Talk:Au

Why is gold not on this list?

It is; in Au#Science. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Definite Article Usage for IGOs

I believe it is common parlance to preface such acronyms initlalisms of proper nouns designating plurality, like federal unions or IGOs, with definite articles. I have had much contact with GB people who, when using the term wikt:nounally, say, "from/in/to the UK", vs., "from/in/to UK", but, "from/in/to Great Britain", vs., "from/in/to Great Britain". I can say the same of US or EU people saying, "from/in/to the US", or, "from/in/to the EU", but, "from/in/to America", or, "from/in/to Europe". Similarly, we say, "from/in/to the United Kingdom/United States/European Union". NB: I chose to reference "from/in/to the" in illustrating my meaning purely because such a prepostional phrase readily brings to mind nounal usage. The definite article may be removed when such acronyms initlalisms of plurality designating proper nouns are used adjectivally though, like "EU/UK/US relations". In our dab (disambiguation) pages however, we use these proper nouns merely as nouns. Please note that any frequently edited (higher frequency -> higher quality) page we have about such a plurality designating place or IGO starts with a definition like, "The Xxx Xxx is ..." or for acronyms initlalisms, "the XX is ...".

The same usage follows even outside of academic discussions. A recent GB pop song has, "I've never been to the USA... I'm stuck in the UK". An older US pop song has, "Born in the USA". There's even a pop song that has, "Back in the USSR".

Because I believe neglect of the definite article in these circumstances flies in the face of the correct interpretation of English grammar, I would like to see exactly which WP policy User:Abtract is referring to before blindly submitting. I look forward to hearing why you believe usage of the definite ariticle is incorrect. I will wait before reverting, so as to neither bend nor break the <= 3 rv / 24 h rule. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read the whole MOS:DAB and if anything it emboldened me to present the best grammar possible within sentence fragments even if it means inserting words before the linking term in an individual entry as is done in the example for "tail" under MOS:DAB#URL anchor notation. User:Abtract RVd the article just over 6 minutes after my original edit and just over 7 minutes after being RVd by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus. Right after the one-user discussion above, I left a note on User talk:Abtract#Talk:Au but now over 6 hours have passed without a response. I try not to RV without giving a day's gap, but after reading wp:3rr, I think I've been overcautious. Since I haven't RVd the page yet, I wanna try being bold and RV the article. :)--Thecurran (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

NB: I understand that when an initialism (pronounced as a series of letter names like "you-kay" for UK), is used as an acronym (pronounced as a series of letter sounds like "nay-toe" for NATO), this rule on definite articles becomes more flexible but AU is still pronounced "ay-you", so it does not deserve a reprieve, so to speak. :)--22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What you say is interesting but it doesn't apply to dab pages where the linked article should come first. See USA (disambiguation) where the Union of South Africa and the United States of Africa do not have the "the" in front of the line. I hope this helps. Abtract (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The first line on that page states, "USA most commonly refers to the United States of America" and further down that the Union of South Africa is defunct and the United States of Africa is theoretical. These are hardly topics that could've generated enough literature in the Information Age to grab the constant attention of our editors to ensure we write these correctly. I think you found some clear mistakes and without an MOS that clearly dictates what you seek and with an MOS that demonstrates the opposite, it seems the common rules of English grammar should be respected. Specifically I mean Tail (disambiguation), the page referenced in MOS:DAB, still backs me up that it is not always necessary for the link to be the first word. I'm glad you found an inconsistency, but as yet I'm unconvinced that you are following any WP rule; written or unwritten. I will be bold and fix what I view as mistakes that you have found and link them to this discussion, so that admins or other heavyweights might be attracted to give their two cents. I'm all for standardization and if a bigwig colours this discussion with a reference to a WP rule or at least some sites or discussion that aren't self-contradictory in support of your view, I'm glad to pull my head in. I don't wish to offend you if you are such a heavyweight, but your userpage doesn't give that appearance and given your first edit was 2006-04-30T07:57:14 and mine was by 2005-04-29T02:38:14, I have trouble taking you as an authority. Furthermore, just as I expect you to be wary of my aim given my RCs adding "the", I am wary of your stated aim of cleaning of WP:DAB pages. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm pretty sure the reason Harvard writing guidelines deprecate sentences that end with prepositions is that phrasal verbs and such that nest around other phrases or words, as can be common in spoken vernacular, are awfully difficult to translate into languages that do not have such use (especially non-Germanic ones), putting foreign professionals at a disadvantage when reading such text. The same goes for suggestions against splitting infinitives. Similarly, deleting grammatically correct definite articles for the purpose of visual elegance is commonly deprecated among titles, archives and such; that's why English makes use of absurd-sounding but logically and visually exquisite forms like "..., the" or "..., The" when referring to "The ...". I'm not adding some new cockamamie rule. I'm following common rules that are used in vernacular because these sound natural and that are used in Academica because these make reading easier for Speakers of Other Languages (SOL), an apt goal for Wikipedia. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I need help convincing this editor that "The" should not preceed an entry in a dab page ... or, of course, to correct me if I am wrong. Abtract (talk)

