often have short one or two sentence entries about each topic. Readers most often will be uncovering the meaning of a simple term in a single step, but may want to use the links there for more exploration.

This is very different from "non-article" Disambiguation pages, which are intended to catch ambiguous references and allow a team of editors to point links directly to the best article.

Circa 2001 October 06 to 2003 May 25, various 2-letter, 3-letter, abbreviation, and acronym root lists and tables were developed.

Since 2003 May 10, various guidelines for disambiguation of abbreviations, acronyms, and initialism has been some variant of:
 * "No need to disambiguate the abbreviations here."
 * "Abbreviations pages replace disambiguation pages."
 * "Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages."

The current guideline at Disambiguation has been virtually unchanged since 2003 December 31 12:21:31, written by Docu and Eloquence working together: Pages of common two and three letter abbreviations group series of possible expansions for the letters, such as chemical element symbols, similar to disambiguation pages. These should be expanded beforehand. Such pages facilitate navigation and replace disambiguation pages. See Disambiguation and abbreviations for details.

Conflict at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
The Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (MoS:DP) is a comparatively recent innovation, begun on 2005 May 02 by.

At about the same time that MoS:DP was first written, a small group (9:1) resolved Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005 (without much discussion) to use 2LCdisambig and TLAdisambig instead, and to use categories (later placed under Category:Disambiguation). This group included long-time contributors (such as Docu, Joy, Netaholic, and Radiant), who presumably understood the limited ramifications of this minor change.

These had been in use since:
 * 2005-03-13
 * 2005-04-24

On 2005 June 22, TLAdisambig was added by Josh Parris. On 2005 October 27, the language was substantially revised by RoySmith.

The related 2LCdisambig was never documented in MoS:DP. Unfortunately, this resulted in several variants:
 * 2005-09-09 2LA, 4LA, 5LA, and LND,
 * 2005-11-01 2LAdisambig (quickly redirected to 2LCdisambig).

During this period of time, there were no corresponding changes in Disambiguation and/or Disambiguation and abbreviations to any actual status of abbreviations, acronyms, apocopation, or initialisms.

Conflagration over radical disambiguation
During the latter part of 2005, a fairly limited number of young folks involved in WikiProject Disambiguation turned their efforts from finding and updating ambiguous links (which often require considerable time and effort reading each reference) to reformatting disambiguation pages themselves. This devolved into turning anything that looked vaguely like a disambiguation page into the MoS:DP format, even when such pages (in particular, multi-stub and abbreviations pages) are explicitly stated as not disambiguation pages.

The activity caused considerable uproar (for example, most of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/archive13, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Freakofnurture reverts of Tedernst: mediation needed? and the other recent archives). One result was the removal of shipindex articles from the ambit of disambiguation.

On 2005 November 14, 2LCdisambig was posted for deletion (see Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/November 2005, in an unusual step to establish consensus after orphaning had already begun. (There was no consensus to delete it.)

On 2005 December 30, while most folks were celebrating holidays and without any prior discussion, there was a particularly damaging series of surreptitious template redirects and category closing by, who refused to abide by the prior TfD results. Afterward, he posted on the MoS:DP talk page without mentioning his changes.

Straw poll on templates
In early January, due to the conflicts and reversion wars described above, two related straw polls (now at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories covered the contested templates.

The polls were carefully limited to those elements of style related to disambiguation (a proper topic of MoS:DP), and divided the poll into:
 * (A) the questions related to abbreviation templates, and
 * (B) the questions related to the existing disambiguation lists.

The result of the polls were that the small group of disambiguators wanted all ambiguous letter combination templates removed (8:3), and all disambiguation subcategory templates removed (9:2).

Clearly, the experiment of integrating abbreviation templates with disambiguation templates, an undertaking involving dozens of editors over the past 9 months, has failed. The comments indicate it is "confusing" and "complexity" to use several templates that automatically add subcategories.

