Talk:Ace (disambiguation)

Untitled

I do think flying ace belongs on this page, but I don't think it belongs in the people category, considering "people" seems to be referring to actual individuals, not a generalized class. WhiskeyJuvenile 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It pretty clearly needs to be mentioned since it is commonly abbreviated 'ace'. I am addind it to the top since it doesn't fit into any of the subcategories. Eluchil404 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pruning and/or merging

There's a lot of stuff here that seems to fall out of bounds of an "Ace" dab page. I don't think anyone is going to expect just plain "ace" to lead them to any of:

• Ace Lightning
• Ultraman Ace
• Ace Combat
• Fighter Ace
• Ace Attorney
• Ace Ventura: Pet Detective
• Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls
• Ace High (1919 film)
• Ace High (1968 film)
• The Flying Ace
• Smokin' Aces
• Ace Drummond
• Shonen Ace
• Ace of Base
• Ace Troubleshooter
• Ace Fu Records
• Ace of Hearts Records
• Ace of Clubs Records
• Eight Ace

...yes, they all have "Ace" in their title, but WP:MOSDAB is pretty explicit that that in itself isn't a valid criterion for inclusion on a dab page. None of these, to my mind, would be ever known as just "Ace".

Also, right now there's also an ACE dab page -- my thought is that these should be merged, but if not, there are several entries here on "Ace" that should be removed or moved to that page.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also note many entries could be moved to Aces as well. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice Aces -- and there's a separate ACES dab page, too! Having all of these as one page would seem to be more useful for readers and easier to maintain for editors. Is there any reason why all four (Ace (disambiguation)/Aces/ACE/ACES) shouldn't be merged?--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If all four pages are merged and properly sorted, do you want to keep all the articles? Flibirigit (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for megamerger

I am going to do a draft page located at User:Flibirigit/Ace for combining all the pages. Please feel free to leave any comments here. Flibirigit (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. Thanks for taking all that on. My sense is that the scope here is a bit too wide, and I agree with User:NapoliRoma's comments above; the examples cited should not be included in the new page. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging is a good idea, mainly because readers can easily type "ACE" when they really mean "ace" etc. Abtract (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice there are alot of acronyms in all four of the current pages. If all of those acronyms are kept, they need to be in either the ACE or ACES subsection. Flibirigit (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not divide it into ACE and ACES subsections; I'd integrate everything into one page, otherwise it's not really that much of a merge. If I'm looking for something named "ACE" I might not even be aware that it was an acronym, so having the major sort be whether its all caps or not doesn't seem to be the most functional way to go about it.

My preference would be to have the major categorizations be functional (people, technology, sports, etc.), with sorting within those sections in the way of any dab page (first by whether the page is actually named Ace/Aces/ACE/ACES, then alphabetically).--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Abtract has made a draft version at User:Flibirigit/Ace. Any comments? Flibirigit (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, other than a comment and a question:

• It still contains all the dubious "Ace" entries mentioned above;
• It brings over existing interwiki links. I don't know the protocol; is that normally done in the case of a merge?

--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. And I believe the guideline prefers this sort of dabbing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru -- unsure what "this sort of dabbing" refers to specifically; can you clarify? --NapoliRoma (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:DISAM#Page naming conventions, which suggests that all page title variations should be on one page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately left in all the dubious items because my main concern was to make one list out of them all; I have eliminated those items not linked to a page but I am sure there are more lines that shouldn't be in as NapoliRoma suggests. I suggest the merge be made using my version then you all attack it to prune etc. :) Abtract (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Things look good to me. The only change I made is adding the Wiktionary template. Flibirigit (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK I have made the transfer ... do with it what you will. :) Abtract (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ACE Suicide Cards

I don't see an article about ACE suicide cards. Seeing as these are supposed to be rather effective, I think they should be listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.84.249 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Organization of page

(Note that the issue of descriptions for entries is a problem I'll address separately; this section is just about the changes made in the name of "re-organization".)

Please, please, please stop creating "Business" and "Organization" headings and moving all businesses and organizations there, regardless of whether they belong under other headings. Users looking for an aviation-related use are likely to look under "Transportation." Users looking for a film-related use are likely to look under "Entertainment." This is why "Organization" headings are rarely useful on a dab page, because the page almost always contains entries for organizations that are better placed under headings related to the organization's purpose. The whole idea of creating headings is trying to place entries where users can easily find them because, ideally, there is only one heading that will make sense as the location for each entry.

Below is a list summarizing the relocations I just performed. Don't they all make sense? Like putting publishers under "Publishing"? And game companies under "Gaming"?

