Talk:JTR

Jack the Ripper?

Someone added that JTR is "a common abbreviation for...Jack the Ripper." Might I ask someone to illustrate how it is common, and perhaps where it is commonly referred to as such? A cite or twomight help a bit (here, not in the dab).- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly not common except in contexts where unjustified initialisms are used, such as Wikipedia and blogs. I propose a comprimise, which violates the MoS in having two links in a disambig entry, but it seems necessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could live with that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what YOU can live with, it matters that the disambiguation page do what it's supposed to do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you Google JTR "Jack the Ripper" you'll see that it comes up fairly often. It's in titles, website URLs and etc. Disambiguation pages are supposed to disambiguate. Someone looking for JTR has a highly probably of looking for Jack the Ripper over any of the other entries here. Only mentioning Jack the Ripper as an afterthought for the John the Ripper entry is silly, because it suggests that JTR is only used for the software which the full name was based upon the killer instead of that JTR is used for the killer, which it is. If the rationalization for removing it was that it isn't "common" I have removed that part of the description. I would also caution you two to not be up to your regular shenanigans here, with tag teaming edit wars ignoring policies just to oppose something I put in there. I would strongly suggest you leave the info as it has been for years and not mess with it until a neutral set of eyes (ones not engaged in edit warring with me across multiple articles they never edited before apparently just for harassment purposes, as more than one admin has described the actions both of you have made in the past as meeting the definitions of) can have their input. My main question is why on earth you'd so strongly object to the listing here? It's a disambig page to help people get wehat they are looking for, if they aren't looking for Jack the Ripper they'll click something else. If they are, then great, mission accomplished. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Google isn't going to be helpful, because of result bloat by fans and the likely possibility of Google bombing. If I were to walk up to 100 people on the street and say "JTR", I am simply not convinced that a significant number (if any) would recognize JTR as a acronym for Jack the Ripper. As well, people don't come here looking for Jack the Ripper and type in JTR. They might type in "Jack" or "Ripper". Now, if we were at one of those Ripper gatherings at the local pub or whatnot, the results might be different. However, we don't pander to fan interests, at least those which argue for undue weight to be ascribed to their short-form vocabulary.

Perhaps, since neutrality has been argued, the best thing to do would be to seek a Request for Comment on the matter. That way, those seeking to legitimize their cause can argue for inclusion to someone neutral, who can evaluate those claims. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, Sorry, Google isn't going to be helpful because you refuse to pay attention to what it says. In a dispute between what YOU think and what the REAL WORLD thinks, the real world always has to win. Sorry you have a problem with that. If you go to random people off the street they aren't going to know what 95% of the abbreviations used and that have have disambiguation page mentions are. That's kind of the whole point. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, commonality aside, it is an abbreviation for Jack the Ripper and as such should be represented here. What you are suggesting is that someone might have run into the phrase "JTR" in the real world and when they come here to look find only references to software and airports. I also have a hard time thinking that placement in a dab page gives any weight, much less undue weight. It is an abbreviation and should be listed. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It might well be used as a common acronym within a small group of Jack the Ripper enthusiasts as well as for convenience' sake in the discussion area of the article, but - using the same search engine noted above - "JTR" returns 148 results, and the first 100 do not refer to Jack the Ripper. It is unrealistic to suggest that someone is going to come to Wiki-en looking for Jack the Ripper and simply type in JTR. As noted before, they are more likely to type in "Jack" or "Ripper". The only folk who might think it possible that they would use the acronym as a search tool are those folk familiar with the term, a very small group. As such, allowing a term that they - and they alone - use with any regularity, it is undue weight to consider it for disambiguation. As the search has clearly indicated, the only people typing in JTR into the wiki search engine are looking for software and airports. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are using a search engine that only gets 148 results for JTR then you've found a really pathetic one. Come on, get serious. And your arguments don't even appear to be trying to make sense. Go read the actual policies. DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, provide a link to a search that indicates a larger grouping of results, please. I used Google, and used as the search term "JTR". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the search your looking for:[1]. If you do the same search but remove the "-software" you increase the hits by only 800. Regardless, it's a common acronym. (Note that the software is widely refereed to as JTR=Jack the Ripper. On top of all that the term has been included in this DAB for years. Only recently has Arcayne hooked on to it as another way to bait and attack an editor working in good faith with ample evidentiary, citable and long standing community consensus as support.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, take a closer look at your search criteria: ""jack the ripper" JTR -software", stalking anon. Including the term you are trying to prove is part of a term isn't really that illuminating. Searching JTR by itself reveals the purest of results. Adding Jack the Ripper to the criteria only reveals that the acronym is used within that small community that discusses Jack the Ripper, not the independence of that term actually representing the usage in the more universal sense, which is what dab is supposed to actually do. Unfortunately, you've polluted your own search. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking the term and removing the software hits does not "pollute" the search. Searching by JTR which could be part of supply house parts numbers and such does nothing. One expects to find hits for commercial products at the top of searches - it is people with a financial interest after all that will be the first to "Google Bomb" as you put it. Here also is another cite to support JTR=Jack the Ripper:[[2]] This edit, here at the JTR page has been the community consensus for 2 years. Dozens of editors have passed judgment on it and accepted it. You have shown no reason to overturn community consenus nor have you achieved a new consensus. It is the Wiki way for you to first gather a new consensus when your bold edit reverting 2 years of consensus was rejected. The Onus is upon you. It is not your personal wiki.75.57.160.195 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

