Talk:MS

Pointless Entries

There are some entries of worse than dubious (i.e. misleading) merit here. For example, 'Mirrorsoft'... don't recall them ever being referred to as 'MS' (let alone commonly enough to warrant inclusion), can't find any evidence to support it. Just because they were referred to as such once or twice, it doesn't mean the abbreviation is common enough to justify inclusion.

'Mad Scientist'? Has anyone every heard of this being abbreviated 'MS'? The 'mad scientist' page doesn't even include it. Is someone out there throwing every phrase that includes M-word S-word in here?!

This is just clutter, and mostly inaccurate clutter... much of it examples of the tendency to throw every 'fact' in for the sake of completeness, regardless of usefulness, let alone accuracy.

I've taken some out, but left others that may well fall into the same category (I don't have enough knowledge to judge these on my own).... That having been said, I'd like to see the more useful answers (e.g. 'MS' for Microsoft) given greater prominence.

Fourohfour 23:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

MS means microsoft most often as a prefix. Such as "MS-DOS" or "MS word". MichaelBillington 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem here is that there are too may things that this can mean. It is far too long for a disambig page, but I'm not sure how to fix it. MichaelBillington 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I was fairly conservative with the pruning, as it's hard to judge some of them myself. The question is (for each entry) whether someone is going to type it as a search term and should reasonably expect navigation to the page they want.... I'm not convinced by all of them. As for Microsoft, I've seen them referred to as MS (i.e. non-prefix) often enough, and it doesn't really matter anyway, provided people know it means Microsoft. Fourohfour 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing Master of Science in Information Technology as it looks like it's just included due to being a Master of Science degree (already included) and the page notes four different abbreviations, none of which are simply MS. Firefeather (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to Redirect

I decided that 'MS', since it so commonly refers to Multiple sclerosis in common language, should be a redirect. But I have moved the previous contents of this page to a redirect, which is linked to on the Multiple sclerosis page after a redirect. Any disagreements, feel free to change it back, but I felt this was the most reasonable solution. --Soonlaypale 04:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: this talk page has been moved with the article from Talk:MS and the histories merged. This comment refers to the article at MS, which is now a redirect as described. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Soonlaypale, when are you going to fix all the bad links created by your changing MS from a disambiguation page to a redirect? --Una Smith 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirect so that the dab is once again at the base name. -- JHunterJ 16:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

removals

Removed because this article is not started:

• Mangekyou Sharingan - a Bloodline Limit from Naruto.

Did anyone do a Google test on any of the removals? IT need not be on the target article to be true. 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I have never seen a dab page with citations, where's that from? 132.205.99.122 21:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Dab pages don't need citations; if the linked articles don't address the use, then the article doesn't need to be dabbed. -- JHunterJ 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi JHunter, thank you for answering that question. I took the time to add "citation required" to all the links that did not have a proper source. That means, the articles themself did not mention MS or they did but however did not mention the significance or have proper referencing. If there is no referencing from a reliable source, the information, as per wikipedia's policy, can and should be removed. (hint: This is how I think we should go about in keeping this dissambiguation clean). I'm sorry if the "citation required" threw you off. I figured it would be less invasive then simply deleting them. I guess, from now on, I will do that and drop it into this discussion page. Thank you! --CyclePat 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It didn't throw me off, and please don't just delete them from the dab. The dab page is not the place to discuss the sourcing of claims on other articles. It disambiguates articles, that's all. If there's disagreement about whether "MS" applies to one of the linked articles, it should be removed with consensus from the linked article, and only then removed from the dab. -- JHunterJ 17:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not what wikipedia's policy concerning WP:V and WP:OR state. I disagree and will never agree to your philosophy. Proper references must be given within the main article otherwise, the information within satelite articles (such as this disambiguation page) can and should be removed. (Which I believe is the general concensus agreed upon for these policies). So how do you think we can solve this problem? My proposition is right bellow and, not only in line with wikipedia's policy, but, since the information is remaining on this talk page, allows for us to work together in finding proper sources. Do you have any better suggestions which would comply with WP:OR? --CyclePat 19:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Including Wikipedia articles that offer explanations of "MS" on the "MS" disambiguation page is not Original Research. Disambiguation pages are not articles. I can think of no other way to state that fact. You apparently have an issue with the inclusion of "MS" on some of the lniked articles, but rather than building consensus on the "original research" possibly contained in the articles through their talk pages, you appear to be seeking dab exclusion as a punitive measure, which doesn't help anything. -- JHunterJ 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, you say: Proper references must be given within the main article; apparently it has escaped your notice that disambiguation pages are not articles. You are correct that articles must be sourced, but disambiguation pages are not articles and citations on a disambiguation page are not only unnecessary, but inappropriate. --Tkynerd 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not properly sourced

MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles: I have removed :

MS

• Manuscript, a hand-written document (proper referencing was found... this item was returned. Special thank you to Dsmdgold.
• Mara Salvatrucha, a criminal gang
• Microsoft, an American software company
• Mobile Station, equipment used for communication
• MapleStory, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game with a 2D environment and .customizable animated characters
• EgyptAir, the airline's IATA code is MS (proper sourcing was found]... this item is verified. Special thank you to User:Dethme0w even despite his flames as elobarate within the edit summary.)
• Mobile Suit, as in MS Gundam

ms

• Malay language (ISO 639-1 language code) (proper sourcing was found... this item is okay. Special thanks to myself user:CyclePat)

mS

• Spesmilo, an obsolete unit of currency adopted by some banks in the UK and Switzerland, equal to .733 g of gold (the symbol resembles mS)

(All the above articles where verified and no reliable sources where included within the article to substantiate a reference to the term MS. Each one is a different case with varying severity, nevertheless, there is still no reliable sources.)

Here is some of the one I had previously taged and where removed, but placed in hidden code within the article:

not known as MS according to the linked articles

• Root mean square, an average
• Middle school, a period of education
• Mitral stenosis, a narrowing of the orifice of the mitral valve of the heart
• Mild Steel, mild steel, a terminology used in the steel & construction industries
• MySpace, a popular, social networking website
• Surface wave magnitude

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You have mistaken a disambiguation page for an article. Disambiguation pages are not articles. The presence of entries on the dab indicates that the linked article addresses the use of the dab phrase. You are removing articles which merit inclusion, and if you disagree with their inclusion, you should discuss the removal of those uses from the linked articles, but until they are removed from the linked articles, the dab page should continue to disambiguate them. In particular, objecting to the inclusion of Microsoft (MS Word, et al.) seems counterproductive. -- JHunterJ 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. JHunter, I have placed a reference required on most of the articles. {{fact}} is beside the point that require proper citations. As per WP:OR that information can be removed. If you so as much wish this information can be deleted. Feel free to remove it because it is not properly sourced. I totally disagree with you philosophy that WP:OR and WP:V do not apply to a disambiguation page. It is inpervious to add properly referenced article to a disambiguation page. They must also meet the criteria for notability. (ie.: MS redirect to Multiple sclerosis since it is so popular. The way you want to work does not coinside with wikipedia's philosophies and policies and I can not work with you in this fashion. Again, we are talking about including notable information within an article. Stating the obvious that I should remove unproperly sourced information from the main article prior to removing a link to this disambiguation page is totatally unproductive. Specially, when most of the time to build concensus you would place the "fact" (citation required) and let it mature for some time in the regular editors of that article's minds. Yes, someone may actually find a good reliable source, however, right now there are none, and per wikipedia's policy, I chose to contest this information and removed it until we find reliable information. (just look above you edit summary box it states "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*". --CyclePat 20:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If the information can be removed from the linked articles, then please do remove it from the linked articles before removing it from the dab. That has been my suggestion all along, Mr. CyclePa. Until then, the entries on the dab are verifiable by checking that the linked articles address the term to be dabbed. -- JHunterJ 20:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello JHunter, The information can be removed, unfortunatelly, such as with the EgyptAir, it will creat a formating caos. The article table will look weird and I'm not familiar with how to reformat the table. Furthermore, I want to take the time to see if "We can work together" in finding more reliable sources. I hope this answers you question and that we can work on getting these article links back into the disambiguation. --CyclePat 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And what chaos will ensue from "fixing" Microsoft, which is commonly referred to as MS? I'm interested in fixing up disambiguation pages so that the proper articles are disambiguated. As long as "MS" is used for Microsoft according the the Microsoft article, it should be dabbed here. If you insist that it be removed here because of lack of sources there, please remove it there first. -- JHunterJ 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is, in my opinion, an over extension of WP:V some things are, within their respective field, common knowledge and do not need to be referenced. That MS and MSS are the singular and plural abreviations of manuscripts is such knowledge. That said, I have provided a link. Put it back. Dsmdgold 20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, that's the first time I hear that even after 5 years of University. Do you have any reliable sources for this. Again, I've never, honestly heard that before. Can you provide me with a reliable source that says this? --CyclePat 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it then that you are not in history or art history, fields that actually deal with manuscripts on a regular basis. There is a reference in the manuscript article. Here it is again [1]. Took me almost ten seconds to find it on google. Dsmdgold 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you Dsmdgold. With this reference, I agree that we should put manuscript back. However, it is important to use a proper citation. If you want, I will work on the bibliography within the main article, while you put the above "Manuscript, a hand-written document" back into our disambiguation. Thank you! I'm really happy this worked out for this. :-) --CyclePat 20:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s.: a better source would be good. I just found another one from my favourite online etymology dictionary.