• Moving aviation-related uses to "Transportation"
• Moving two publishers to "Publishing"
• Moving a cinema chain to "Entertainment"
• Moving a radio company and radio presenters (duplicating under "People") to "Entertainment"
• Moving a motorcycle company and a bus company to "Automotive"
• Moving two video game companies to "Gaming"
• Moving a musical instrument company to "Music"
• Moving an anime expo to "Entertainment"
• Moving two film-related organizations to "Entertainment"
• Moving two chemical companies to "Chemistry and medicine"
• Moving two arts organizations to "Entertainment"
• Moving education-related uses to "Education"

After doing the above, I moved the remaining entries under "Business" and "Organization" headings to "Other uses", because it doesn't make sense to have an "Organization" heading that doesn't include all the organizations on the page. (Which is not an argument to put all the organizations under that heading; it's a reason to not use that heading.) It is almost certainly possible to split out some of the uses that are now combined under "Other uses" into headings that make sense; perhaps the way I did yesterday, even. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. You yourself have pointed out the problem with your approach. Too many organizations and businesses have to be consigned to "Other uses". My way's not perfect by any means, but overall I believe the advantage of taking more entries out of the miscellaneous section outweighs the less-than-optimal placement. Ace Hardware is a BIG business, yet it's stuck way down at the bottom. Also, the two Korean chemical companies don't really fit in with the rest of the chemistry entries, and putting Ace Tone, two organizations and the trade fair under entertainment is really stretching it. You say the "other uses" entries can be split out; I don't see how that's possible in a non-awkward, non-artificial way. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to discuss this. I'm going to work a bit more on organizing the page, and I'll try to address some of your concerns, and then perhaps we can talk more about where we still disagree. I will say, though, that while I have come across many dab pages that have some businesses sorted by their subject area (like a film company under "Entertainment") and then a "Business" section for other businesses that don't fit anywhere else, I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocate taking businesses out of sections where they clearly fit in order to put them in a catch-all business section. I don't agree with the former system, but it makes much more sense to me than the latter. Theoldsparkle (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've done some more re-organization. (BTW, I don't think I ever pointed out a "problem" with my approach; I said that "Other uses" could be broken out, because you clearly see that as a problem.) I see your point about the Korean chemical companies but I don't see why it's unreasonable to associate a musical instrument company with "music" or arts organizations with "entertainment" (now "arts and entertainment"). I agree that the Ace Hardware usage is an important one, but a) I do think someone looking for that usage is more likely to search for "Ace Hardware"; b) someone who comes to this page looking for that usage can look at the headings and, I think, pretty easily determine that hardware wouldn't fit in any of them, so he goes to "Other uses" and it's right at the top; c) I would prefer to add a "Hardware" heading near the top for just Ace Hardware, rather than the solution of creating a big "Business" section and moving businesses there from all the other sections just for the sake of putting Ace Hardware near the top. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you thought it was a problem; I meant that I did. As for Ace Tone, it may fit under Music, but not under Entertainment. Same with the trade fair - it's more business-related than entertainment. I really hate the idea of one item sections, with the tolerated exception of the name (and even there I had a second entry, until you moved it). There are still four companies and eight organizations stuck in limbo. That's way too many. Just concocting really specialized categories like Hardware is a very kludgy solution. My way is more natural. There may be a small dip for some entries, but that's more than made up by the much better placement of a dozen. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did change the heading from "Entertainment" to "Arts and entertainment" -- does that help at all? Also, even if you find it odd for Ace Tone to be under "Entertainment", it's really under "Music", so why is that a problem? And by "four companies and eight organizations stuck in limbo" -- you mean under "Other uses"? There's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand what you see as so damaging about that. I'm pretty sure the length of the "Other uses" section is now shorter than some of the sections in your version of the page after you re-organized it. Also, I don't like one-entry sections, either, but I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution here. I'm trying to compromise, but it seems like the only outcome you're going to be content with is a version of the page where publishing companies aren't in the "Publishing" section, and I sincerely can't fathom that any of the other problems you perceive could be worse than that. I mean, does it really seem like a bigger problem to you for a musical instrument company to be under "Entertainment", than for a video game company to not be under "Gaming"? Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about the size of the Other uses section. IMO it is much better for that to be minimized. The whole point of a dab page is to facilitate navigation to articles, and that's best done in a large list like this by organizing as many entries as possible into reasonable groupings. It's funny (well, not really) that you say you're trying to compromise when all that seems to entail is you having your own way. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Entry descriptions

Actually, pretty easy to address this point. Does anyone want to argue that the descriptions shown here are in compliance with the Manual of Style, which states:

Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.