146 hits represents "the real world"? I don't think so. And, for what it's worth, silence does not indicate consent, and, in most cases, consensus is required for inclusion, not for exclusion. As for _thefreedictionary_, that would justify including all of the entries, not specifically Jack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if any of those terms have a wiki article it should be linked here. I'll check now.75.57.160.195 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the generic term Joint Tactical Radio has a specific program or "system" with a Wiki entry. As the entry is a specific subset of the generic term I'm going to note it on the entry's talk page. If the DAB is appropriate I believe an editor involved in the area will make the necessary edit here. I will also make a heads up on the John the Revelator page. All the other hits on wiki were minor. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FreeDictionary doesn't look all that reliable, as it seems to refer specifically upon Wikipedia for much of its work. I am thinking its more like Imdb - useful form some things, but not necessarily reliable. Of course, I could be wrong; is there specific wiki discussion regarding the reliability of the site's info?

I am not debating whether the results represent the real world, Arthur; I am noting that the search for possible hits of JTR as a term that specifically refers to Jack the Ripper reveals no measurable connection. Even if we hard-exclude the software aspect of the search (as the anon did), and simply search for JTR, we end up with 2.76 million hits, and less than a dozen refer specifically to Jack the Ripper (and I am including, likely inappropriately, the Ripper fan sites). Out of 2.76 million hits, less than twenty refer to the term that the editor wants to connect.

If we cannot connect the term - outside of fan wishes - it doesn't actually serve as a disambiguation term. This is not me, this is policy and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please reference and support your claims. I've taken your one referenced search and added the simple term "eastend". This still returns nearly five thousand hits.[3] Some of which link to a museum.75.57.160.195 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you search is flawed. Think about the dab term. We aren't disambiguating 'JTR' and 'eastend'; we are disambiguating JTR itself. Adding additional criteria unduly weights the search towards Jack the Ripper. Pointing to that search as evidence of a connection - that you yourself are creating - is original research. We don't add in terms in order to weight the results one way or the other. We do a pure search for the term beign disambiguated alone and note the results, removing those likely the result of Google Bombing. That is how we reliably determine those terms which occur naturally and are thus to be disambiguated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting lesson in Wikipedia policy. Please cite and reference the Wikipedia Policy to support your "claim".75.57.160.195 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, RS, DAB, V, not to mention basic common sense? I am sorry, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Please feel free to prove me wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's insufficient. It is incumbent on you, when relying upon policy, to demonstrate what the policy being violated is. This can be done by quoting the relevant verse. It is hardly clear how four ("Er, RS, DAB, V") principles of Wikipedia bear on this matter.75.57.160.195 (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. As you have a history of picking fights (and have been repeatedly blocked for it), I am not going to debate the issue with you, especially since you cannot be bothered to do your homework, and seem more interested in making personal attacks (whcih I have removed). I have humored your stalking effort up to now, but I am not playing anymore, as my time is more valuable to me than spending it arguing with you. Buh-bye.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no attack. And the record of this page shows that you removed nothing. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You did hear me say buh-bye, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper? - arbitrary break 1