User:Abtract, that help tag is gr8. I've never seen it before, but that's exactly what I wanted to do as well. I really hope I'm not coming off too belligerently. I don't know how to define an edit war, but I don't want this to be one. You can have the last say. I assume these helps get answered within a few days , so I'm happy to not RV while we wait. I'd love it if someone this weekend could arbitrate this and clarify the proper Wiki ettiquette and I'm still open to the chance that I could be wrong. I enjoy academic debates that require folk to cite references, interpret unwritten rules, and be open to rejection. These're so stimulating. I also realize that this may not be so enjoyable to others. I just hope I'm not unwittingly offending you. Thank you for what I've gleaned off you so far. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll also leave USA (dab) alone. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go into some exposition, because I changed my answer while writing this:

For dab entries, we (dabbers) like "Entry, a description of the entry" format. If there is an article (or redirect) for the entry, then it alone should be linked in the line, and it alone should be the first thing on the line. If the name of the entry itself is sufficient to describe it, no further description is needed. In this case, "African Union" or "African Union, an intergovernmental organization of fifty-three African states" would be the preferred format.

"The African Union", with or without the description, would also be okay from a simple dab formatting perspective, but I don't think it's better here. "AU" doesn't stand for "The African Union", but for "African Union" -- "The AU" does not mean "The the African Union" :-).

Which leads me to my suggestion, and the one that is even preferred over the two so far. Since there is a redirect that includes "AU", it should be used in preference to the others: "The AU, the African Union". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict while responding, but I'll post my comments anyway.

I don't know that there is any particular guideline to this other than using proper grammar. Each entry in the list should read as a complete sentence, starting with "Au could also stand for... Gold, a chemical element with the symbol Au." (That's just an example, however each line should read that way.). The Manual of Style outlines some recommendations for page format, however I don't see that it addresses the specific concern you have. English is a strange language in some aspects, as you've pointed out. I think the guideline that should be followed is simply what sounds best when you read it out loud. I've edited the page just now to that guideline, as well as those in the MOS. As for the concerns noted above about ease of translation, I really wouldn't worry about it. This page has a large number of inter-wiki links, and anyone that doesn't speak English would likely be on their own language anyway.

Hopefully this answers some of your questions. You guys seem to be handing this in a very civil manner, so I'm fairly certain you should be able to work this out if my comments haven't convinced any one. If you do still feel you need more input, I'd recommend asking at one of these pages:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Best of luck with this, and I hope my comments have helped some. Happy editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both helpers. Abtract (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and for the quick response. :)--Thecurran (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Using sections to separate terms into fields on WP:DAB pages

I've checked out a few DAB pages lately and personally I feel ACS has the best style, because it is easier to link to the right place on a page with multiple anchors. It's times like these, I wish WP had a beer parlour, like wikt:WT:BP. :)--Thecurran (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gold/AU

