Talk:Guard

Again, probably not a good redirect. -- Zoe

Small addition under Person

After searching the Wikipedia for the rank hierarchy of prison guards (I searched the terms guard, prison guard, prison, penetentiary, warden & Corrections Canada) I finally happened upon corrections officer, which linked to prison officer. As you can see, I've added prison officer to the Person subsection. I hope my wording is appropriate. wbm 17:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another small revision to the same line of text. wbm 07:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page formatting

This is a disambiguation page, please familiarize yourself with MOS:Disambiguation pages before editing. Dreadlocke ☥ 08:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, this time. I was actually going to suggest that you create a list of military guard units! Perfect timing and nice job! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page, not a dictionary entry!

My cleanup of March 20 2007 has just been reversed. This page is now again what it was: a dictionary entry and not a disambiguation page. A dictionary entry starts with "The word guard may mean:"; a dab page starts with "Guard may refer to:", meaning "Any of the following articles could be titled Guard:". May someone see the difference and make things right. (In the meanwhile, I'm putting the cleanup tag back on the article.)--maf 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not a proper DAB page, but apparently some editors are willing to edit war over it. I'm just watching to see what happens. We may have to get the DAB team in here to comment and work on it. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where a disambig meaning needs a very short definition, it is often more convenient to the reader to put that definition in the disambig page line that to force the reader to refer to another page for it. Anthony Appleyard 07:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This dab page is hard to keep from becoming a dictionary page, simply because there are too many (separate) meanings that all have a separate wiki article. I honestly don't know how to improve this page, but it could definately need some improvement. Maf's version seemed like a good attempt, but there are just too many topic themes concerning the word "guard" so that it still looks a little cluttered. ~~I'll offer my cleaned-up version soon;~~ I've found that going with a separation of "list of articles with guard in the title" and "list of synonyms that have wiki articles" works well. (Example: Spinner dab page.) It's IMO still a good idea to have the bigger sport section separate. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep on reshuffling and rereshuffling this page and the result would not 100% satisfy everybody. OK, the word "guard" has developed many meanings, and they all need disambiguating between. The current arrangement looks satisfactorily clear to me. Anthony Appleyard 16:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we delete the cleanup tag and live with the current look of this page? Fine by me (for the moment). Although I would recommend to reduce the huge section headers from "==Section==" to "In section:", especially since there are so many sections that have just two or less entries. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the user who started this thread because my cleanup was reversed. Anthony Appleyard, who has commented on this thread, is the person who did the reversal. His comments may give the impression that he is a third party in this matter. Well, he isn't. In my opinion, he should abstain from commenting in his own interest, just like I am doing. Let others decide, as so far only sgeureka has participated in the discussion. --maf 04:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say just try again for a cleanup with the suggestions from this thread, Maf, and be careful not to be too bold. (Or do a cleanup in two steps: Minor cleanup for style; major cleanup for deletion of dictionary entries. This way, a revert doesn't lose everything but still makes this dab page look better.) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that maf was being appropriately bold with his cleanup of March 20, 2007. As the page now appears (the reverted version), it is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). A few examples: There are problems such as using a definition as a section heading (Someone who guards) and including information about the word origin, and more minor problems such as the use of a colon and hyphen together when only a colon is called for. I agree with Sgeureka in that I also prefer the look of the page when bold words are used to divide up groupings rather than the current use of formal section headings and table of contents. --Paul Erik 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support whichever version conforms best to the Manual of Style. As far as I can tell, that's maf's version, and the question is settled. --Smack (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that's settled. I'll take on my previous cleanup and I'll apply the suggestions above. Thank you. --maf 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this current version [1] looks great! Nice job maf! Dreadlocke ☥ 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very clean and ordered. Good job. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garda Síochána

Can we put a link to Garda Síochána here? Colloquially "guards" in Irish English. Kanjo Kotr (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]