Talk:ALF

American Legacy Foundation

I have removed it from the ALF list because it is not a reliably verified acronym tha tthe organization uses. Another editor is attempting to create a connection by altering that article. I am not sure that is altogether disruptive, but it does seem a bit like using WP to make a point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are the sources given by Viriditas not reliable? They seem to be reliable sources to me. A U.S. government publication, a usage by the organization itself, as well as a usage in a magazine. Those all seem reliable to me. Although Viriditas is probably trying to include more names to prove his point, when he actually does find reasonable abbreviations with citations like these, we should include them. If he tries to include something without a citation, though, then it should not be included. So long as a person could type in "ALF" looking for the American Legacy Foundation (which can be shown by usage of the acronym), then it should be included in the disambiguation page. This doesn't mean that we have to give it a prominent position, though. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an answer from Arcayne. There are at least 649 references to "ALF" and the "American Legacy Foundation" on Google,[1] 103 on Gnews, [2] and 49 on Google Scholar.[3] —Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

ALF/Alf

Following on from Dekimasu's point above (that entries should be included only if the thing being mentioned is often referred to as "ALF" or "Alf," and that links should be arranged according to frequency), would it make sense to redirect Alf to the television series, and ALF to the Animal Liberation Front? This would satisify both "sides," at least as this dispute began, as the issue was whether the television show or the AR group was the most frequently used.

I see now that the television show is usually written as Alf, because it's a character's name (based on the acronym): see Alf: The Animated Series and Alf's Hit Talk Show. We could then have ALF (disambiguation) for the lesser used titles. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, case sensitive solutions do not work. SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, why not? Wikipedia's allowing us to make the distinction; why not take advantage of it to resolve the dispute? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Because case sensitivity isn't something readers do. It's a technical solution, not a practical one. I'd also say, it violates MoS. SchmuckyTheCat

We don't know what readers do, Schmucky. If we went with my suggestion, if they looked for Alf, they'd get the show plus a note at the top directing them to ALF and ALF (disambiguation); that seems clear enough. How would it violate the MoS? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do know what readers do. They don't type in case sensitive searches into search engines. That's why the MoS for dab pages says not to create case sensitive dab pages (which is a problem that exists now, still). That guidance shouldn't change just because we're proposing redirects. SchmuckyTheCat

How do you know what readers do? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the MoS saying we shouldn't use case-sensitive titles. Can you point to the section? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what users do because I'm paid to know that IRL. Further, that is the way MediaWiki is coded: "Search" is case insensitive, "Go" is case sensitive. There is a reason for that, and I'm sure any of the MediaWiki developers would tell you it is because users don't type case sensitive terms into search engines.

This information is slightly out of date on a technical matter, but true for the point that making case sensitive redirects is a bad idea: "It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization". Notice: it says non-redirects. When other content has the same spelling but a different meaning, including diacritics and capitalization, it should be disambiguated. Our guideline for dabs is more explicit that all dabs to one spelling should be at one case-insensitive page. SchmuckyTheCat 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Schmucky, if you want to give your real-life name and qualifications, so we can check your expertise, that's fine, but if it's not checkable, it's best not to mention it.

I'm not sure why you offered that link in support of your point, as it seems to support mine: "It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article." It is also possible to create two redirect pages with different capitalizations, and that's what I'm suggesting we do, also with notes at the top of each page. I can't find anything anywhere that says we shouldn't do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)You can ignore me, but you can't ignore what the MediaWiki software does. Search is not case sensitive.

Everything on those pages, we have three so far, says that same spelling, different case, is a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat

I think this is a good compromise. To reiterate: Alf would direct to the show; ALF would direct to the Front; ALF (disambiguation) would direct to the complete list. Each article would have a note at the top directing the reader to the other two pages.

It would mean: At the moment, everyone who types in ALF or ALf is brought to this page, and from here has to click once to get to their chosen article.

Under my suggestion, those who type Alf and want the show won't have to click further; those who type Alf and want the Front, will have to click once, as they do now. Similarly, those who type ALF and want the show will have to click once; those who type ALF and want the Front won't have to click further.

Those who want a third thing will have to click once, as they do now.

