Talk:DB

Should we include D. B. people?

Should this disambig page include people prefixed with 'D. B.? See Prefix D. B. Monkeyblue 12:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIG#Disambiguation page says: "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article."

Way I see it, unless the page specifies that (s)he is known as "D. B.", they shouldn't be listed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Regarding this edit, WP:PIPING says that a link with the dab term is preferred over its desired target, which in this case is The DB not Daily Bugle. Thoughts before I re-implement this change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no suggestion of piping, I don't quite see how that applies here. In any event, it says "will sometimes be preferred" rather than "is preferred". Most dab pages like DB, HP (disambiguation) for example, have entries going straight to the target article (Harry Potter, a series of books ... Hensel Phelps, a U.S. construction company ... etc) and I don't see how DB is any different. Perhaps you have a reason? Abtract (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

HP (disambiguation), N (disambiguation), Seta (disambiguation), MGS, and DMZ (disambiguation) are good precedents for my edit. My real reason is that, aside from adhering strictly to the guidelines, we should have a redirect which proves that "Daily Bugle" is known as "The DB". Understandable? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you after our previous disagreements but sadly I can't.

1. In what way does it "adhere strictly to the guidelines"? I don't see it.
2. Your precedents seem to work against your point of view:
   1. Both HP and N seem to comprise entries that generally go straight to the target articles rather than being redirected via the initials (except the two primary topics)
   2. Seta is a different type of dab page (not based on intial letters)
   3. MGS also goes straight to the targets except for the primary
   4. DMZ has the demilitarized zones in the way you are advocating but it looks a bit dubious to me (I wouldn't do it that way with hindsight, but I certainly wouldn't "correct" it)
3. Your point about "proving" that DB stands for Daily Bugle seems erroneous to me becuse it only proves that someone considers it to be so ... the only acceptable "proof" in wp terms is a citation in the target article itself which would obviate the need for a redirect as seems to be the case in almost all entries in dab pages based on initial letters, including the ones you yourself quote.

Abtract (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Problem solved ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC) a

Not sure what you mean since everything I said above is very clearly the opposite of your points. Since we seem unable to reach agreement I have sought other opinions. Abtract (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you should have been blocked for this partial rv. What more do you want from me? I added a reference on Daily Bugle like you said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to discussing content (discuss personal issues with JHJ or come to my talk page if you wish). I can only suggest that you read again what I wrote above where I said that a citation would "obviate the need for a redirect" - obviate means "avoid or prevent a need". Abtract (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, don't belittle me. You're just wasting my time now. The precedented dabs I gave were perfect ones, primary usage or not. And just for your information, take a look at the redirect at N (disambiguation)#Entertainment and the ones at the HP dab. That excludes reason #1. Inclusively, there is no primary meaning at MGS so that excludes reason #3. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough, I will wait for other opinions. Abtract (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As will I. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually have an opinion on this topic, but hopefully I can help mediate the dispute a bit. It seems like the guidelines being cite are from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping, specifically the part saying "This guidance to avoid piping means that a link to a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not. For example, in Delta (disambiguation), a link to the redirect term Delta Quadrant would be preferred over its target, Galactic quadrant." Do you both find that you can defend your arguments citing said guideline (or something somewhere else)? -- Natalya 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have used DB (comics). If someone got here looking for the Daily Bugle by entering "DB" in the search box, that'd be the best signpost directing them to their destination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the options, that may well be best but my point is why do we need a redirect for this entry and not (most of) the others? We don't use DB (Hong Kong) for Discovery Bay or DB (bank) for Deutsche Bank as two examples. If there is a reason specific to this entry I would be happy because that would stop it being used as a precedent for a mass creep of redirects which I feel is against the mos ... and against common sense. Abtract (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, you keep asking for an answer which you will never receive. Why? Because there is none. The guidelines (specifically WP:PIPING) support the use of redirects. Just follow it and save us all the trouble of discussing this nonsense. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the guidelines support the use of redirects when it makes sense for their to be a redirect. The question of why there is a redirect here seems like a valid one, though. Also, let's please try to be respectful of one another here. It's perfectly fine to disagree with someone, but please try to assume good faith that the other person is trying to simply improve the disambiguation page. If we can all stay cool, we can figure out a good solution without offending others. -- Natalya 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia needs DB (comics). If it's an issue, it can go to WP:RfD, or, on the other side, redirects could be created for Discovery Bay or Deutsche Bank. When cleaning dabs, I start with just the redirects that exist; I normally only create new one like these if there is contention over the inclusion of an entry. -- JHunterJ (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of entries on "initial" dab pages and almost all of them go straight to the target article without a redirect which indicates to me that the vast majority of editors when creating or cleaning these pages have considered them unecessary. The main thrust of WP:PIPING is against piping the dab term with just a brief mention that a redirect may sometimes be preferred - note that the example given Delta Quadrant is so that readers will not be surprised when they reach Galactic quadrant (a redirect makes the reason known whereas a piped entry does not) - this rationale does not apply to an initialised term such as DB becaue it will be immediately obvious why Daily Bugle, Deutsche Bank, Discovery Bay etc have been targeted, there is no "surprise" element. Maybe the guidelines need changing to make this clear. Abtract (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A random example from my watchlist: NC has 20 entries of which 3 contain NC in the article name and the other 17 do not - none of this latter group uses a redirect. Abtract (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Abstract in this case. The guidance on piping, IMO, is primarily intended to cover cases where the target article title is substantively different from the term being disambiguated and hence not completely obvious why the disambiguation entry is linking to an article with a completely different title. Initialisms are somewhat different in that in most cases the connection should be obvious. older ≠ wiser 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have undone this unhelpful edit. If there is something in the MoS which needs changing take it up there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, lets try to remember that we're all intelligent people here, and that there's no need to edit war over a disambiguation page. Even if someone changes the page, and even if you don't agree with what she's done, changing it back is just going to continue the cycle, and then people will end up getting blocked for arguing over one line on a disambiguation page. It will really be okay. Sesshomaru, you make a good point about finishing the discussion before changing the page. However, it seems that a number of arguments have been given for not needing to use the redirect; do you have any reponses to those thoughts? Thanks, everyone, for attempting to stay civil, -- Natalya 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree that NC could use a good cleanup. Natalya, I don't know what else to say. To me, this is a clear-cut case of protocal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take your suggestion and bring up at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), to get all editors to clarify/decide on what we'd like the guidelines to specify. That way, we could apply whatever comes of that discussion here, and could make sure that the guidelines were followed. -- Natalya 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that, since no actual rationale has been given for the current version, someone (Natalya?) will revert it back to the more common, and more liked in this discussion, "no redirect" version while we reconsider the guideline? Abtract (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully decline, until we can clarify the guidelines. Even if more people in this discussion support that version, I think it would be best to just leave the page for now; otherwise, I see this turning into an unnecessary edit war. See Wikipedia:The Wrong Version for an interesting (and humerous) thought on a topic similar to this. If no one does it before I get to it in a few hours, I'll bring up the topic for dicussion at the MoS. -- Natalya 22:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK no problem, I just let the old me slip out for a second. Abtract (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see these latest comments before reflexively reverting Sesshomaru's revert. What Sesshomaru sees as "a clear-cut case of protocal" (sic) is, considering the lack of agreement here, anything but clear-cut. older ≠ wiser 01:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, hopefully everyone can stave off getting blocked for 3RR until we get this figured out ;). Just as an aside... I know that there is disagreement, but is anything bad really going to come of leaving one line on one disambiguation page in the entirity of Wikipedia mildly different than one might like until we can solve the disagreement? But anyway, there's now a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#A_discussion_about_redirects_in_disambiguation_pages - I've attempted to describe the different viewpoints expressed here, but please do clarify if I've misrepresented. -- Natalya 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Being a new user to the discussion page, my thoughts are that the specific designation dB should direct straight forward to Decibel since dB is the commonly accepted nomenclature for Decibel. Also refernced dB's shuold also be reference to Decibel. For example dBm is a decibel referenced to a base level a milliwatt, while dBu is referenced to a base level of 1 microvolt, and dBrnc uses a reference noise level with a "C" weighting. These are commonly used in the electronics, audio, telephone fields.