In other words, can anyone contend that these descriptions are necessary for the reader to find the correct link? For example, that the reader seeking Association for Comparative Economic Studies won't be able to identify it unless it's described as "a scholarly organization supporting the study of comparative economic systems"? Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason to make the entries unnecessarily cryptic or to remove information that helps distinguish between the many entries. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So you can imagine a reader who is looking for an organization known as ACE that supports the study of comparative economic systems, types "ACE" into the Wikipedia search box, comes to the Ace (disambiguation) page, sees the entry called Association for Comparative Economic Studies, and will not be able to figure out if that's the link he wants, unless the page tells him that the Association for Comparative Economic Studies is a scholarly organization supporting the study of comparative economic systems. You are saying you can imagine this happening. Just checking. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In some cases, all that is needed is a brief description and it isn't even necessary to go to the page. For the Association for Comparative Economic Studies, that's a marginal case, but from the link alone, it might be a quasi-governmental agency or a business-sponsored organization. I see a benefit to being clear about what the entity is. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that's an argument for including "a scholarly organization", but not for the rest of the description that simply repeats what's in the article's title. Second, you say you "see a benefit to being clear about what the entity is" -- what is that benefit? Your edits suggest that you think every entry needs to be provided a full and complete definition; why do you think the reader benefits more by being given full definitions of all the entries the reader isn't looking for, than he would benefit by being able to load and scan the page more quickly to find the entry he actually does want? And third, do you think when the MOS says the description should be "just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link", that it means "just sufficient to allow the reader to understand the full and complete meaning of every entry on the page"? Because I find those standards to be completely incompatible, and I have a hard time thinking that you actually read it that way; it's much easier for me to believe that you think it looks nicer and that your concern is not with the reader actually using this page as the navigational tool it's intended to be. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with trimming the description to "a scholarly organization". I generally try to make the description reflect the lead from the linked article, and that can make for some redundancy, but I don't agree that no description is better in every case than a brief description. There are entries where the title is either so well-known as to need no elaboration or the title is a patently self-evident description of the subject (as, for example most songs or albums where the article title or redirect includes the name of the artist). You ask, what is that benefit of being clear about what the entity is. I already said that in some cases, all that is needed is a brief description and it isn't even necessary to go to the page. A reader seeing a mention of X in some context might might be able to find out all they need to know from a brief description on the disambiguation page without needing to load the linked article. Further, if you turn the question around, what is the benefit of NOT being clear about what the entity is on a disambiguation page? I strongly disagree that readers are significantly hindered in perusing a disambiguation page by including brief descriptions for the entries. You take a draconian interpretation of the guidance just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. I take a somewhat more expansive view of how much description is just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I never argued "no description is better in every case than a brief description"; I've argued that a brief description is not necessary in every case (and I would also argue several of your descriptions aren't brief). I don't see how you can indicate that you're acting with the MOS in mind, but simply have a "somewhat more expansive view" of what it allows, while you simultaneously indicate that your general modus operandi is to copy the lead sentence of the linked article without even exercising enough discretion to remove text that obviously just repeats what's in the article's title. I believe that keeping it to the minimum necessary is better because as the text on a disambiguation page page increases, it becomes harder for the user to quickly read and navigate the page in order to find their sought topic. I am fully cognizant that reasonable people can differ on what "the minimum necessary" is; however, when I clean up these pages, I generally scrutinize the description of every single entry to decide what I think is necessary to help the reader find their article. After going to that trouble, it's frustrating to be reverted by someone who doesn't have that concern, and assumes that "the minimum necessary" = whatever's in the first sentence of the linked article, and will revert anyone who disagrees. I attempted to compromise with this edit, for which I left in a lot of stuff not in my original or preferred version, and removed only the content for which it seemed truly inarguable that anyone could classify it as "necessary." Of course that attempt at compromise failed. That being said, I have no more questions to raise to you about your perspective, and I don't expect there's much else to gain by further discussion here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we've had pretty much the same discussion previously and have agreed to disagree. I don't see that trimming descriptions to the absolute minimum possible is the objective of disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ace (Asexual slang)

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexual_slang#Ace

I think "Ace, a slang for Asexual" should be mentioned somewhere. SoniEx2 (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate place to mention it would be the Asexuality article. Once that's done, then there could/should be a link to that page here. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to ACE

Would this article not be better under the title of "ACE"? Greenshed (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thought the guideline said stay under the small case unless no small case. Have tried to separate out Acronyms to the bottom of page. Probably missed some. Not a perfect solution. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Mario Tennis Aces

@Bkonrad: Here's clear indication of Mario Tennis Aces being abbreviated to just "Aces":

• [1]
• [2]

These are just the ones from the article. The article also abbreviates to "Aces". This is clear distinction that it is commonly abbreviated. Note there is a lack of in-depth articles on Aces that exist as it is unreleased. It's the exact same thing as "Super Mario Galaxy" and "Galaxy". ~ P*h3i (📨) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Addding Ace Attorney to the list

The franchise Ace Attorney has the word Ace in it, should I add it to the list? TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"slang term for close friend"?

Is "Ace" actually a slang term for a close friend? Wiktionary doesn't list it as such, and I've never heard of that. Could use at least one source or anything other than just this one line claiming it. PhoenixEliot (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)