Therefore, my solution means that at least some of the people (possibly 50 percent and perhaps more) will not have to click once; the rest will have to click once as they do now; no one will have to click twice. Therefore, my suggestion is at least better than the current situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a single consistent motivation in this topic: to minimize the effort and maximize the access speed for the average user to get to their article of choice. It seems to me that SlimVirgin's suggestion will do exactly that – the average trip will be faster, and I see no significant downside. As long as the wiki search function supports case (and it does), I see no reason not to benefit from it and increase the access speed for our users. Crum375 21:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to have two pages for ALF and Alf. The usual method is to have ALF redirect to Alf, where the disambiguation page is noted, and we certainly do not have enough pages needing disambiguation that both can't be addressed at the same topic. Moreover, the show is spelled ALF and not Alf. For evidence that case is not used by most users making searches, see here. It's quite obvious by now that there's no primary topic for ALF, with both the organization and TV series being very high up, along with a number of other notable topics, so IMO, the best thing to do is to just follow the suggestions of Shmucky given above, which sound pretty reasonable. We need an admin to do the first move (which I don't think anyone really disagrees with), followed by a discussion on how exactly we want to order this thing. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the suggestions of Schmucky that you're referring to, Yom? We pretty much have a consensus that the current page is fine; I put forward the above as a suggestion that I think is even better. But I'm not aware of a third suggestion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the link you gave above doesn't tell us anything about the name of the show. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

See his comments under step 1. The link was referring to searching in general, not the Alf show. We'll probably not be able to get accurate data on that, since Google doesn't use case sensitivity, nor do most other major search engines. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how moving ALF to Alf will change anything. Alf currently redirects here anyway, so it would make no difference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Schmucky that the proposal to redirect based on case is not appropriate. The current setup (disambiguation page is at ALF and Alf redirects there with the TV show and the Animal rights group listed at the top of the disambiguation page) is just fine. The only change I would make is to move ALF to Alf (that is the more typical location for such pages that present combine usage). older ≠ wiser 12:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As SV says, how does that make any difference? Alf already redirects here so moving them would just be a pointless exercise.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in what way? It just seems bureaucratic to me.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think the current arrangment is best, with both ALF and alf redirecting to the disambiguation page, where the tv show and animal rights group occupy the top spots. Redirecting either of these to Animal Liberation Front is not a good idea. Those who are looking for that article will surely most often type "Animal Liberation Front" in any case. By contrast (and for me this is the decisive point) is that those who are looking for the TV-show have no choice but to type "ALF" (the show's actual name) or (given that internet typing is often case-insensitive) "alf". It also strikes me that the acronym for the Animal Liberation Front is not widely recognized outside of Britain. Bucketsofg 12:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken about the acronym not being widely recognised outside of britain, as it is used in the USA [4][(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21285737.shtml][5], Australia [6], New Zealand [7], Canada [8][9] etc... It is a worldwide English speaking usage of the acronym.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The ALF is active in around 35 countries, including the U.S., and is well-known in each of them because the media often writes about them, and the police and the various governments often criticize them. They're known in all these languages as the ALF, because it is the "calling card" that they leave at the scene of an action.

At least some of the opposition to ALF being redirected to the Front is because people have anti-AR views. I'm not saying that everyone opposing this is doing it for that reason, but it was an anti-AR POV that started this, and that made it so vitriolic. Can I appeal to you all to be as neutral about this as you can? Even if you all hate them, it's clear that this is a very widely used acronym for them, and we're here to make things easy for readers, nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's given, that the Animal Liberation Front is popularly known as ALF to any first-world country. However, it's rather pot-kettle-black to assign motive to the opposition of your proposition that we create a guideline-breaking redirect.

One dab page for all subjects, what is so difficult about that? SchmuckyTheCat

You still haven't shown me where in the MoS it says not to do what I'm proposing. And anyway, the MoS itself says it should be ignored when appropriate. My solution would give all sides what they wanted: (a) ALF for the Front, (b) Alf for the television show, and (c) ALF (disambiguation) for the complete list. That way, everyone's happy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, no not really. You've got an extremely limited consensus going here. A previous Requested Move poll gave pretty strong indication that there was no primary topic. The TV show title is not Alf, for one. What is wrong with the current arrangement? older ≠ wiser 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to accept the current arrangement as a compromise; my concern from the start was only that the Front not be buried and hard to find. I still think the other suggestion is a better one, and the TV show does seem to be called Alf: see Alf: The Animated Series and Alf's Hit Talk Show.

