Wikipedia talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, August 31, 2005, see discussion.
keep, February 29, 2004, see discussion.

This page was nominated for deletion on 18 January 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Necessary?

Is this trip really necessary? —LarryGilbert 20:18, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Are we going to have the 4 and 5 and 6 letter abbreviations? Joyous 04:51, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

The 4-letter abbr. were deleted. -- User:Docu

I suppose it could appeases someone's academic interest about how many of the possible TLAs are used. Just going by the ones that have articles, it looks like about a third are used. CyborgTosser 08:37, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Results of deletion discussion: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TLAs from AAA to DZZ. Voted to keep. DJ Clayworth 16:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removing from these lists the "yet" from "TLAs in red or followed by a question mark do not yet have an article", because this makes it seem like there ought to be one. Tempshill 23:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Awkward

I just discovered this page after creating a few redirects and trying what links here. Awkward. :-) --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ✒]] 05:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CAT

CAT points to a disambiguation page. Should it be corrected to point to CAT? None of the other links on this page have this yet.

Umm

The purpose of this page is...? Jaberwocky6669 06:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

yeah, i totally agree. although i'm normally as inclusionist as possible, I can't figure out what the point could possibly be of a list of all the possible 3 letter combinations of the english alphabet. A list of TLAs in use is one thing, but that isn't what this is, this is just a long list that could be summed up just as easily by giving on mathematical expression with an exclamation point in it, or however you note that . . . seems to have already run the gauntlet of vfd though. --Heah 19:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone for Wikiproject:The Nine Billion Names of God ? --Fangz 12:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page move

moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since there was consensus to move the articles, I have carried out the moves. Please make sure I don't miss any double-redirects. Carbonite | Talk 19:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Psy guy ^(talk) 00:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support DV8 2XL 00:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Allstar86 01:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nabla 01:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rayc 01:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Tito xd 02:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Carbonite | Talk 03:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I despise them though. fpo 03:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it will keep them for being AfD'd for a fourth time. — JIP | Talk 04:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds of saving AfD time, space and everyone's energy. Alf ^melmac 08:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- why not Nonenmac 00:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - if only because it'll keep them from getting deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It survived VfD, so let's keep it. -- User:Docu
Oppose -- This is a valid list and should therefore be included in the main namespace. Should we move Gay Nigger Association of America to the Wikipedia namespace? Guanaco 03:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- GNAA is proof that SlashDot overpowers common sense and actual notability, by skewing things using the SlashDot effect. It should be transwikied to Unclopedia (SlashDot) 132.205.45.148 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Heron 11:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support 132.205.45.148 19:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

These articles have been nominated for deletion three times and kept three times. In order to protect them from further nominations I believe they would each be better placed in the Wikipedia namespace. This is not an attempt to get rid of the articles, it is an attempt to avoid another needless afd nomination. I refuse to just move them myself because it's likely to be a controversial move, and because of the amount of people who voted to keep in the last afd nomination, rather than move. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be considered with List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations (which survived AfD). Note that List of all two-letter combinations did not survive AfD. 132.205.94.175 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all two-letter combinations
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations

At the time I nominated these articles for deletion, I could not see any encyclopedic use for them. I think everyone agrees that they have no encyclopedic use, but they are useful to many users for other reasons. That was a fact that I did not see. My opinion was that we already have a search box and there is not reason to compete with the likes of Yahoo and Google. However, I hold that Wikipedia is not paper. Therefore, if editors find them useful, I am all for moving them to the namespace. Psy guy ^(talk) 00:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before voting, would someone please explain what use exists for these lists? Titoxd 01:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read any of the above archived deletion discussions: several people explain quite clearly why they feel these lists are useful. Note that this discussion is no longer around whether they should exist or not as consensus was reached to keep them on the previous occasion. The discussion now is in which namespace they are better suited. -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I read them, and I don't object to the move. Tito xd 02:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note the page that was not listed: List of TLA-Dabs 132.205.44.134 00:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should List of all two-letter combinations be resurrected as a Wikipedia space article? 132.205.44.134 00:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if this does get moved. -Sean Curtin 03:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing TLAs

Some TLAs are not listed, including: A&E, A&M, A&W, ÖDP ----Tokek 08:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

upper/lowercase, etc.

If someone is bored, perhaps they could manually/make a bot check and correct the following for every TLA:

whether it redirects to a specific page when it should more properly be a disambig,
whether the lowercase version exists, and if so, whether it should be a redirect to/combined with the uppercase instead. I just combined Tff which should have been TFF, which should have been a disambig not a redirect.

TLAdisambig

I'm putting the {{TLAdisambig}} on all the TLA pages that now have {{disambig}}, I am on ADI right now, anyone interested in helping? :) Chris M. 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to disambig pages?

Since most of the TLAs are actually disambiguation pages, shouldn't the links on this page point to (e.g.) AAA (disambiguation), per WP:INTDABLINK? Set theorist (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]