I do not if is possible for Wikipedia to recognize upper & lower case wo when it sees dB.

Anyone wishing to discuss the me may contact me (how I don't know yet, but learning). Kielhofer (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warrning and temporary page protection

I'm sort of disapointed, guys - we know there's a disagreement here, and we know that edit warring isn't productive, and yet, it's going on anyway. This isn't even something worth edit warring over. Is there anything wrong with leaving the page as is, and waiting for the discussion to finish?

Regardless, I've now protected the page (with the version that was there when I got there, see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes and Wikipedia:The wrong version for why I haven't changed anything) so that everyone is forced to discuss the issue to resolve the disagreement, not just edit war about it.

We're all more mature than this, guys. Reaching consensus is always better than blindly changing things when you know that someone is going to just change it back.

Now, let's try to get back to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#A_discussion_about_redirects_in_disambiguation_pages and continue the discussion in a productive manner. -- Natalya 00:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dobyns Bennett High School

This is stupid. Why is there a link to a highschool in "DB"?! I think its great that there is an article about the school, but I dont think it belongs in the Disambiguation, first because its a local topic, I dont think that there are many international, nationwide or even statewide users, who will look this up and second it rather belongs into "DBHS". Please change, this link is ridicolous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.8.45 (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This school is clearly known as "DB" from its logo (pic in the article) so the article on it "must" be included on the dab even though only a handful of readers may be looking for it. It may well belong on DBHS as well but that debate is for another place. Abtract (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that DBHS actually redirects to the school article which is interesting because I would have expected it to be a dab page. Abtract (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but, what the hell?!

This really does not conform with WP:DAB#Page style. Read the line which says "Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described on the target article.". Bkonrad, let's talk this out in a civil manner. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such a ninny. Anyone with half a wit can very easily recognize the appropriateness of identifying db as abbreviation for Defensive Back. For confirmation, please see American football positions. older ≠ wiser 23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This one falls into the category of common knowledge. I'd mention here that QB appears nowhere in the Quarterback article, but is there any doubt that it should be listed at Qb? The thing to do is add DB to the Defensive back article, not kick it off the dab page. (And add QB to the other article...)--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Which I did (add "DB" to the article). "BRD my foot" and "Excuse me but, what the hell?!" and "Don't be such a ninny. Anyone with halt a wit" were less helpful on the road to that solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was a little snippy. But that comes from past experiences with Sessh and his somewhat abusive tactic of invoking BRD to justify his reversions without making the least attempt to understand. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)