[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:ABC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ABC vs. ABC (disambiguation)

[edit]

True or false: this article belongs at ABC (disambiguation) with ABC being a re-direct to American Broadcasting Company. 66.245.105.237 00:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only if you're a TV-obsessed slave to the corporate state. :-) American Broadcasting Company is unimportant outside the US, and even in the US, most people know the companies as "Channel 11" or whatever - they would be hard-pressed to make a list of which network goes with which of their local channels. The most widely-recognized meaning of "ABC" in the US is as a reference to the alphabet. Stan 01:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It would be better for someone to disambiguate the links to ABC to their proper pages. dml 01:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also true, but it's fair to ask if a particular meaning of an initialism is sufficiently predominant that it should "own" the letters, as for instance BBC or DOD. "ABC" just happens to have a slew of different popular meanings, and the company is in the middle of the pack so to speak. Stan 03:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Links to this page from the main article space have pretty much been redirected to bypass this disambiguation; there are a bunch of Wikipedia- and User-talk-space links remaining, though, which is pretty much expected considering the many uses of the term. Courtland 03:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cleared another 35 - 40 links that had cropped up to this page. Why are people so sloppy about checking their links??? JimmB 20:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think our friend with the IP numbers was right. I was working on fixing up the links to this disambiguation page, and every one is in fact a link to American Broadcasting Company. If almost every page links to American Broadcasting Company, shouldn't the ABC article be a redirection there? I know that ABC happen to be the first three letter of the alphabet, but, so what? NBC, BBC, AXN, they all have redirects. --PeterCantropus 23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...

[edit]

Name some things that Wikipedia has articles for that are of no importance in the United States, writing after it the country (e.g. United Kingdom) that they are important in. 66.245.121.176 20:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you insist:

  • Sky One (UK and some parts of Europe)

Insert non-formatted text here

This disambig. page has abbreviations +

[edit]

It seems that this page is covering both abbreviations = "ABC" as well as phrases that contain "ABC". Is that appropriate? Courtland 2005-01-30 USA ~14:50 EST

I can't speak for the Wiki Policy, but i think it's perfectly acceptable, giving the fact that when somebody searches for ABC they must get a page that relates to what they have searched for, and since you can't really predict what the particular user was planning to see it would be appropriate to show all the things linked to "ABC"... but then who am i, just a small wikipedian... Beta m (talk)
Thanks; that seems reasonable. I'm but a small Wikipedian myself (or would that be "Wikipesian"?), thus my fishin' for knowledge on the matter. Courtland 2005-01-31 USA 19:15 EST
It is a Wikipedian... q;-) Beta m (talk)

Have alphabeticalised categories as I thought that they would be better sorted and would make sections easier to find. I wasn't sure if the misc. category should be ordered, but I decided against it in the end. Unsure though... - Estel (talk) 20:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Need to reorganize

[edit]

I thik that the present "part of name" vs. "abbreviations" categorization scheme is poorly conceived. For instance, consider ABC weapons. 'ABC' is part of the name, but it is also an abbreviation for 'atomic, biological, chemical'. We need a new system, but I'm split between two alternatives.

  • We could split it by grammatical type (organizatons, people, things)
  • We could split it by subject area (automotive, computer, music, etc.)

Which is better? --Smack (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter (though examples are hard to distinguish). Pavel Vozenilek 03:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental illogic about the current structure (name vs abbreviation) - many readers coming here won't know whether it's a "name" or an abbreviation. Even if they do know, the meaning of the name section (what type of things are in it) isn't clear on its own terms (only makes sense in contrast to abbreviation), so that it should at least be the second section of the two. However, a better structure would be by type of object - readers are likely to know roughly what they're looking for. Organisations, music terms, computing terms would cover most of them, and leave a smallish Other section. Rd232 22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please ;-) Pavel Vozenilek 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clear potential for a section on computers and a section on organizations, but any categorization scheme needs to be non-overlapping. We have an organization that makes computers (ABC Computer). Where would it go? --Smack (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Organizations. Today the sell computers, tomorrow raincoats, ... Pavel Vozenilek

Explaining my reorganization

[edit]

I did some relatively minor reorganizing of this page guided mainly by a desire to bring the section headers into closer alignment with a) existing categories and b) section headings that might be useful across multiple disambiguation pages.

I trust my changes aren't sufficiently horrid that they evoke a visceral reaction in folks. Regards, Courtland 01:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely avoided using "Computing" or somesuch as a heading because we have one organization that makes computers, and another that makes electronics. --Smack (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently changed this to "Computing technology". I understand the potential for ambiguity, but I disagree on the matter of its impact in the context of disambiguation pages. Courtland 04:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Cleaned links to this page from the main article space; a couple remain pending input from more knowledgable editors. Courtland 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "basic and all-purpose" meaning

[edit]

referring to archived diff

That was a good idea as the comparable meaning appears in the Wiktionary entry at Wiktionary:ABC. Courtland 23:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet

[edit]

Maybe we should include a direct link to the (Latin) Alphabet. 惑乱 分からん 11:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent cleanup

[edit]