Can you give a reason for my proposal being a poor one? You say it's inappropriate, but you don't say why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate my reason, which was apparently too elliptically stated: the proposal presumes to make Alf and ALF into primary topics, and I don't believe there is a clear primary topic, especially considering that the actual name of the TV series was ALF not Alf. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the primary topic is either the TV show or the Animal Liberation Front. There is confusion as to the name of the show, with it sometimes being written as ALF and sometimes Alf. We can take advantage of that by using Alf to redirect to the show, and ALF to the Front. This would mean that those who wanted to prioritize the show are happy; those who wanted to prioritize the Front are happy; and those who wanted a dab page that lists all possibilities are happy too, because we'd also have ALF (disambiguation). We'd have dab notes at the top of both primary articles telling people where to go, so that readers only had to click once at most, which they have to do now anyway.

I have to ask again: what are the actual drawbacks to this solution? Please don't simply say you don't like it or give a reason based on process. Please say what the actual drawbacks would be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would having a misspelling of the name of the TV show redirect to the TV show make anyone happy? That's silly. Besides there is no "agreement" about primary topic. There is some general agreement that the AR group and the TV show are the two most common referents, but that is not the same as primary topic. older ≠ wiser 01:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be some question on the correct capitalization of the animated series; see its IMDB entry, which refers to it as "ALF: The Animated Series" (similarly, see the IMDB entry for "ALF's Hit Talk Show"). As a aside, I wonder if this is the most-trafficked disambiguation talk page ever? JavaTenor 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing the TV show name was first presented as ALF, an acromym of Alien Life Form, then morphed into Alf, as it became accepted as the character's name. That's speculation, though. Yes, it probably is the most-trafficked dab page, sadly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Can someone clarify this for me? 1)There's a bunch of stuff called "alf" or "ALF". 2) The two most important ones are ALF - The Animal Liberation Front and Alf (OR ALF) the telly show. 3)One disambiguation page for everything at ALF, with redirect from Alf, isn't seen as suitable by some people (why?) but a page at ALF with links to disambiguation (or to the other ALF) is also seen as not suitable by some other people? I'm really not sure why a disambiguation page at ALF with Animal Liberation Front and Alf the tv show at the top is a poor solution. It's one extra click for all users, rather than one less click for some but two extra clicks for others. It also exposes people to the diversity of information that wiki has - I had no idea about assisted living facilities etc before this page. Dan Beale 10:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If you search for "ALF" in the actual, top external link search indices for articles listed under Category:Newspapers, Category:Magazines, and other media categories, you'll find that the searches consistently return persons with the name "Alf" as the most popular search result. Take USA Today, as just one example. Try others. There are multiple issues at work. Encyclopedias take a long-term historical view, and should not favor time-sensitive usage when there is no clear primary topic. Examples abound: a strain of the Murray_Valley_encephalitis_virus was referred to as "ALF" in the medical literature as early as 1970 (Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1970 Nov;19(6):Suppl:1093-4); "American Landmark Festivals" (music fest.) were called ALF as early as 1973; the Azania Liberation Front was also referred to as ALF in multiple sources in the early 1970s (Nelson, 1973. Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of Sudan); the Afar Liberation Front was called ALF in a published work in 1975 (Legum, Ethiopia: The Fall of Haile Sellassie's Empire); the Animal Liberation Front wasn't even formed until 1976 and didn't even receive wider currency until the late 1980s and early 1990s. And, Google Scholar lists at least 1,060 hits for "Acute Liver Failure" and ALF, 299 hits for "Assisted living" and ALF, and only 271 hits for "Animal Liberation Front" and ALF, demonstrating that non-animal rights acronyms have wider currency in published works. There are literally tens of thousands of Google hits being generated just from the Animal Liberation Front and their front domains, such as animalliberationfront.us, animalliberationpressoffice.org, animalliberationfront.com, and many others. You can even find evidence of a Google bombing campaign by ALF supporters as early as 2004, discussed here. An unsorted, uncollated disambiguation page is a poor solution only in the sense that it isn't accurate and is being manipulated by animal rights activists. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral; we aren't supposed to promote one group over another. Our job is to provide accurate, encyclopedic information that isn't subject to the political machinations of special interests who would seek to misrepresent data for their own purposes. Actual, encyclopedic reference works like the Acronyms, Initialisms, and Abbreviations Dictionary collate their information for easy navigational access, and we should do the same. This has the additional benefit of eliminating POV orders of placement on the dab page and making terms easy to find. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas - you are being almost entirely US-centric there - please remember that the initials are more commonly used in reference to the animal liberation front in European countries than, say, the American show with the puppet. Also, your evidence regarding Google bombing is nonsense - you have a single post from a vegan blog. That is not evidence in the slightest, it is simply an observation by the author. If you do believe that there has been a google bombing exercise then you don't understand how google works. Google bombing is incredibly complex to organise and doing it from domains such as animalliberationfront.us and animalliberationpressoffice.org would not end with the result you are claiming. It would require the co-operation and widescale usage of the term by other trusted sites - such as news sites, government sites etc... Otherwise the pagerank technology would just ignore it (otherwise I could go out there, set up 10,000 pages using the term ALF on different but similar domains and suddenly be the top ranked address...).