I have reinstated my edit that lists AU as the chemical symbol for gold. The existing reference to gold id not tie gold and Au together in anyway which would have been sort of puzzling for people who looked at the page and had not known that AU is the chemical symbol for gold. Am somewhat curious as to why the edit ws removed without comment. It is as far as I know factual, not opinion and some what clearer in showing why gold would appear on the Au disambig page. Jtan163 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say "without comment" I presume you didn't read the edit summary which clearly states "sorry but only one link per line as per mos:dab". Maybe this was a bit short but if you read mos:dab you will see that there should only be one internal link for each entry (preferably the target article) "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line." ... in this case clearly the linked article should be gold. In addition mos:dab says "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."; this can be debatable but imho "Gold, a chemical element" is quite sufficient since readers will almost always have some vague idea of the general subject area of their search. Finally, you inserted the term "au" into the line; this is generally considered unnecessary (see all the other entries on this dab page for example) because "au" is the term being disambiguated and the reader must know that else how did they arrive at this page. I hope that helps. Abtract (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No I did not see your edit summary. Excellent assumption.

I was under the (apparently incorrect)impression that people usually discussed changes in the discussion page.

I am a casual contributor to wikipedia - this may even be the first edit I have made whilst logged in.

This is one of the things I hate about wikipedia - you not only need to have some clue about a subject area, you have to be an absolute expert on the many, varied and unfathomable rules of the wikipedia and there inconsistent application across pages or as it appears to me in this case even on the same page - see my comments about not including the term that a disambiguation page disambiguates below.

Not having ever even heard of the mos:dab or having any clue what a dab page was I have no idea about the rules, though I am positive I have seen pletny of other disambiguation pages with multple links per line.

Personally I thought that that (cross linking)was what hyper media was about and the convention of using appropriate text to indicate where links pointed was used to make it less confusing for readers, (you know having link text like "Chemical Symbol" link to the page on Chemical Symbols" and links with the text Gold, link to the page about gold).

That is to say that while it is possible that more than one link to bullet point might confuse readers it will in some cases help readers, especially if it is not clear that some of the words might be other phrases in the knowledge domain of the subject f disambiguation. e.g. the words "chemical symbol" refer to something you may well recognise as a likely separate topic - if you have some clue about chemistry or science generally, but if you don;t you might not look at that page because you don't recognise the string "chemical symbol" as being a string that likely refers to a topic of its own.

I would agree that generally speaking inserting the "au" would not be all that useful for say "American University" or "Audio Units". In those examples the relationship betweens the string "au" and the subject is somewhat obvious. It is less obvious in the case of gold. In fact completely un-obvious. If someone were to see the term "au" used in a chemical symbol context but not know that Au was the chemical symbol for gold, then coming to the au disambig page would not necessarily be helpful.

I note you did not edit the Au file format entry - where in that case the I reckon text something like "an audio file format" or "Sun's audio file format" would be sufficient. At least Au is the first two letters of the word audio it is pretty easy for most people to make the association. Whereas to make the associated with between "gold" and "au" requires more than simple string matching it requires domain knowledge.

Still far be it for me to argue if them are the rules them are the rules.

But let no one speak of the democratic nature of the wikipeida again in my hearing.

Actually people don't speak about that much anymore do they - not with all the bad press poor old Jimbo as had, and not now that the wikipedia actually has content. Jtan163 (talk)

Actually wp is pretty "democratic" in that anyone can express a view about the rules simply by going to the relevant talk page and making your comment there. mos:dab is simply a short cut to the "manual of style" page applicable to disambiguation pages... the talk page there is the place to go if you want to discuss the benefits of extra links in disambiguation pages. Having said that, my advice would be not to waste your time as it has been discussed many times before and there is little chance of a change (unless you are a brilliant advocat), good luck if you try. The reason I didn't change the Au file format line is because that is the actual name of the article. If the gold article was Au gold that would be the entry ... but as you see it isn't. Abtract (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aú

Wouldn't this be the primary topic, like how the BU page sets it up? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Following the lengthy debate on mos:dab talk page, it seems unlikely to me. Abtract (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) No. There is no primary topic for Au. And at present there isn't any primary topic for BU either. If the disambiguation page is at the unqualified name (no "(disambiguation)" appended to title), then by definition there is no primary topic for that title. older ≠ wiser 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for clearing that up, though you guys may want to look at UBU and Ubu. Think I got that wrong too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well yes. Also don't you think they should be combined? Abtract (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A merger could do, yes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)