Based upon comments above it's clear that there is no consensus to remove the listing that has been here for years, so removing it would be a violation of policy. Arcayne, if you insist it be removed, you'll have to wait until you can get an actually Wikipedia reason and aloso people to agree with you. If you remove it again you will be rejecting both the longstanding consensus as well as what the current editors say. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but since there has been voiced dissent as to the veracity of the term's usage to disambiguate for Jack the Ripper, you need to prove it. Consensus only survives so long as substantial and reasonable dissent does not loom. It does here, so you need to provide adequate proof that the term disabiguates the way you think it does. One test (1) of your claim has indicated less than notable results. Perhaps you are confusing your emotional investment as a Ripper enthusiast (and the slew of terms you use within that collective) with what is used in the real world. Please consider that your usage represents an extremely minor opinion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SlackerMom's edit can be accepted as the consensus edit. I believe it meets the needs of DreamGuy, PadillaH, Arthur Rubin, SlackerMom (of course), and myself, while retaining much of the flavor of the multi-year consensus that has existed in the entry since it's initial creation. Every voice, except one, speaks for inclusion in one form or another and every voice has attempted, in multiple ways, to make a compromise for the lone dissenter. The entry in and of itself in one form or another has overwhelming support and unanimity is not required.75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a consensus and "overwhelming support" is represented by more than a stalking anon in favor of it. Please see WP:CONSENSUS for details on how a consensus is actually created. Make sure to pay particular attention to: a) consensus doesn't override policy or guidelines, and b) consensus is more than one person thinking all is groovy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your attacks on me are interesting considering that I've never edited the main page and have expressed no opinion as to how the link should be listed. My only opinion, ever, has been a civil discussion on the Talk page in support of inclusion. This is wholly in agreement with your position[4] also in support of inclusion.. A casual reader might assume we were engaged in an edit war given the tone of your remarks here.75.57.160.195 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of order DG, the act of ignoring an article doesn't mean I agree with it. The act of questioning a contribution doesn't mean I disagree with it. I'll thank you to allow me to make up my own mind. Simply because I have not commented on the state of several million articles on WP doesn't mean I tacitly agree with their content, it means I don't know about them. So the simple act of having this DAB page remain in a certain state for any length of time doesn't suggest consensus, it suggests apathy (at best).

In light of the above searches I must admit my initial outlook was colored by my familiarity with the subject. If I step back and look at the issue I cannot, honestly, think of any term for Jack the Ripper other than "Jack the Ripper" or just "the Ripper". It's not like JPL that's used in news stories and common speech. When someone refers to Jack the Ripper they use "Jack the Ripper" unless the reference is meant to target a specialty audience. So, whereas I don't understand how we managed to create controversy on a stupid DAB page, I don't mind it being removed. However, I also don't have the intense dislike of everything "Ripper" and think we could spare the few bytes this listing would add to the page. In other words I think you two are way too happy "pounding" on each other to ever take note of what you are arguing about. Drop it or don't but flip a coin for cryin' out loud. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You said "it is an abbreviation for Jack the Ripper and as such should be represented here" -- so how on earth can you claim I was misrepresenting what you said?

Fact of the matter is that the article was the way it was a long time. Someone who wants to change it needs to get a clear consensus first. Arcayne clearly does not have that. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, my apologies to both you and the anon, yesterday just wasn't my day. Today doesn't seem to be shaping up much better so before I get too far gone I do want to re-enforce one thing I did get right yesterday, just because no one noticed it doesn't mean it had consensus. It means no one noticed it. How long it was in a given state has no bearing on whether it was correct or not. If you neglect a pool it will get moldy and scummy and rank. Just because it's been like that for a long time doesn't mean it's the way you want it. That being said I will reiterate a second point from yesterday, I will not argue over a DAB page. Especially not the size and type of arguments I've seen you capable of. It's not even an article! padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the above argument regarding assumptions made from other editors questioning of a subject. Every is a very powerful word to toss around like this. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had been referring to your post from yesterday:[5] and marked you generally as an inclusionist on the topic. I'm genuinely sorry if I upset you in the matter.75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dab pages need proof that they are actually disambiguating that the general readership would want disambiguated. In the absence of proof - and search engine (and unbiased search criteria) results are a pretty good indicator of how popular a term is with the general readership - we don't do it because it caters to fans of small groups. That which is contrary to our policies and guidelines doesn't need consensus for removal. As part of a compromise, I agreed to ArthurRubin's version. SlackerMom's re-edit - I think inadequately - fails to address the concerns of undue weight. JTR is not a disambiguation term for Jack the Ripper. If it were, more folk outside the miniscule ripper fan sites and forum community would use it. Since they don't, including it satisfies a small, and apparently vocal, minority. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Then let's let them be satisfied. I don't see that the larger community is dissatisfied by including it. I understand that you don't want to cater, but I can't make the stretch that this is undue weight. In fact, it seems to me to be just about exactly the right amount of weight. In fact, when I googled "JTR", a link to the software appeared on the third page, before the song appeared. I don't know what that means, except it seems to me that it is used. Putting a link under "see also" seems to give it about as little weight as it can have on the page. Besides which this is a dab page, not an article, and it's not a contentious topic. If it was a runaway dab page which required scrolling, I think we could be more picky. SlackerMom (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am loathe to give this shorthand term used by a statistically insignificant group the same footing any of the other well-documented (and therefore legitimate) dab terms. I think its important to remember that dab terms are subject to reliable sourcing and verification, two of our cornerstones. We don't have those here. No one has reliably sourced the term as being connected to the Ripper, nor has anyone provided any proof that it is even a term used unanimously within the miniscule group that adopted the acronym. This is key, as JTR the software and song don't have folk who refer to it as anything else. JTR is shorthand within a small community; including it is therefore an undue weight concern.