This recent cleanup of ABC was needed; esp. removing all the Australian Broadcasting Corporation entries. However I was surprised that a number of the previously linked articles have been removed (e.g. ABC Records, a recording label ). Reading Disambiguation didn't help me understand why the list has been trimmed. Is there a good reason for those deletions? Jayvdb 00:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reverted the cleanup, just like Bogsat did yesterday. Don't think Disambiguation justifies the cleanup. Brz7 11:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ABC Records obviously does not belong on this page. Someone looking for ABC Records would be expected to search for ABC Records and would not be expected to find that article at just ABC. It is also highly unlikely that an editor editing an article would create a link to just ABC if meant to link to ABC Records.
From Wikipedia:Disambiguation: "Lists of articles of which the disambiguated term forms only a part of the article title don't belong here. Disambiguation pages are not search indices. Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title (where there is no significant risk of confusion)."
See also the the manual of style which states that on a page called Title generally do not create an entry for Title something else, i.e. ABC Records on the ABC page. If there are more than one ABC Records, then they could be disambiguated at ABC Records. But ABC would not be the right place. Unlike the American and Australian brodcasters, I highly doubt that the record company is known as and generally referred to as just ABC, and so there is no risk of confusion and there is no need for disambiguation on the ABC page. I suppose the other broadcasters could go as well, but there was a mention on this talk page that the American Broadcasting Company is unimportant outside the US, so I just left them there.
A dab page is not an expansion of every possible meaning of an abbreviation. Bogus entries only get in the way of the user getting to where they want to go. I was looking for the band, and wondered where the heck it was among all this clutter. While bands often are disambiguated using "(band)", it is not always the case that naming conventions are being followed and I figured that just typing ABC and then clicking on the correct link would be just as easy as typing the extra (band). -- AmbigDexter 11:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is common to use the disambiguation page as a way to find the meaning of various abbreviations. Recently more abbreviations were added. Soon abbreviations previously showing in the article will probably re-appear.
As far as ABC Records is concerned: ABC could refer to the record label, without explicitly mentioning "Records". Notability is variable worldwide.
The top index of the article clearly refers to the various categories, helping to quickly find your way in the article. Brz7 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode|#REDIRECT ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 16 LETERS ARE In tha aplhabet

Listing irrelevant media outlets

[edit]

I don't see any reason why so many media channels and stations should be listed; most of them would never be an intended target for a search on "ABC", as far as I can tell.

I suggest consolidating the American and Australian ABCs to the links below:

(I created the ABC Radio (Australia) redirect just now; it seemed odd that there was no direct link that I could find. Also, I'm totally puzzled by the TV station article: is this the only Australian ABC TV station, or is it just the only one in Canberra? Anyone know?)

A case could be made for including some of the other links that at least include the letters ABC; as an American, I can tell you I don't think ABC Studios or ABC News would ever be referred to as just "ABC" except in a very specific context. But listing all the divisions of the Australian TV and radio networks is clearly excessive; I highly doubt even an Australian would refer to Fly TV or Rollercoaster as "ABC." (I just clicked on the latter and it's not even a channel; it's just a show. Should the ABC page list every single show on any of the ABC networks?)

I just wanted to see if there were objections here, before I deleted all the apparently excessive links. Propaniac (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of response, I'm assuming there are no objections and cleaning up the section. That's always nice. Propaniac (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Broadcasting Company

[edit]

I don't quite understand forcing a redirect to ABC (network), especially when ABC in Australia is as much of a network as ABC in the US. It's confusing. ABC (network) should probably come to here anyway instead of the American Broadcasting Company. As far as I know, the Australian ABC is referred to as ABC in Australia just like the American Broadcasting Company is referred to as ABC in the US. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should try to change the ABC (network) to be a redirect back to this page as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. There is no point to constructing a fake piped link to look like a redirect. older ≠ wiser 10:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian ABC is actually called "the ABC," not "ABC" as we refer to the American company. Incidentally, why does the Australian Broadcasting Corporation require so many "sub-links" on this page? The American company also has local stations KABC and WABC and the cable outlet ABC Family, yet none of those are referenced. --SchutteGod (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Live

[edit]

I just added an entry for a news agency called ABC Live in India. Here is their site. I am not sure what this organization is doing, but they seem to be producing some original news content as well as aggregating other agencies' content. However, their website seems illegitimate in that there is no information there about the agency itself. I am not sure if they are notable, but I am here because they seem to be the primary source for this, which lots of other agencies are copying. Blue Rasberry 15:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Broadcasting Company

[edit]

There currently appears to be a dispute between me and an IP editor (24.244.32.255) over whether or not this page should be converted to a redirect to American Broadcasting Company. I believe this page should remain as a disambiguation. Should this be kept as a disambiguation or converted to a redirect? (edited)

CreationFox (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please list The A.B.C. Murders

[edit]

Please list Agatha Christie's book The A.B.C. Murders, I think that some people coming to this page may want it. 89.138.147.167 (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Dmezh (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Undone: This request has been undone. @Dmezh: Per WP:PARTIAL, disambiguation is intended to clarify ambiguous page titles, not be a search index for everything related to the page title. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ElHef: agreed. Thank you. - Dmezh (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2019

[edit]

Please replace it with {{subst::American Broadcasting Company}}. 2605:8D80:402:86C3:507E:E06B:AD00:3E3D (talk) 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a disambiguation page. NiciVampireHeart 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

[edit]

Should a link to Freeform be provided under "American Broadcasting Company", with the link referencing the channel's former "ABC Family" branding? 2600:1700:C960:2270:B836:8586:DC9B:31CE (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It seems unlikely that someone looking specifically for ABC Family would end up here. WPscatter t/c 09:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ABC&oldid=1249336950"