Note: I have started a request for comments at the Wikipedia noticeboard. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#MS (disambiguation). --CyclePat 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I have to strongly agree with JHunterJ that you are applying the wrong set of guidelines to this page. Although I agree with your removal of the links to articles which do not use "MS", you have also removed several links because "MS is not properly sourced within the wiki articles". If you believe the use of "MS" in the articles is dubious, then by all means request a citation at the article. But if it appears in the articles (especially when the use is so common as not to be challenged), that's enough for inclusion on a dab page. The purpose of a dab page is much different than the purpose of an article. We're not making statements of fact here, we're simply trying to help users navigate. Removing helpful links because you don't feel the articles are properly sourced is an example of applying a good policy at the wrong level. The following links should be replaced (though with better descriptions):

• Mara Salvatrucha, a criminal gang
• Microsoft, an American software company
• Mobile Station, equipment used for communication
• MapleStory, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game with a 2D environment and .customizable animated characters
• EgyptAir, the airline's IATA code is MS
• Mobile Suit, as in MS Gundam
• Malay language (ISO 639-1 language code)
• Spesmilo, an obsolete unit of currency adopted by some banks in the UK and Switzerland, equal to .733 g of gold (the symbol resembles mS)

I admire your energy and enthusiasm for sourcing. I'd love to see you go after the thousands of questionable statements being made in articles all over WP, and if working on disambiguation pages helps you find those unsourced articles, that's great, but settle those arguments in the articles themselves, don't just blank out the links on the dab pages. You've got the right guns, you're just aiming at the wrong target. (A small typographical note...I think you often type "where" when you mean to say "were". I had a hard time understanding some of your posts.) SlackerMom 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Material Science

anyone else think that material science should be on this page? ENSSB 23:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly, unless you have a verifiable reference that says MS means Material Science? --anonymous user 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it should not be included because Materials science does not indicate that "MS" is a common term for it. It would need to be added there with consensus first (preferably with a verifiable reference there, as the "anonymous" user above alludes to). -- JHunterJ 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding Verifiable Information

I recently removed Master of Science because it lacked sources. however this was quickly reverted. The discussion is happening on the main article Talk:Master's degree. Just a friendly reminder, respectivelly in that order, of 1 guideline and 1 rule.

1. WP:AGF states: "Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." (Please see the edit summary which directs you toward the discussion page of Master of Science, which explains that MS is not properly references. Hence the the term MS is not verifiable)
2. WP:PROVEIT states:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

–Jimmy Wales

--CyclePat 05:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, but true and unsourced information is better than zero information. Especially when that information is blatantly obvious. Also, you keep misunderstanding the purpose of disambiguation pages, which is to help in navigation. --Itub 09:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I should provide this obvious information because I might be violating WP:DNFT, but there are 830,000 Google hits for '"master of science" ms' in the .edu domain. This is way more than needed to justify listing the abbreviation in a disambiguation page. --Itub 09:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the name is Master of Science apparently is not enough. spryde | talk 11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, again, you need to discuss the change and remove it from the linked article before you remove it from the disambiguation page. Simple. There is no need to discuss proposed changes to Master's degree here, and there is no need to discuss changes to MS on Talk:Master's degree.-- JHunterJ 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, you have quoted one section of this page but not the top part:

In your Jimbo quote, he was referring to information likely to cause harm to both the person and project. If you look further down the mailing list thread, you will find this:

If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation needed}}, please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page.

–Jimmy Wales

The bottom line is use common sense. I am trying to believe you want to help the project out but the effects seem to be more disruption than benefit. spryde | talk 13:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

alphabetical listing (with groups)