Proposed migration
At Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories, several replacements were detailed. There was no dissent raised on that page:
 * replace 2LA with 2LC
 * replace 2LAdisambig with 2LC
 * replace 2LCdisambig with 2LC
 * replace TLAdisambig with 3LC
 * replace 4LA with 4LC

The existing (since 2004-06-13) Category:Lists of two-letter combinations was matched with new
 * Category:Lists of three-letter combinations, and
 * Category:Lists of four-letter combinations.
 * The two-letter category was replaced in Feb 2006 with Category:Lists of two-character combinations. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Also,
 * replace 5LA with disambig and Category:5-letter acronyms as appropriate;
 * replace LND as appropriate.

Most {2|3|4|5}LC are abbreviation expansion pages. Usually, the best solution (as with shipindex) is to clearly separate conflicting parties, so that there is less friction between them.
 * --William Allen Simpson 04:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming
At Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 20, after a short discussion, it was agreed to rename the categories (and related templates) from "letter combination" to "character combination". Coming partway through the previous migration (5LA and LND had already been completed), this results in the replacements:


 * replace 2LA with 2CC
 * replace 2LAdisambig with 2CC
 * replace 2LC with 2CC
 * replace 2LCdisambig with 2CC
 * replace TLAdisambig with 3LC
 * replace 3LC with 3CC
 * replace 4LA with 4CC
 * replace 4LC with 4CC
 * --William Allen Simpson 23:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

AAA
Do you feel that the AAA page generally conforms to the guidelines noted here? Also, there was an attempt to add at least TLAdisambig to this article twice in two days, but it was almost immediately reverted each time with the second edit summary reading "MOS:DP dictates using template:disambig on disambiguation pages. Please don't revert without discussion" (second revert). Such zealous editing does not instill confidence in the survivability of the present proposal. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, recent edits do not conform to this guideline (nor any other guidelines).  has become a serious problem in this area, refusing to abide by both TfD and CfR decisions.  Disambiguation and Disambiguation and abbreviations both clearly state that pages such as AAA are not disambiguation pages (thus not subject to its manual of style).  My expectation is that time permitting I'll bring it to Arbitration, unless you have a better idea?


 * has also recently been very active in converting instances of TLAdisambig &rarr; disambig. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out to him many times, the guidelines Mr Simpson speaks of refer very specifically to lists of letter combinations, such as List of all two-letter combinations, and not to the disambiguation pages which he persists in changing and adding his new templates to. Now he is trying to sneak this new guideline past all of the editors involved in disambiguation pages, because he has little or no support.  Mr Simpson wouldn't have a "serious problem" if he simply sought consensus and abided by it.  —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:31 Z 

I've been busy with recent oral arguments on a couple of large cases, with related motions and briefs. It's hard for subject matter experts to keep up with Wikipedians that seem to spend all their waking hours here.
 * --William Allen Simpson 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In support ...

 * I generally support the attempt you are trying to make here at addressing the semantic separation between abbreviations and words/phrases and treating the two problems with fit-for-purpose solutions. It would be useful to relate what path is being pursued for this toward policy-hood. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've posted at the various places mentioned in How to create policy ... and waited ... and survived CfD and TfD ... and conformed and waited some more.  Apparently, there isn't some guideline-fairy that makes the change from proposed.  So, I just did it today, announcing at Village pump (policy).  Now, let's see what happens.
 * --William Allen Simpson 19:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You conveniently skipped "Link any existing discussions related to the proposal to your proposal page". This proposed policy, and the CfD and TfD you mention (where are they?) remained completely off the radar of editors who watch the relevant Wikipedia and MoS pages dealing with disambiguation and abbreviations.  Consensus on those pages is clearly against what you are doing here.  —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:25 Z 

Consensus of one
Mr Simpson has just declared this an official policy, but I have reverted the label, since I see no evidence of consensus support for the idea. I have linked to this page from three of the relevant talk pages. Now that interested editors have a chance to find out about this proposal, let's take a straw poll to judge the consensus. —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:40 Z 

Given a 0-15 poll, I think it's safe to add rejected now. Melchoir 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) [your name here]

