Talk:Sage (disambiguation)

i added the botany part since salvia redirects to sage when Salvia divinorum is a plant.

What about the color? --Ihope127 01:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

Merge was placed on this and SAGE (disambiguation) some days ago, but no discussion was started. Support means you want the merge to happen, Oppose means you do not. Comment below:

Oppose. I think the see also at the bottom of the pages pointing at the other is sufficient. Dab pages are meant to get people to the pages they meant to go to as quickly as possible, and it seems to me that people who type "SAGE" probably are looking for one of those pages, and the ones who type "Sage" are looking for one of these pages. I think it's a worthwhile distinction. --TreyHarris 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the reasoning would be obvious - previous to cleanup both pages had entries that should have been on the other and duplicate entries. A lot of TLAs have the lower and uppercase version redir to the same dab page and I thought that would make sense here too. Thanks/wangi 20:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious, but the entries on Sage (disambiguation) aren't acronyms, they're words. The entries on SAGE (disambiguation) are acronyms. My point is that they deserve separate dab pages, since they're likely to be searched for separately. --TreyHarris 21:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a pointer to this discussion on the disambig MoS talk page - probably not a lot of people interested in this discussion have this page in their watch list :) wangi 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. On the MoS page I said I prefer one, which I do, in general. I've now looked at both of these pages, and it seems better seperate. Those ignoring case insensitivity will type "sage" and find their intended page isn't listed and will then click "SAGE." No problem. Those with caplock stuck on looking for the word sage will type SAGE and have the same solution. Tedernst | talk 22:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but check out the pages pre cleanup - they were mixed up, so if editors can't make the distinction will readers? wangi 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed to neutral per Wangi's various reasons. Tedernst | talk 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wahoofive pointed out this at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and abbreviations: Usually, there should be just one page for all cases (upper- or lower-case), e.g. MB for MB, mB, mb, Mb.. Thanks/wangi 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is substantively different, as "mb" is not a word. "Sage" is. That page refers to abbreviations, and "sage" is not an abbreviation, "SAGE" is. A case could be made (I'm not making it) that, by the letter of that guidline page, only Sage should go to this page, and that SAge, SaGe, SagE, SAGe, SAgE, and SaGE should all point to SAGE (disambiguation). (Indeed, if a new initialism were to come along where an article were called SaGE, say, it should go onto the SAGE (disambiguation) page, and not the Sage (disambiguation) one.

The fact that the two disambiguation pages used to be "all mixed up" has no bearing on the current merger discussion. They've been separated now, which shows that there's no confusion, and merging isn't required. --TreyHarris 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Since these are both very short pages, I can't see the argument for keeping separate. If the reader gets to the wrong dab page at the moment, they're two clicks away from where they want to be. If the pages were merged they'd be one click away. And anyone looking for the Sage II computer would have to go through SAGE. Further, there is an annoying but common MoS (prominent in the UK) which says if you can pronounce an acronym, only the first letter need be in upper caps. If there were a strong practical reason for keeping these separate, it'd be different, but I just can't see one. (Conceptually, of course there's a difference between Sage and SAGE but, uh, that's what a dab pag is for!) JackyR 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the merge. --TreyHarris 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trey/wangi 09:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) JackyR 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]