I have reordered the list alphabetically and split it into two groups to make it easier to locate articles ... in addition I have singled out multiple sclerosis at the beginning as the most common usage (see above on this talk page). Comments? Abtract (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding MySpace in, since its article does not indicate it is known as "MS". I left a separation of likely and less likely "MS" entries, and alphabetized the less likely ones, but since there is no primary topic, there should be no primary topic intro para. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed myspace as requested. The choice of which are more or less likely is pov and therefore I have reverted back to the alphabetical listing ... If anyone thinks the two groups are unecessary then we can go to a single list but imho the split into two will be helpful to readers. Also helpful to readers is removing the split by capitalisation ... ms, MS, Ms. mS etc since this implies readers have sufficient knowledge to differentiate in this way, which they might not. Abtract (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Likelihood is not POV. Please again see WP:MOSDAB, and in particular WP:MOSDAB#Order of entries. If you still disagree with the established guideline, discuss and build consensus on the Talk page first, before editing the dab page. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle -- you made a bold edit (fine), it was reverted (fine), next step is to build consensus, not start an edit war. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK taking on board these suggestions I have revised the order putting the most likely first and sectionalising/alpphabetising the remainder. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay! I've made some edits too, but I fear it's not going to help. The reason is because I still see a a type of POV in the way the list is organized. I think we have several options. The most obvious are...

1. By type of MS. (MS, M.S., mS, Ms, etc..)(That's what we had before: It had the benefit of making the list clear by the different MS terms)(It had the disadvantage of seperating some articles such as siemens (SI) unit (Megasiemens vs Millisiemens).
2. Alphabetical (Adavantage: This has no obvious POV, however there is still the same problem as the above exemple "by type"
3. By sense of priority (POV) (What we currently have and which gives a type of regional POV) (I totally disagree with this only because it violates POV rules... though it's good for my region I think we'dd best keep away from this.)
4. By Category (ex.: MT) (I think this could work for us)

Conclusion: We should try to move towards a list with categories... otherwise I think we should keep the Status Quo. --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: This is the hidden comment I added to the article: <!--Attention: Prior to adding any new term which may be related to MS please verify the related article. Ensure it that it mentions "MS" in a manner that is properly sourced and meets Wikipedia's fundemental rules on verifiability.--> --CyclePat (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way we can input the information into a database table and allow the users to format the table in a manner which they like? (Ie.: I'm thinking back to my Microsoft Access class?) --CyclePat (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, ordering by likelihood is the preferred ordering; see WP:MOSDAB. It has absolutely nothing to do with WP:POV. If you disagree, please raise the discussion at WT:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi JHunter, I read through WT:MOSDAB 2 times but couldn't find anything that specifically addressed the "preferred ordering" by likelyhood. In fact when I search for likely I got approx. 3 appearances of the word "unlikely". I think having a logical sequence will help user find what they are looking for... and that, if I understood correctly, is the principal of WP:MOSDAB. The added benefit of sorting a list by both category and alphabetical order I believe helps maintain the spirit of WP:NPOV which is a fundamental rule for Wikipedia. I would raise the issue up at MOSDAB but, in light of what I just said, the fact that I can't find anything that specifically deals with this, I think it may be out of place. Furthermore, even if there is something, I think we should invoke the break rules section, a build a consensus for this article. --CyclePat (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Try reading what JHunterJ recommended, which is WP:MOSDAB rather than WT:MOSDAB, specifically this section: WP:MOSDAB#Order_of_entries. It's in the first sentence of that section. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tkynerd. CyclePa, I disagree with the proposed deviation from the guidelines; there is no reason to put things like "Mobile Suit" or "MapleStory" ahead of "Multiple Sclerosis". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh! I must have been tired when I read through WP:MOSDAB. (That's what I meant b.t.w., not WT:MOSDAB. I missed that. Sorry for wasting our time. In this context, you are right. Personally, MS, has always been Multiple Sclerosis, then Ms. (for miss), etc... etc.. As I stated in item number 3, the sense of priority is all good. (It just feels like a POV, because we are using subjective material to place everything in a certain order. Quantitative material, such as a spread sheet showing the amount of clicks to all the given Wikipedia articles within the disambiguation page, or a Google hit list, etc... Don't get me wrong, I actually like the way the DAB is with the wiktionary:a priori(hypothetical info) vs. category, I just think for every action there should be a substantiated reason which is preferably supported by quantitative material (be it empirical or primary information from a website such as Alexa (which is also empirical). Anyways, I think we're in agreement. --CyclePat (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Midle School