Oppose

 * 1) One type of disambiguation page and disambiguation template is enough.  —Michael Z. 2006-04-02 04:40 Z 
 * 2) There are already too many things to remember and, although I am prepared to accept that there may be a format issue to address for abbreviations, I see no reason offered by the proposer to deal with it outside the existing dab system. David91 05:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm so sick of that guy. If he wasn't so abrasive he might actually find the ability to gather some agreement for his half-baked ideas. Ewlyahoocom 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) It is much simpler to consider "abbreviation expansion pages" disambiguation pages, especially because they serve the same function as disambiguation pages.  A small section addressing any differences would be appropriate at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), but all this differentiation is unnecessary. -- Nataly a  12:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Unnecessary and rather at odds with actual practice in many specifics. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) This is an extremely rare occasion where I completely agree with 5 independent opinions. Michael, David91, Ewlyahoocom, Natalya and older ≠ wiser have said what I felt.--Commander Keane 13:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Abbreviation pages are dab pages. SchmuckyTheCat 15:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Per above, in particular the point that no explanation is given for the need to distinguish these from other dab pages. On a tangentially related note, some of these dab-related CFD discussions appear to have been closed with results that don't reflect the consensus of votes cast. --Muchness 01:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) For the life of me, I can't figure out why our readers would want to "explore" the various expansions for abbreviations, but not to "explore" the various articles for a given disambiguation term.  --TreyHarris 08:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose -- I wasted the last ten minutes of my life trying to understand this concept, thinking all the time but that's what dab is all about, right? Finally the light is dawning upon my poor, pointed head: This is a perfect simulation of dab, with a different name and a boatload of tps and cats to suit. I will alter my vote on the instant if I can be shown the slightest value of this over dab. John Reid 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Agreed with previous points; Simpson has been on this hobby-horse for months and won't let it go. He has yet to provide a single reason why abbreviation pages should have different style guidelines than ordinary dab pages, other than the ancient line "abbreviations pages replace dab pages", which, as pointed out above, applies to "Lists of..." pages instead.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 23:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) I don't see why abbreviations are so different from disambiguation... and the separation makes maintenance worse. Mangojuice 14:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) I just flat-out hate this proposal as a great example of rulecreep, and a colossal waste of time and effort. I resent having the opportunity to vote in opposition to this idea.  Let's draw the line right here, unless there's some real big reason this idea is some help to editing and maintaining the best encyclopedia. If we have   then we should also have , if 3 blades is good and four blades is better and 5 blades is the best, we could have six blades in our razor, then it would be bestest! We would have uncle and U.N.C.L.E on the page Uncle and so on and eventually maybe all the articles would have  templates. Pedant 06:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Goodness, we already do! And without a  template either!  Why, maybe we don't need them at all!Pedant
 * 14) So this page is why acronym dab pages don't call themselves dab pages. Begone! Melchoir 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Splitting abbreviation dab pages from general dab pages strikes me as incredibly arbitrary and, in the case of acronyms and all-capitalized proper nouns, necessitates unwanted and probably unforeseen repetition. -Sean Curtin 04:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Difference between disambiguation pages and expansion pages
Can anyone give a example of a expansion page concerning acronyms and abbreviations? What is the difference between disambiguation pages and expansion pages? There are no difference between disambiguation pages and pages who using the template, and  instead of. — 210.16.47.7 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing I've noticed on a lot of these "abbreviation expansion" pages are a terrific number of redlinks found on some of them (e.g. ISI). I'm guessing that these pages/links are being automatically created off some giant list of every abbreviation (or initialism?) ever conceived of -- a list that's not based on any correspondence to the articles available on Wikipedia. Is it perhaps the desire not to have those redlinks removed that is driving effort to keep those pages seperate? Ewlyahoocom 07:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The disambiguation guidelines, just like the general guidelines, permit redlinks - as long as there is a reasonable chance that the article will be written someday. So I don't think redlinks could be reason.--Commander Keane 08:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)