This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I am currently disambiguating Thomas Arundel, and the bulk is gone, with the remainder at Article namespace. The remaining few have Thomas Arundel in the {{ Archbishops of Canterbury}} template. Now I have been in and modified the template accordingly, and VDE links show that it all is modified, that said, there are still stubborn links in only a few of the remaining archbishops. Where else do I look? Thx -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Re this revert -- what's the contradiction? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Some additional input at Talk:Wizard#Cleanup would be helpful, please. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The sections on wp:dab#Sister projects and wp:dab#Summary or multi-stub pages mean nothing to me (and I understand dab pages quite well); what do they mean? would an example of each make them more accessible? Abtract ( talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone pointed me here from this discussion. My examples there were people: Abundantius, Aglaophon, Alexander (artists). I'd call them a special type of disambiguation page - a dead-end disambiguation page, where instead of the dab page directing you somewhere, the information you need is somewhere on the page. People of the same name about which so little is known (common in antiquity) that they get covered in one page instead of tiny, tiny permanent stubs. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I known this has been discussed ad nauseum previously, but I have to ask, why? In general I think I agree that if there is a page with very roughly equivalent proportion of word-like forms and abbreviation-like forms, then the word form should be preferred. But does it really make sense to force a page where the majority of entries are abbreviations to use a word form? The page that made me think about this is PUB, which a user has requested to be moved to Pub (disambiguation), with the reason being it is the "Expected location for PUB/Pub combined disambiguation page". This is not really such a big deal and I suppose either form is acceptable, but it made me wonder if always defaulting to word form is necessarily the best rule. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The text says "A word is preferred to an abbreviation. For example, the disambiguation page for Arc and ARC is named Arc." This is a bad example: currently there are two pages, Arc and ARC ! 128.232.1.193 ( talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I was somewhat disappointed to learn of a rule (?) that apparently says that "content-specific categories are inappropriate for a disambiguation page." I request that an exception be made in this regarding a certain project that I started over two years ago.
Since March 2006 I've written almost exclusively about snakes and have worked to provide some 500 articles with a complete set of redirects for all known common names and taxonomic synonyms. These outnumber the articles by about 10 to 1. To keep this large number organized, I created a series of categories for them, for example
Crotalinae by common name and
Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms. Some of these categories are now actually rather complete and links to the relevant ones are present in all of the articles.
Of course, every once in a while it is discovered that a common name or taxonomic synonym that can refer to more than one taxon (e.g. genus, species, subspecies). In such cases, the redirect is turned into a disambiguation page and the new entries and category tags are added. This is where the problem lies.
Obviously, if the rule against using content-specific categories in disambiguation pages is applied in this case without any further consideration, several years of my work will be undone: the categories rendered forever incomplete as there will be many obvious omissions. I cannot imagine that anyone would consider this to be constructive. Therefore, to preserve this work I humbly request that an exception be made to the aforementioned rule when it comes to the systematic categorization of disambiguation pages for common names and taxonomic synonyms. --
Jwinius (
talk) 03:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not exactly what I was hoping for. The last solution means that if, for example, there were to be a nice {{ SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{ Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{ Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)," so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. Oh, goodie. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. -- Jwinius ( talk) 12:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of WP:INTDABLINK? My understanding is that it was always preferable to link to an exact target, rather than a redirected target, especially on disambiguation pages. For example, in the "see also" of a disambiguation page, I normally put something like:
However, I see some other editors changing it to:
Even though the second one is a redirect which goes to the same place.
I am not understanding why this is preferable, could someone please explain? Thanks, -- El on ka 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I see there's a new search box feature, whereby if you prefix the search term with "intitle:" you return just articles which have that term in their titles. Might be useful when creating dab pages... it might also be useful to include hard links to such searches on certain dab pages (like we already use links to "all pages beginning with..." on some given-name pages and the like).-- Kotniski ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is another example of ignoring primary usage as a criteria. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find any pointers here on how to locate an appropriate template for a disambiguation page. Without that we can't create the page.. the format appears to be {{xxxdis..}} ? Rcbutcher ( talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Template Template:Otheruses should not be used in articles with brackets, since you get there only following a already qualified link in another text or a disambiguation page, not by searching. I removed all those cases in the German wikipedia (about 50), but there are much more in the English WP. You can find them by searching for ") (transclusion)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses&limit=5000.