I have removed *[[Middle school]], a period of education (See Middle school) for not only it's lack of sourcing in regards to the term MS but it's lack of notability (or WP:NPOV) in regards to the use of the term. --CyclePat 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

disambiguating the intials ms not the target articles

I have altered most of the entries to reflect the fact that we are disambiguating the initials MS and not the target articles, for instance it is MS not Multiple Sclerosis that is the entry. I have also traced through each link to ensure that the specific articles mention that ms is an abbreviation and where these initials are not mentioned in the article I have removed those lines, for example the microsoft article doesnt mention MS at all except MS-DOS which as you will see I have entered ... I have scrubbed microsoft. I am pretty sure this is in line with policy but if anyone has other ideas pl point me in the right direcvtion. Abtract (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And I fixed them again to lead with the disambiguated article. If the user is looking for the disease "MS", the Multiple Sclerosis is indeed the entry. I suppose if you really wanted to, you could create MS (disease) as a redirect and use it as the entry instead, and similarly for all the others. Microsoft is abbreviated "MS" in MS-DOS, MSN, MSJ, and MSDN, mentioned in Microsoft, as well as MS Word, MS Excel, etc.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be right but why do you think you are? Where is the polciy that suggests that? Surely if someone is looking for multiple sclerosis they will look there if they are looking for MS and not quite sure what he desease is called my way will tell them, I dont see the problem, pl explain. PLus policy is clear that the word/letters must be found in the article ... i have leminated all thos ewhich dont comply, why have you reverted that part of my edit ... nowhere in the microsoft article does it say that MS is an abbreviation for microsoft other than its usage in MS-DOS etc and i have reflected that in my edit ... do you have a thing for microsoft? Abtract (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

On the microsoft point you might like to note that the articles you quote as evidence are actually Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel and the lead articles don't mention your abbreviations. Abtract (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Created the redirect for MS (company) to reflect that common usage. For why I think I'm right, that'd be WP:MOSDAB. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this right, you created MS (company) simply in order to make a POINT? Wow! I have read WP:MOSDAB and I cannot find where it says that my way is wrong. I am not saying I am definitely correct, but I would have liked a little reaction on the talk page rather than a series of reverts as though I was vandal. Abtract (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to let you get this right: I created MS (company) because you were right about there needing to be something indicating the common abbreviation. I could have simply fallen back on WP:BAR, but figured this would be better. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Abtract, you might have missed this line: The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry, which is under WP:MOSDAB#Individual entries. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. Also, why are there Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images on the dab page? Judging from the other versions in the page history, both this and this would be acceptable, but the current one makes it (1) look very messy and therefore (2) less readable/usable, exactly what dab pages shouldn't be. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK at last some rationale ... I have devised a new list based on articles as suggested and simply in alpha order as the list is not that long. please dont revert agaion but build, surely 4 reverts is enough for anyone? Abtract (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken some time to look back at a number of different versions of the page. I'll venture to say that I agree with sgeureka. JHunterJ's versions are in keeping with MOS:DAB, guidelines developed with the intention of helping readers to navigate quickly and easily to the article they want. Navigability trumps aesthetics. The subheadings—as well as having some of the more common search terms high up on the page—improve navigability. This latest version, with the lack of subheadings and with the alphabetical order, impedes navigability in my opinion. I will repeat sgeureka's question: why have the image there, contrary to guidelines? Also, why remove the italics from Ms. for the magazine? Again, that is not in keeping with the guidelines. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Abtract has decided my edits constitute a 3RR violation, would one of you kindly revert to one of the earlier versions, please? -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why so keen to use the sledgehammer of reverting when it is better surely to take my latest version and use it as a base for improvement? As to the specific points: I have always had doubts about editors choosing which usages of ms are 'more common' and elevating them to the top since this requires pov. I have checked all the source articles and eliminated those that do not mention ms in the article (clearly inline with guidelines) but JHunterJ seems hellbent on including microsft because he 'knows it is a common abbreviation' - indeede he even went to the extent of creating an article MS (company) in order to redirect it to MS to make his point! My edits have all been aimed at improving the page and imho the rv tool is not intended to be used in this highhanded way. Abtract (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My version had the added advantages of eliminating the surplus descriptive phrases in the old version and including all the specific styles of abbreviation - MS, ms, Ms, mS - and the image is include because surely it is vital to that particular ms that it is shown in that way (a bit like the italics on the magazine title which I inadvertantly removed but have now restored). If consensus it to order this with subheadings then so be it but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, please. Abtract (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The reverted version is a better base for improvements, rather than re-making all the improvements in it that have been undone by your edits. If you disagree with MS (company), please see WP:RFD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I do disagree with your redirect from MS (company) to Microsoft because a reading of the microsoft article reveals no mention of this abbreviation (yes it is used as a prefix on software but not as a standalone abbreviation) ... indeed a simple reading of the MS dab page reveals that the redirect should probably be to Morgan Stanley which mentions MS in the first line of the article! I will make the change now. Abtract (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect has done nothing but provide something new to argue about, and is not necessary, in my opinion, although I understand why it was done. Microsoft is commonly known as MS and should be included on this page, regardless of the content of its article (or any arbitrary redirect). The content-of-the-article guideline is a "rule of thumb" and should not be used beyond the bounds of common sense. I realize that this "rule" has been used as the basis of many inclusions and disinclusions on many hotly disputed dab pages, but is this really the hill to die on? Not every page can be "perfected" with a strict observance of MOS:DAB. There is a need for some common sense as well. I believe consensus could easily be reached for the inclusion of Microsoft, regardless. Oh, and the image needs to be removed, which I will happily do. There is no justification for it being here. SlackerMom (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree now about MS (though frankly I don't see how common knowledge is any substitute for a citation on the target page) but I disagree about the image since imho it is needed to help disambiguation (the initials are actually sm but the image places them as ms so surely the image is needed? I have reinstated both. Abtract (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note MOS:DAB#Images. Images are discouraged on dab pages, which guideline has been strongly supported by regular dab editors, in my experience. This image does not assist anyone in selecting between articles, which is the rationale for an exception. Including Spesmilo on this page is questionable anyway, since the abbreviation is really Sm, not MS. Although I accept the argument to keep it here, we don't need to treat this as a hot link. The currency was used briefly, has been obsolete for nearly a century, and the article is nearly orphaned. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on this page, I'm just pointing out that not a lot of people are looking for this one. Using an image makes this link stand out in a very inordinate way, completely out of line with its relative importance. I don't think it's worth an exception, and I will continue to remove it, in accordance with MOS:DAB, unless you can build a consensus for an exception. This page also needs replacement of some better descriptions, which it used to have. Brief descriptions are needed to show how these links are different, not how they are the same (i.e. "abbreviated MS", which is true for all of them). SlackerMom (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think JHunterJ's smaller image is useful. Something this small or smaller (even down to zero) would be okay by me. But I'm more bothered by the fact that it is alphabetical. A dab list this big isn't too useful alphabetical. An ordering by expected use is much better, perhaps categorized. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the alphabetical listing is terrible. I've been alleged as a 3RR offender, though, so I'd really rather another editor take an earlier version as a base to apply some of the changes for individual entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you could start with the latest version and build on that rather than reverting yet again and losing the ins and out that have happened since. Abtract (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is clear now that alphabetical is not the way to go. I think we've actually lost other improvements, though, from JHunterJ's earlier cleaned-up version. To take one example: "Mass spectrometry, abbreviation MS" (current version) versus "Mass spectrometry, a method of determining the chemical composition or exact mass of molecules" (JHunterJ's version). The latter is much more helpful to the reader. That is just one example among many. SlackerMom (and of course JHunterJ) appears to be with me on this. For these reasons, I am going to do what JHunterJ has asked and revert to the earlier version. Let's build from there. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Most common usage