I brought this matter up at DAB:talk and MOS/DAB, and there seems to be a pretty slid consensus agreement (DG and the anon's off-topic temporizing) that the term isn't reliably cited and that its presence represents undue weight. While your solution is pretty inventive, its like putting perfume on a pig. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're pushing too hard here, Arcayne. This may be a less than perfect solution, but better a sweet-smelling piglet than a WP:LAME edit war. BTW, the only editor who has mentioned "undue weight" is you. No one else has even used that term in the discussions (except me, responding to you). SlackerMom (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, just because a person is not actively engaging in a dispute doesn't mean they dis/agree with the dispute. I, for one, agree with Arcayne - I simply refuse to get into an argument over a DAB page. Granted there is the argument that "if we give an inch they'll take a yard" but I also think policy is pretty clear - it's not used that way anywhere but specialized groups of people talking about Jack The Ripper. I go back to my example of JPL, if someone can show me a news or other (non-specialized) article that uses the abbreviation it would be a big step. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would add my apology for not being clear, SlackerMom - they didn;t say it was undue weight; they said it wasn't notable enough for inclusion. I noted that opting for inclusion creates an undue weight issue. Pig or piglet, it is still a swine, and it doesn't belong here. I am not trying to push too hard, but I think that perhaps you are confusing my emphasis on our rules and guidelines as such. We don't add stuff to pacify the vocal minority. This is a pretty easy argument (temporizing arguments aside): no proof of substantial usage means no inclusion as a disambiguation term. Am I misinterpreting DAB and MOS:DAB? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Any form that the listing takes is OK with me. The term is widely used, such as with these museums, production companies and comic books:[6] It seems a perfectly acceptable and inconsequential encyclopedia entry, why it's drawn such vehement debate probably has little to do with the merits. And there did exist, at one time, unanimity for retaining the long standing inclusion [7][8][9][10][11][12]of the usage of the term here. I find it nonsensical that any usage of the term is automatically set aside if it refers to Jack the Ripper. That the term is common[13] is simply a basic matter of fact. Arcaynes argument that just because those who are using the term are talking about Jack the Ripper somehow automatically disqualifies it's usage here is simply beyond me.75.57.160.195 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, as has been said 5x before, you cannot point to a seach that adds "eastend" to "JTR" and call that a valid search. Though your search method has been discredited by simple logic, you keep refusing to understand. Searching JTR - and JTR only - yields those results which show the true, real word view of what people think JTR stands for. Adding eastend skews those results and almost all of your results come from a few sources within "ripperology", itself a very small group of folk who aren't even in agreement with the majority of the terminology that they self-importantly coin. such skewing is you synthesizing different, published search material in order to advance a position. If that phrasing sounds familiar, it is because it s a very close approximation of a facet of our No Original Research policy called synthesis policy.

While the term may be used (though not unanimously) between ripper fans, ripper fandom itself doesn't represent a statistically notable group. Because of their comparatively small size, their shorthand usage does not warrant inclusion, as per a facet of another one of our core policies - the undue weight portion of our WP:NPOV policy.

This isn't rocket science, and it isn't even a grey area of interpretation. Maybe we shuld request an Request for Comment, and allow someone with some admin experience to weigh in neutrally. I would be for that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not an "add" of eastend to JTR. JTR + Eastend is a subset of JTR - It's purpose is to filter out those results, of millions of "JTR" uses in car parts numbers and whatnot, that are not relevant to our understanding of JTR's relationship to 'Jack the Ripper'. The phrase is widely used, demonstrably so. The JTR DAB page does not purport, nor seek, to be a Family Feud list of the top 5 responses.

