Talk:N (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Cleanup[edit]

As part of the general cleanup of multiple disambig pages ( see Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup), I went ahead and condensed this one. This included removing a lot of the items for which N is an abbreviation. The reasoning for this, is that Wikipedia disambig pages are supposed to be used to resolve ambiguity, not to provide a dictionary list. The only items on this page should be those where a Wikipedia editor might reasonable link N to refer to a term. For example, if someone is referring to Neptune, or Nintendo 64, or a knight in chess, they're going to spell those terms out when they hyperlink, they are unlikely to link "N" alone for the term. If I removed any which are routinely referred to (and linked) as "N", please feel free to add them back in. Or if I left any which you think should be removed, please feel free to remove them. For more information, see WP:MOSDAB, and specific questions should probably be addressed on the talkpage there. --El on ka 17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a clean of this page not so long ago and faced the same problem you did - which ones to exclude. My view is that any abbreviation taht is stated as such on the target article deserves inclusiuon in this dab page because a reader may have seen just the abbreviation and wondered what it meant, so they look here and find a lot of Ns with a short context for each - ""aha"" they say ""this is the one I want" and off they go to the relevant article. Isn't this disambiguation? I'm going to assum it is and suggest you get some sort of consensus before reverting again. Abtract (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with Abtract. If the entry article indicates the use of "N" as a name (or abbreviation) for the topic, then it should be added. However, I would place all of the entries that have a link as the topic first (e.g. n (Poland)), before any of the others (e.g., Normal force). I broke apart F (disambiguation) that way when I cleaned it up. Although it has been tagged (by Abtract, coincidentally) for cleanup again... -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine on tweaking the page a bit, but I think that a wholescale revert was a bit uncivil, especially because it re-introduced many other errors. As for including terms that are abbreviations, if anyone can point to a single place where a term is linked by its abbreviation, I would have no trouble including that term on a disambig page. Likewise, if there is a page where the abbreviation "N" is used in some context, and the full name of the term is not clear, again, I think that including that item on a disambig page is fine. But just including terms that use "N" as an abbreviation, I do not think is an appropriate use of a disambig page. Instead, let's move these over to Wiktionary or something, as they're just being a clutter here, and preventing a disambig page from being used for what it should be used for, which is clearing up the ambiguity of an actual link. --El on ka 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that this sort of debate could get out of hand with little nit-picking arguments about "actual links" (what is an actual link in this context?). Surely, when in doubt, more is better than less for disambiguation - if readers may input "N" (for example) looking for something seen elsewhere abbreviated as "N" then they need a dab page to help them. as to being uncivil, I could argue the same about the wholesale removal of lines that many other editors had included and that I had left on my cleanup (well visible in the edit history) ... but I didn't. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I think I agree with Abtract's revert, simply because I believe the more complete version of this page is the one that should be "tweaked". Although you obviously did a lot of work on this, and have put some good thought into it, which I appreciate, I think you have set the bar too high when deciding on a standard of inclusion for abbreviations. It is typical for letter dab pages to be rather long, because letters can "mean" so many different things. You stated that you don't think dab pages should be used for this, but I think this is exactly what they are for. If an article discusses a particular use of "n", then that usage is a valid dab entry, whether that usage is "linked" or not. Although it's tempting to slash and burn when a page looks "too long" (and I've done it myself on occasion), we have to strive for consistency in our criteria for inclusion, and I think the consensus is that abbreviations are in. I think the key to keeping a long page useful is good categorization of links by topic and clear, concise descriptions. SlackerMom (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some abbreviations yes, all abbreviations no. For example, I do not think it reasonable or likely that someone would link "N" when they really meant Knight (chess). And especially with single-letter abbreviations, they can have literally thousands of uses. Any schematic (for example, Earthing system) routinely uses single-letter abbreviations. That shouldn't mean that we include every single article on Wikipedia that ever uses an "N" abbreviation, on a disambig page. It's excessive, it's cluttered, and it makes it more difficult for our readers to find the things that they might genuinely be looking for. --El on ka 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your basic sentiment: I hate clutter and I like elegance. However as we often do, we come back to "who decides?". Consensus is one way but "rules" is another. Building on your thoughts Elonka, suppose we included only those abbreviations (I am generalising now) that are mentioned in one or more of: the lead paragraph, the info table, or a separate section on terminology or similar? This would make it easier for us all when cleaning, minimise disagreements, and be clear (clarity is something else I admire). Perhaps the only other "allowable" might be where the abbreviation is common in one country and is only mentioned in the section on that country (I am thinking of MS Middle school here). Whatever we decide we probaly need to take this discussion to the MOS to gain a wider agreement. Abtract (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my two cents, if it helps. I apologise in advance if it doesn't. The standard for inclusion should be—especially for a page like this—can a reader type in "N" into the search box, click Go (not Search) and reasonably expect to arrive at this article?.

