 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
[Sightings primary topic?]
editMove this dis-ambiguation page to UFO (disambiguation) and then make UFO re-direct to Unidentified flying object?? Any objections please explain in detail. Georgia guy 01:14, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No!!!
- Bcz
Red links
editAnyone else think that there are way too many dead red links? Gold Stur 06:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind, noticed that the additions were the result of another user and reverted them. Gold Stur 06:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wiki-markup supports, but doesn't require single level lists.
edit And thus the ToC supports hierarchical searches. Which are faster than linear ones.
--Jerzy•t 17:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Primary topic!
edit You say, "My brother in Marfac saw a UFO."
Me: "Yeah, i know; headlights of cars that are climbing the mountain, shining onto the clouds."
You: "No, he saw a real UFO."
So, should i say
- UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, you ass; the Air Force didn't promote the term bcz they were deluded that aliens were buzzing them.
in response?
No way: i'm enuf of an ass to twit you (as above), once, for believing in flying saucers, but you, i, our guidelines, the English-speaking world, and uncounted others realize that "UFO" has been hijacked by the culture, and the primary meaning of "UFO" is not same as the official meaning.
There is no doubt in my mind that UFO should redirect to the article flying saucer; that article also should therefore have a hatnote along the lines of
or
A bizarre entry explained
editThis diff establishes the origin of both of the widely separated entries
- *.ufo, graphics file format suffix
(in UFO_(disambiguation)#Computer technology)
and
(in section Other musical works). (Explaining the separation would surely be beside the point.) And i'm adding an anchor that lets me make the re-unified entry useful.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzy (talk • contribs) 08:41, 19 July 2016