I think the problem here is that you are focusing too much on the USA and forgetting about Europe and other continents. Also note that the ALF has been called the ALF since 1976, whilst the tv show was only ran between 1986 and 1990.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Choose any non-American media outlet with a high circulation rate and give me the results of an archival search of their site. I chose USA Today as an example because it is listed as the highest circulating publication in the US, not because it is American. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A search of non-Google, English language sites also yielded Alf (tv show) and Alf (animal rights org) as the top choices. I was (and am) concerned with systemic bias as well as other bias. I think that claims of "google-bombing" are somewhat inflated when similar results atart ranging in from cources other than Google, and hyper-consideration of this nature begins so sound increasingly like conspiracy theory. When we see hoofprints, let's think horses, not zebras. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to a search index, but to an actual search of any archival news source that has a high circulation rate. I chose USA Today as an example, in which case, the name "ALF" returned 511 hits since 1987.[10] "Animal Liberation Front" is only listed 43 times[11], eight of which include the acronym.[12] —Viriditas | Talk 14:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It bears pointing out that USA Today is perhaps not free of systemic bias. After all, it is called USA Today. I wonder how many hits Alf or ALF gets with Al Jazeera (the English language version) or another non-US-centric source... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I chose USA Today because it has the current status of "largest reported circulation" per List of newspapers in the United States by circulation. Please choose another paper with a similar circulation status and perform a search for "ALF". Please report your results, here, with a link so others can check. —Viriditas | Talk 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, therein lies the problem: The USA Today may very well be the largest "reported circulation in the US", but the US is not the sum total of English-speaking countries in the world. This is the English-language wiki, not the American wiki. We can't rely solely upon a magazine that, by your own admission focuses its efforts largely to the confines of the USA. Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I acknowledge that we shouldn't rely on one source for determining notability and usage; this is why I have requested others to "choose another paper with a similar circulation status and perform a search for "ALF". Please report your results, here, with a link so others can check." In the case of USA Today, the highest circulating newspaper in the United States, the most common use of the term "ALF" was in reference to the television show. The second most common usage was in reference to a persons name. Here's another example: The highest circulating paper in Canada is the Toronto Star. According to a search of their archive (including all related publications since 1985) the Front is only referred to 15 times.[13] Removing the Front from the search returns 1631 hits for ALF.[14] Many of these results refer to people named "Alf". Hints for other searches include the Sunday Star-Times, New Zealand's highest circulating paper.[15]. You can also check LookSmart's FindArticles archive, which includes 1811 references to articles that do not include the Front,[16] and 201 that do.[17] —Viriditas | Talk 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you wanting me to show you? I admit that searching for alf turns up people named Alf but the argument is that we should have one page for 'Alf' and one for 'ALF' - and this page would direct straight to the front. So, please explain exactly what you want and I'll have a look.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would that be the case? ALF is the term that we have so many different acronyms for, and the two, so far indistinguishable in notability and commonness of use (of the acronym ALF), main topics: the front and the TV show (which is ALF, not Alf), plus a number of other organizations and acronyms. So why would having two pages imply that one be a redirect to the front? Really, there's no difference between having this disambiguation page at ALF versus Alf, but since the disambiguation page is usually at "Alf" (and its equivalents), we might as well go with the established precedent. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That argument is moot per Step 1; let's move forward, not backward. We're currently arguing about Step 3 and 4. See "Step 1" section above. —Viriditas | Talk 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What? You asked for something, and I asked for clarification - and you say it is moot. How has it become moot since half an hour after you last asked the question? Also, no argument is moot, as this is a continuation of the discussion of SV's suggestion, not the organisation of the current page.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get into all that again. Really, I didn't mean to start another round. I just want a simplified version of where this page is now. I'm happy with Steps one and two, and I'm happy for step three if the two most common uses are at the top of the list. Dan Beale 18:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was pretty clear prior to today that the page was just fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Step 3 and 4 have been in discussion for a while. —Viriditas | Talk 21:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