How is this determined? Abtract (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus, like everything else. Abtract, you have been engaging any many disruptive edits against consensus here without trying to form any consensus before making your edits. I've protected the page for 24 hours. Please make any suggestions for changes here on this talk page to see if they meet consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Another abuse of admin powers I see. And you have completely ignored my edit summary pointing out that your edit has removed a whole section (Codes) and links m&s to a redirect page. Abtract (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely removed a section header, since its content was being split into other sections. No entries were removed. Yes, the link to the M&S redirect page is intentional, which I mentioned in my edit summary. Pages that link to disambiguation pages should use the (disambiguation) redirects rather than link directly to the dab (if it's a base name dab) to distinguish them from incorrect links to disambiguation pages that need to be fixed. The protection on the page is to prevent an edit war over this, since it is a simple matter of recognizing the consensus. Since you will not stop editing the page long enough to discover the consensus (that's the misuse of powers here), I felt it was appropriate to protect it to avoid a rerun of yesterday's fiasco. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I still struggle with the idea of a consesus of maybe half a dozen (if we are lucky) editors deciding which usage is most common. Can you tell me what is your rationale for each of those in the top list pls? So that I may discuss it. Abtract (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Things that are actually entitled "MS" (or Ms. or .ms) at the top, as suggested by WP:MOSDAB. Others per consensus of previous editors and talk page contributors. Perhaps you can tell me your rationale for challenging any of their common-ness? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of ms at the top simply doesn't work here because most of them are like this, certainly the first 5 after the top list do (I haven't checked the rest this time although I did previously when ensuring that they all mention ms in the article - which is why I very reasonably took out microsoft). S to consensus, can you not see my point made a few weeks ago that this is pov because it depends entirely on the ethnic/cultural/continent of the few editors involved ... for these two reasons I would not have a primary list unless maybe Multiple Sclerosis which is probably a clear front runner. Abtract (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial removal of Microsoft may have been reasonable. Removing it again after being reverted was not (WP:BRD again: that's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-unrevert-discuss). I do not know what you mean by "most of them are like this". No, I still do not see your point about consensus being POV -- it is still you disrupting Wikipedia (this dab page) to make a point (your disagreement with the disambiguation style guidelines and their guidance to sort by likelihood). If you want to make your ethnic/cultural/continent point against the guideline, do so on WT:MOSDAB and gain consensus for your opinion there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK it was petty of me to raise microsoft again but I continued to remove it inline with policy simply because the article microsoft at that time did not mention the MS abbreviation anywhere in the article, whereas you continued to put it back citing common knowledge and despite the fact that the article microsoft at that time did not mention the MS abbreviation anywhere in the article. I am not trying to be disruptive but to improve this page and it would be a harsh admin who blamed me for following policy. However I promise not to mention it again. I am surprised that you didn't understand my fairly simple statement above "The use of ms at the top simply doesn't work here because most of them are like this, certainly the first 5 after the top list do (I haven't checked the rest this time". The point I am making is that almost all the target articles use MS ms etc in the first line which was your main criterion for inclusion in the most common section - this is why that criterion simply does not work since we would have to include them all (bar a couple I think) in the most common list at the top of the page. How say you? Abtract (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the page looks fabulous just as it is. Abtract, I suppose there will always be some use of personal opinions (POV) in every decision about relative importance or "liklihood". Everyone has an opinion. That's why we fall back on consensus, and why we have to be willing to accept the opinons of others, and to consider the support they offer for their positions (I know you know all this). At the same time, we can't overwork every tiny decision, demanding evidence for whether one link should be above another, all the way down the list. Articles which have MS in their title ought to come first, and the rest reasonably divided into categories, so it's not a mass of text. That's it. Relax. Take your energy to a page which needs help. May I suggest these? SlackerMom (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Most sensible idea so far! Abtract (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Mess Management Specialist