Couldn't that job be done easily by a bot?
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 11:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, then the English WP has a different approach than the German WP regarding this. For instance, if I already am on article Aquarius (constellation), I actually don't really need a hint that there other meanings. I can clearly tell from the expression in the brackets, in this case (constellation). A hint is useful in article Angst, since there are no brackets. I would see it as some kind of information overload. Also, it is not consistent, as Aquarius (astrology) does not have any hint. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
If I am looking for a special James King, I will find James King, from where I will find the right one. If I get to the wrong one, then the disambiguation is bad and should be improved. If I get to the wrong one somehow else, for instance James King (footballer), than I now that I have to look at James King for other meanings. This can be easier by a hatnote. But then every page with brackets could automatically be supplied with hatnote, that does nothing more than to either remove the brackets or add (disambiguation). I understand your point, but it's just not consistent right. Eventually it's a matter of taste though. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This guideline says:
This is wrong. We don't link to redirects but to the target article. That's standard practice and guidelines should reflect standard practice. I changed the wording to reflect that reality but I was reverted.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
1. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka (disambiguation)]] |
---|---|---|
2. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka]] (disambiguation) |
3. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka|Baraka (disambiguation)]] |
I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on this page for a while. Abtract ( talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rinku, Hellsing (disambiguation), and Ryuk come to mind. IIRC, the guideline prefers hatnoting when it comes to dabs with really two entries. So does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
NB. Someone recently changed the guidelines. Under "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?", it used to say: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." It now says: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Sam5 ( talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just happened upon the page Johann Salver. It is a disambiguation page with no article links, just mentions of three people, two of whom may be the same, all (or both) 18th century engravers. It follows these with two links to Commons image galleries of engravings by the various Johann Salvers. Is this a proper use of a disambiguation page? Rklear ( talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been banging on fixing links into Captain and noticed that it would be helpful to have a page like Captain (fictional spaceships) to cover myriad books, movies, T.V. shows, and so forth. Unfortunately, every time I take a stab at starting such a page, it comes out pretty snarky. Maybe Han Solo is the [[captain (spacecraft)|captain]] of the M.... would be more like it? Anybody have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus Talk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence for the primary topic section currently reads:
There are recent and current disputes at Talk:Nice at Talk:Malice (legal term) respectively which are essentially about whether the "ambiguous term" refers to usage within Wikipedia, or all English usage regardless of whether the term is covered in Wikipedia. For example, the argument is being made against moving the article about the legal usage of Malice to Malice since the primary topic for that term is the emotion, yet there is no article in Wikipedia about that usage (since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). So should that usage even be included in the consideration? I think our guideline needs to be clear on this one way or the other. Essentially, I think we should clarify with one of the following (proposed clarifications noted with underscores in each):
I think (a) is correct and (b) is arguably nonsensical, but want to make sure we have consensus before I make the revision. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the sentence per this discussion as follows:
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Incontinence is a hard one. There are 3 pages on Wikipedia, but many incoming links to incontinence cannot be changed to any of the 3 and I cannot think how to cast yet another article to cover the most common sense of "incontinence", which is in effect the person needs to wear a diaper, never mind why. Ideas? -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across a kind of odd situation that I can't quite decide what to do about. There are three articles with variations on the title "Say What". One is Say What, which is a single, and there are two other articles for "Say What?", one being a game, Say What? (game) and the other being an MTV show, Say What?. Should there be a disambiguation page? And if so, should it for all three? Or is a hatnote sufficient for each of the two with the "?" in the title? Thanks in advance for your help. Raven1977 ( talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:INTDABLINK says to create a redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" to a dab page "Foo" if that redirect does not already exist. Why? -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a bot going around, "fixing" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. See for example this diff. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to disambiguation pages for broadcast call signs (e.g., KAAN, WFLA, etc.), and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward.
In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'd like to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template would be used instead of {{disambig}} on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles (such as at WECC), then the same approach as is used for {{geodis}} would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category. There are currently some 2000 pages that would be members of the new category.