World's 100 Largest Newspapers. —Viriditas | Talk 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

English place names

Is there any evidence that Alfold, Alford, Alfreton, and Alfriston are called Alf? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove them in that case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find such a link, but I mentioned earlier that whilst traveling through the UK, the locals called Alford as well as Alfriston Alf for short. Maybe its not notable enough to mention (as my knowledge of the local colloquialism is a primary source), but I think there might be local references to it in the local chamber of commerce stuff that is rife within the UK. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not been able to find anything so far. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Such is life. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For Alfreton, this headline from a local paper would only make sense if 'Alf' was indeed a local nickname. But once we get to reverse engineering from bad jokes, we're on pretty dodgy ground. Bucketsofg 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the headline was a bad pun, but frankly, the pun serves to reinforce the existence of a nickname for Alfreton (at least). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few days since we've had confirmation of at least one Alf being a nickname (in the cited instance, Alfreton). Should it be added back in? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikigroaning

Good article here about the "wikigroaning" triggered by equating television programs and video games with topics of historical or social importance. I was powerfully reminded of this page. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A well written and amusing article, SlimVirgin. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do DAB pages ever become FA articles?

Lol! Just kidding (hmm....or am I?) Seriously, the DAB page looks pretty nice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wellll...try to nominate it and see. I doubt that it would be accepted because dab pages are not, technically, articles. However, the notion of having a 'featured disambiguation page' isn't that far fetched considering the amount of effort and impact on utility of the encyclopedia that a good dab page reflects and can have. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cite request for application layer filtering

Arcayne has requested citations for the term ALF being used to refer to Application Layer Filtering. Here are two recently published books that use the term: Since the consensus on dab pages seems to be that they don't require citations, I'm leaving these refs on the talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are not immediately verifiable, and you are fully aware that you have not earned AGF just yet. As well, when a revert situation arises, it is fairly customary to actually await a response before simply reverting. As it is, you are at three reverts. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. As well, this seems a good time to perhaps remind you of the uncivil behavior of accusing folk of bad faith edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, these citations are in fact immediately verifiable. Try Google Books, where you find both books online. You haven't provided any valid justification for your continuing removal of links on this dab page as you did above with American Legacy Foundation etc. I can think of no good reason why you persist in disruptive edit warring. You asked for cites and I provided them. You claim that they are not immediately verifiable, and I tell you that they are. This type of continuing editing behavior from you that persists over many months seems to be entirely in bad faith. —Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

More cites: —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (Cite added: 12:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