Since there is no article for Mess Management Specialist wouldn't it be better to clarify that the link is direct to Culinary Specialist (US Navy) rather than allowing a hidden redirect? If my latest attempt to do this is against policy/guidelines could you point me to the relevant place before reverting me pls. I still think this [2] is better since it avoids a redirect, makes it clear to the reader and puts the target phrase first. Could you explain to me where in the guilde it says that redirects are ok or where it says that my way is not ok pls; I didn't get this from yr edit summary. Abtract (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1. It's not a hidden redirect. It's a redirect, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. See WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken.
2. MS doesn't stand for Culinary Specialist, so it's unlikely that the reader is thinking "Culinary Specialist" when he reaches the MS page.
3. In this case, linking to the redirect is preferred because
   1. It matches the topic being disambiguated (MS)
   2. If in the future a separate article is created for Mess Management Specialist, the pages and articles that correctly linked to the redirect would then correctly and automatically link to the new article.
4. When seeking guidance, please use the Talk page first, not in tandem with an edit to the page if you need guidance. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info ... perhaps next time you revert one of my edits you would explain why fully on the talk page instead of in an edit summary which says "mistaken" with a link that didn't explain it to me. Following your own advice about talk pages would be a very encouraging sign that you are beginning to understand how to treat other editors. Abtract (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, the reason why Wikipedia has guidelines like WP:MOSDAB and WP:R is so that the same explanations don't have to be replicated on Talk pages across the site -- the link did indeed explain it, and if you don't understand how, perhaps next time you will ask for clarification instead of reverting the edit. When I need guidance on the application of guidelines I'm not familiar with, indeed I ask on the Talk page and do not simply pursue revert after revert. Please read and become familiar with the guidelines relevant to the pages you are trying to improve. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Layout

IMHO there are too many items in the top section ... I would start with multiple sclerosis and put the rest in the lower sections; also there are too many sections and too few items (2 each in several) in some of them ... I would combine some eg academia, measurement and tech into a new section "science and technology". Just a thought. Abtract (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Units of measurement are used outside of science and technology, though; similarly, university degrees like Master of Science are not really themselves science or technology entries. They could be combined, but I don't have a suggestion as to what umbrella term would fit. I'd also suggest that Master of Science should remain near the top as a more common term. I don't think the top section is too large currently; a list of a half dozen items is easy enough to scan. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well ... it is difficult to see how Millisecond and Megasiemens have much life outside science and technology ... and surely both the degrees are science degrees? As to the top section, do you really think navigation is improved by having 6 lines in the uncategorised section? Does anyone else have a view on these points? Abtract (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anchor link for Middle school

