Talk:TO

(Preposition(?))

Why is there not the word to? Ootmc 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

   While I haven't looked back at the state of the page at that time, I assume Oot wanted to know why we had no Dab entry for the preposition "to". One answer to that is that no one has come up with a plausible encyclopedia article for To (preposition).
   Of course, a Dab page entitled "TO" could at that time conceivably have consisted entirely of acronyms, even that late in the rise of WP, in which case the answer to the corresponding other question is that we by now have entries for several proper names "To", the foreign word tō, and the arguably for the particles "to", where the infinitive particle is per se well served (being mentioned in the lead) but the preposition "to" may not be, since readers are likely to stop reading when the infinitive is mentioned in the article, missing the fact that the preposition "to" is also a particle. But I'm giving some thot to whether the answer to this construction of the question should be simply "bcz WP: NAD"
--Jerzy•t 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Terrel Owens

For Terell Owens, it says that he is an NFL-wide receiver, but he is not, so what should I change it to? For now, I am going to say the Indoor Football league. --InformationContributor11 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Dab-page title TO --> To

   I think it is reasonable to argue that the first stated criterion,

A word is preferred to an abbreviation, for example, Arm (disambiguation) over ARM.

outweighs any single conflicting later-stated criterion, and have not even bothered to count to see if

The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives.

favors the current all-caps spelling or not.
   That question aside, I think i would in this case BAR just to render unnecessary the inherently clumsy header

Not to be confused with T0 (disambiguation) (T followed by zero).

(whose clumsy feel would not even be significantly improved by the removal of the unwarranted period, and in any case probably feels like an insult to the intelligence of the probable vast majority of users who have not just made that dumb mistake).
--Jerzy•t 02:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

   [Grumble. (I'm not sure whether to think of that as "Well, sometimes I'm wrong" or "Well, somethings I'm right about but it's the effort is too much.)]
   Checking a few other pages with titles of the form <letter>O shows this is probably the predominant approach, and that the titles are a mix of upper- and lower-case Os altho I was pleased to discover this HatNote format:

For uses of s-zero, see S0 (disambiguation).

which is far superior to the version I mention above.
   [input sitting in edit window abt 12 hrs that included getting most of what bothered me fixed]
   OK, I'm resigned to the title, and I adopted a much better hatnote from TS that I recommend for TA-TN, TP-TR, and TT-TZ. I grouped similar kinds of entries under closer-to-the-root non-linked lines, aiding in skipping the reading of batches of links that the user sees are irrelevant to the context where their TO appeared.
--Jerzy•t 02:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Anything or anybody with the initial "T.O." could be in on this page—That's a lot of things and people. Therefore each entry on here should have a reliable source supporting it. Morganfitzp (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Each entry on here should be supported by a reliable source on that articles' page, stating that said subject can be referred to as "TO". Morganfitzp (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Dunque

Pressoche demanda Sergio Ivrea VI (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Friend

Peoples but TIM Sergio Ivrea VI (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

for a they try 71.70.26.209 (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Luca

MAYA Sergio Ivrea VI (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)