There is no "synthesis" in showing the many thousands of JTR for Jack the Ripper usages by Museums, production companies. comics and such. They are just a representative handful of the many examples of a common usage of the acronym. Nor is there any POV issue - it's three neutral letters that are a straight abbreviation for a longer and more rigid static phrase/identity. The letters JTR are inherently devoid of any POV, they are the epitome of neutral. Your unsupported reference to the concepts of "Synthesis" and "POV" are both just unusual, and wholly unsubstantiated, claims to make. They are without foundation and lack even the outline of a logical argument. 75.57.160.195 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but when you put a word onto the end of another word it's called adding words to the phrase. If you can't even agree to that then there's little hope for the rest of this discussion. As for your filter, you make Arcayne's point for him, you are filtering out - i.e. removing - the "...millions of 'JTR' uses in car parts numbers and whatnot, that are not relevant to our understanding of JTR's relationship to 'Jack the Ripper'" If you remove the stuff that's not Jack The Ripper how can you be surprised that the result is Jack The Ripper? That's like saying "if you search for 'JPL + java' you can clearly see that JPL refers to 'Java Perl Lingo'" Except anyone that's read a newspaper in North America should be able to tell you, JPL is NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratories. If you remove results from the search you invalidate the search. You are no longer looking for JTR, you are looking for a specialized version of JTR. And whereas I did make the case, and Arcayne has agreed, that it is an abbreviation of JTR, it is also an abbreviation for Join the Right (a youth class given at Mormon church), Java Test Runner, John the Redeemer, Jeff the Ridiculous, Jerry the Retard, Jelly Toes Randolph, Jacob Thadeus Roberts, and a million other things that have those particular initials. Again, I'm forced to go back to JPL, if the use depends on context first (if I have to tell you I am talking about NASA before I use JPL) then it isn't ubiquitous enough to need mentioning in a DAB. DAB pages aren't here to create definitions, they are here to segregate sometimes confusing double and triple uses. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper? - arbitrary break 2

JTR has been recorded as a stand alone expression signifying Jack the Ripper dating back to before 1890, and it is still used today in numerous books, by film production company's and in popular comics. The google search for just JTR immediately provokes a prompt by Google itself to search for the "related term: Jack the Ripper".

Why are over a 100 years of usage and modern day Google prompts connecting the term, (not to mention the thousands of individual current google recorded usages) being dismissed?75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what google you are using but when I go to www.Google.com and type in JTR all I get is a list of results. No suggestions at all. And if there is a source for this abbreviation dating back as far as you say then please produce it and end this stupid debate. Every argument that has been brought has been directly refuted, I don't understand how there can be confusion. Is there a refutation you don't understand? You brought up Google searches and were told about the various ways you can skew Google results. You brought up movies and comics and were told that specialized reference in reference in context, and limits the audience to those that will understand the context. If you've got a newspaper or other non-contextual reference to JTR as Jack the Ripper from before 1890 please let's know what it is. Since he wasn't called Jack the Ripper until the "Dear Boss" letter of late September you've only got about a year to work with so you might have over stated the "before 1890" part, but who cares. If you have one from after 1890 that's fine. It doesn't have to be old, just non-contextual. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Google result I get:[14]. At the bottom of the page I see it prompts me for "Searches related to: jtr" and list as one of the four, "Jack the Ripper". This clearly means that Google see's JTR=Jack the Ripper ("These related search links are part of google's efforts at "query disambiguation" or you might call it "query expansion" - helping the user make a more precise choice on short queries where google knows from their records that users often return for a more refined query. This kind of thing is usually seen only on high volume single keywords and some short phrases.") and prompts you for their version of disambiguation. On the second note, here is the reference citation for an early use:[15](Last paragraph, Pg 273). Hope that helps.75.57.160.195 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually look at the bottom of the page, thanks for that. And, as another user elsewhere pointed out AcronymFinder gives JTR = Jack the Ripper highest rank in it's listing, even above JTR (song). With this in mind I think I am comming to a new definition for the DAB pages. And it's the opposite of Arcayne's outlook. I think DAB pages are for subject that are not ubiquitous. Nobody needs to disambig "IBM". Everybody knows what it means and most people know what it stands for. Why would anyone who can read need to disambig that? What we do need to give help with are phrases like JTR, where sometimes it's one thing but it could be something else depending on the context. It's clear from the different look-ups and references that JTR is used by some people to refer to Jack the Ripper and as such we should let people know that if someone is using JTR they might mean Jack the Ripper or cracking software and let them decide based on context. (Oh, and I've given up the whole "Don't want to argue about this stupid thing". It's obvious that I am weak-willed and can't stop myself) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We should either ask for an RfC on the matter, or relist it in Talk:DAB (and this time keep out the off-topic crap). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)