Abtract, to avoid further reversions, I will explain here. You are using an anchor notation needlessly. The purpose of the URL anchor notation on a dab page is to point to a topic that is contained within another article, when the majority of that article is not specifically relevant to the dabbed term. When the article itself is named Middle school, it is not necessary to point to the exact instance of the dabbed term on the page. Plopping people down in the middle of the article (just because that's where it says "MS") is pointless. It's much clearer (therefore less confusing) for the user who clicks that link to be taken to the top of the article. I guarantee that anyone who follows the link as you propose will immediately scroll to top of that article to see where the heck they are. Also, I'm not sure why you insist on using lower case. SlackerMom (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I won't fight you on this but this usage of MS for middle school is only referenced in the north america section and not for the article in general. Indeed I am still doubtful about the actual citation (see my comments on the Middle school talk page). If the purpose of a dab page is to help readers navigate to where the usage occurs then it needs to go to the section ... it took me ages to find the reference. My point is what is the harm in using #? Upper or lower case whatever no problem. Abtract (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your doubt about the inclusion. I'm not convinced this is a high-priority inclusion, myself. But, as you know, that is a battle for another page. If it is included here, it should be included the same way we would include any other link - as simply and clearly as possible. You're probably in the minority of users who would be following that link in order to hunt down the reference to "MS". They're either looking for Middle school or they're not. Kudos on all your good dab work. SlackerMom (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the citation and therefore the reference to "also known as MS" on the middle school article (by agreement with another editor and I think when you read the "citation" I think you will agree with us) so I shall be removing the middle school line on this dab page shortly. Just giving you notice to be polite. Abtract (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to solve that problem. That did seem a pretty shady citation. SlackerMom (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a new citation to the target article, one which does not go to a personal page. As a result, I have also restored the dab link. Lots of middle schools abbreviate their name with this acronym, and the abbreviation is common in that usage on Google. However, since linking to the website of a middle school so abbreviated probably won't cut it as a ref, I went with a glossary - of which googling for "middle school" "ms" "glossary" turns up quite a few better ones than the one Abtract removed. Dethme0w (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Abtract (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added two more, in case a certain editor who likes electric bikes comes back. You know who I mean. Dethme0w (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Er no ... do tell, who likes electric bikes? Abtract (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's not hard to find on this page. I'd be flirting with WP:CIVIL if I named him. This is devolving into chat anyway. Dethme0w (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, moving on ... Abtract (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead items

It seems to me that there are too many items in the lead as it is somewhat confusing to see six uncategorised items and then some categories. I would like to see Ms. (magazine) (in world terms very minority) and .ms Montserrat (not high on people's lookup targets) placed lower down as they can hardly be called "most common usage". I also feel that Manuscript should be taken out of the lead as it is not now in very common usage (how many times does the average person use the word manuscript in their life let alone the ms abbreviation?). Then comes Ms. as an honorific for women - much to my surprise and disappointment, this never really caught on and is rarely used in the UK (I can't talk for other countries) so I would push that lower down too. That would leave us with Mississippi and Multiple Sclerosis and I seriously wonder if Mississippi should be in pole position since it is only an American state after all. If we need a lead term, my proposal would be that it should be "MS stands for Multiple sclerosis. MS may also refer to:" Multiple sclerosis is known throughout the English speaking world as MS and I would guess that if you said MS to most people they would think first of Multiple sclerosis. Are there any other views? Abtract (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not changed my opinion since the #Most common usage discussion here -- things actually titled (directly or redirectly) "ms" or one of the variations listed at the top (like in the wiktionary link) should go first. Things that are "only" American are not necessarily uncommon just because of that -- just as there should be no American bias, we like to avoid anti-American bias as well. "MS mississippi -wikipedia" gets more than 1 million ghits. "MS "multiple sclerosis" -wikipedia" gets 500K ghits. I have no problem with making MS a redirect to Multiple sclerosis after moving this page to MS (disambiguation), but the last time that was proposed it did not reach consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way does manuscript fit but M.S. does not?

As to ghits that will have a lot to do with the sheer volume of commercial activity in a single state and the fact that illness is not 'sexy'.

Also you are now confusing two criteria for inclusion in the lead; use or redirect of a ms variant, and most common usage

We are obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this though I don't quite see why not since we obviously both want the same thing: a smart page that is easy to navigate away from. Abtract (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

M.S. could easily be "promoted" to the top of the list, although it's not clear in the article why "M.S." redirects there (since the only abbreviations given are "MS" and "MSc"). What's an alternate objective measure of the primacy of "only" an American state? -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)