Someone looking at (for instance) natural number, would type in "natural number". Someone after the planet Neptune would type in "Neptune". Someone after the unit of force newton might type in "N", that's borderline; so is nitrogen. Someone after The N could reasonably type in N, likewise for N connectors. And no-one who's looking for Norway or the international license plate codes (or what the code for Norway is) is going to type in "N" and expect to find their answer, seriously.

I'm sure this list could be ten times longer if we wanted to include every use of "N" as an abbreviation.

Afternote 1: Avagadro's number and the normal cubic metre don't even abbreviate to N!

Afternote 2: For a page like this, there could be several things to consider to decide how reasonable it is for someone to type in "N". How common knowledge of the expansion is (e.g. North contrast to Neopolitan chord) would be one. Whether it's a tiny part of another topic that can't be understood in isolation and therefore doesn't have its own article would be another (e.g. neutral in earthing system vs. newton). There could be others.

Afternote 3: A possible compromise, which I would not promote but am suggesting nonetheless, is to put all the entries with the higher inclusion standard near the top, then use the "N may also stand for:" separator, followed by the abbreviation ones. Neonumbers (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice reasoning Neonumbers but I think it just misses the point. Of course someone looking for information on Neptune would type in "Neptune" and not "N" but what if another reader is looking for info on "N" as seen mentioned in passing in a paper on "planetary gravitation" (or whatever) and didn't know what "N" meant so looked it up in wp ... this is the reader that an all inclusive dab page would help, the first guy needs no help! Having said that, I do agree we ned to eliminate non-helpful clutter, I'm just wary of eliminating helpful "clutter" (throwing out the baby with the bathwater as we say). Abtract (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Abtract, but we are talking reasonable uses. If a paper on "planetary gravitation" used the abbreviation "N" without stating what the heck that N meant, this disambig page (especially if it's large and cumbersome) still wouldn't do a reader any good, because they'd be guessing as to whether "N" meant Neptune or an Avogadro Constant or Nitrogen, etc. Plus, if a paper did use "N" without defining it, it's probably not a very good paper to begin with. ;)

What I recommend, Abtract, is that you just go ahead and clean the page again. There seems to be a clear consensus that the current version is not acceptable and needs to be pared down or at least reorganized, though we could probably quibble for a long time on how much paring needs to be done. So, why not just go ahead and take another pass at it? I took my own shot at condensing/reorganizing, and you just wholescale reverted me, so I'm not really very motivated to try again if you're just going to revert me again. Or, promise that you're not going to revert me again, and I'll try to give it another "softer/gentler" try. If you see me remove something that you think should still be in, then, again, don't revert me, just go ahead and add it back in, and we'll try to find a Wikipedia:Consensus version that way, per the flowchart. --El on ka 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice gesture and I can only respond by saying "go ahead". I have no desire to war over it, I just feel that "when in doubt leave it in" is a good motto for dab pages, and thinking like that I was a tad surprised to see your wholesale reduction that sparked all this. However, let's move on ... you go ahead and do a softer clean and maybe one day we will get guidlenes that help. :) Abtract (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[1] --El on ka 19:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it looks great! Nice work. SlackerMom (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for readers, not editors[edit]

Disambiguation pages should cover articles a reader could reasonably be looking for when they type the title
In general, articles should never link to disambiguation pages except in hatnotes or when specifically referring to the ambiguous use of a title.
- that is, a link in an article to a disambiguation page is usually a link that needs to get fixed

If the shear number of topics which abbreviate to the letter "N" is annoying, perhaps N (abbreviation) would be an appropriate link to prominently place on the page. However, please note that many of the entries in this page are not exactly abbreviations... N for Nitrogen is a Chemical symbol (and regardless of what that article says, they have ceased to function as abbreviations - Au means the element gold) - ticker symbols for companies are not abbreviations, they are symbols representing that company's stock.

Wikipedia is definitely a source where people might come to learn more about an unfamiliar use in a specialized text that does not bother to define the use. Disambiguation pages help readers get to where they need to be.

Anyway, at the risk of stepping on a few toes... I am pondering touching up this page a bit. --Marcinjeske (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. :) Abtract (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my way to pre-explain why I was going to make the changes I made... after a series of edits, I hope no one is too unhappy. If we must, I suggest we shunt some of the more esoteric science stuff to N (physics symbol) and turn it into N (science). And in case you have an unquenched thirst for reverting, I hear K (disambiguation) and Y (disambiguation) have been particularly naughty disambiguation pages. Anyway, if anything in my changes seems odd and you can't see the reasoning from looking at the pointed to link, feel free to revert and bring it up here... --Marcinjeske (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA-airplane registration numbers[edit]

start with "N". Referring http://orf.at/stories/2030212/2030227/ (German language, Austrian Radio) Helium4 (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]