I will check Google books. Understand that if the acronym doesn't appear, the instance will be removed from the dab page. You have not yet proven that its usage is in fact noteworthy. Again, I remind you that you have used up your reverts for the day for this article, placing you right up agains the 'electric fence.' As well, I would ask that you confine your remarks to the subject at hand. If you find significant problems with my editing style, please find somewhere else to edit. Please do not make further personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I find significant problems with your editing style, as do other editors who have asked you to explain your continuing removal of cited content. You've made these type of bad faith claims before[18] and your tone of voice and continuing claims are absurd. This does not imply in any way that I should find somewhere else to edit: it implies that you need to change your behavior. Ask yourself one question: how have your edits improved this dab page? —Viriditas | Talk 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Excuse me, but what part of the No personal attacks policy eludes you? I have asked you to direct your comments solely to the subject, and avoid personal attacks, and have even taken the rather significant step of asking you to stop on your Talk page. Yet you persist. Are you trying to get banned (as this isn;t the first time you've been warned about this by other users and admins)? If so, you are well on your way. One last time: confine your remarks to the article, and stop the personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments are directly related to this subject which concerns your editing behavior: the continued, unjustified removal of referenced dab entries. I don't see any "personal attacks". Read this thread and the previous ones I linked to above. Ask someone to explain it to you if it still doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the initial post in this thread, a polite message authored by myself that fulfilled your cite request, was met with a personal attack - from you: "you have not earned AGF just yet". You may want to review WP:NPA in case you have forgotten what it actually says. —Viriditas | Talk 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making it easy, Viriditas. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You have avoided the issue of citations altogether and replied to my provision of cites with a personal attack maligning my character, and now, you are falsely accusing me of attacking you. So to recap, you asked for cites and I provided them. You responded by claiming that you can't trust me (a baseless attack), threatening (another attack) to report me for reverting your bad faith edits. I responded to your attacks by sticking to the subject of bad faith citation removal with linked evidence, pointing to a pattern of your bad faith edits to this page involving the repeated removal of cited content, and you then respond with more false accusations. It looks like you are trying very hard to misdirect this discussion, but it won't work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, already bored. Anyway, can you provide how the usage is noteworthy? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the links I gave you make the case that it is a notable feature of firewalls and information security: "...considered by many firewall experts to be the most secure of the filtering technologies." (Shinder, 2005) It's also considered as notable as deep packet inspection. (Noonan, Dubrawsky, 2006). —Viriditas | Talk 14:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the citations. I was able to verify that the term is not an accidental acronym and is in use, therefore notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A cite was requested and several were provided. Let's move on. --MPerel 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

split

I suppose this should be {{split}} into ALF vs. Alf. --dab (𒁳) 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, bad. Dab pages (in fact, no pages) should NOT be case sensitive, accent/tone mark sensitive, etc. SchmuckyTheCat

Just to be clear, SchuckyTheCat meant to say, "Dab page should NOT be case sensitive". This was previously discussed here and in the archives. Consensus was against splitting by case. —Viriditas | Talk 10:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I modified my previous statement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There was in fact no consensus in the previous discussion, and this page indicates that we can, indeed, create case-sensitive dab pages:

"It is possible to create two non-redirect pages with the same name but different capitalization. If this arises, a disambiguation link should always be placed at the top of both pages, linking either to a dedicated disambiguation page or to the other article."

That would be the most sensible thing to do in this case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:DAB disagrees, and that advice is older, admits it is problematic, and points to another article about precision which also says it is a bad idea. Because search is not case sensitive - I think that simple fact of the software internals over-rides any guideline to the contrary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

WP:DAB is just a guideline, and even it only says "usually" the dabs won't be case sensitive, so we can do what we want here. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the software overriding. When we had two pages -- Alf and ALF -- it worked fine. When you searched for Alf, you arrived at Alf, with a dab note at the top directing you to ALF in case that was what you'd wanted. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They are all just guidelines. The guideline you are quoting says to use WP:DAB for guidance. You're twisting the obvious to get the result you want, rather than the rather clear advice that case-sensitive titles on any article are a bad idea.

People do not put search based on case. We've gone over this before. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No-one's "twisting" anything. I'm arguing that there has been a long-standing dispute about this page, and that it would be resolved by having two pages, one Alf, and one ALF, which the guidelines and the software both allow. That's all I'm saying. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow, but discourage. It's not a good solution, and AFAIK that's the only part of the dispute - it shouldn't be done. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

For example, White Lion for the band, and White lion for the cat works well. You're saying it shouldn't be done, but other people are saying it's fine, so the questions are: when is it a good idea, and would it be a good one in this case? And if not, why not? What is the difference between ALF and Alf that makes it different from White Lion/White lion? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Works well because it is only two articles and is not a dab page. I wouldn't set these pages up this way either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why would dab pages be any different though? Alf for the name, and any abbreviation written that way. ALF for abbreviations written that way. With both referenced on each other's pages. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Because dab pages are not content, they are navigation aids. It is not helpful to navigation to have case sensitive pages. And, again, users don't make case sensitive searches. There is zero benefit to making case sensitive dab pages. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)