The primary benefit is that it would allow for regular comparison between the constituents of the two disambiguation categories. Since call sign pages generally fall within specific alphabetical ranges, that comparison will easily identify new pages that have been created, which can then be retagged, watched by project members, kept clean of incoming links, etc.
This proposal has been up for discussion for a couple of days now at the radio station and television station projects and, while there hasn't been much comment to date, what comment there's been has been supportive. In the meantime, while I don't see any policy problem with this, I wanted to also bring the idea here to the folks who are regularly engaged in disambiguation to get your thoughts. Mlaffs ( talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten into a discussion with another editor at Talk:Pop music#Discussion about the correct usage of parenthetical clarifiers in article titles. My position is that they are appended to articles names to distinguish between multiple articles with the same name, the other editor's is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing. I'd appreciate if interested parties familiar with disambiguation naming conventions could offer their opinions here or at the Talk:Pop music discussion. -- Muchness ( talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) This is a case of a
Pop music RfC consensus for disambiguation, being blocked by Muchness' wikilawyering of WP:D ("same name" is a special case of the WP:D first sentence - see my explanatory post at
[2] - find "special case"); plus his jamming of the RfC with a unilateral and unfair competing WP:RM process. This apparently happened because he isn't familiar with the less common types of title disambiguation. I've previously expressed my annoyance with his stubbornly-wrong yet good intent, so let's move on.
I'm a long time editor not previously involved at
Pop music, who tried to wind up the three month RfC by summarizing and implementing a disambiguation consensus.
Talk:Pop music#RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?. I was just trying to quickly help out a struggling music editor who needed experienced help in closing and implementing a process, but now I wish I'd never gotten involved.
This article's title term fits the WP:D definition of disambiguation: The single term pop music can be associated with the topic of the genre called "pop". But for some people and cultures, "pop" is also associated with the concept of "popular music"; that is, music of many genres having mass media market appeal, including the "pop" genre. As a result, editors filled the
Pop music genre article with off-topic text intended for the article
Popular music.
The process mess is unfair to the
Pop music article, because the RM participants aren't reading the RfC, and so don't understand the ambiguation problem, or know there is a consensus to fix it.
Born2cycle is an example (see my response to him above). He apparently didn't read the RfC, and posted as opposed to the rename – yet he mentioned conditions similar to those the article faces, which I understand as validating a disambiguation title of
Pop music (genre).
I request help in cleaning up the unfair process mess. If editors here agree that the Pop music article RfC consensus is getting screwed, that might encourage an admin to pull the plug on the unfair RM that will otherwise pile-on uninformed editors for weeks.
Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line appears to be this: at least one editor thinks Pop music needs to be disambiguated. At least one other editor does not. Rather than arguing about it, how about exploring the idea? That can be done in several ways. Two that I find useful are (1) creating or expanding a disambiguation page, and (2) disambiguating incoming links to the article with the (claimed) ambiguous title. Pop music (disambiguation) exists, but arguably needs to be expanded: it lacks the sub-genres and fusion genres and relevant see-also's found on Pop music. Pop music has over 10,000 incoming links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music. Probably those links should be dispersed among the many related pages. How about all of you involved in the RfC have a go at disambiguating those links as if Pop music were a disambiguation page with links? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
←Una, thanks for the research that you and Sssoul did today.
All the useful work you are describing is wasteful to undertake
"bottom up", when some other editor will undo or work against it, because s/he has a different
"top down" interpretation of the title.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, analogous to the synthetic controversy 'one scientist thinks there is man-made global warming and another does not'. A consensus to disambiguate the article's concept to "genre" has been made by the
three month Pop music RfC. Without implementing that RfC consensus, there is no way to stop the long, slow,
Pop music edit war. There is no way to implement that RfC consensus without
"top down" disambiguating the title using parentheses. Sssoul helped discover that a previous disambiguation hatnote had failed due to being both ignored
[3] and removed
[4].
Ok, I take your point that you want to avoid the argument, thanks for your help. I see no way to avoid an argument, if standing firm for the principle of RfC consensus, against trivial wikilawyering that the community firmly opposes, and even worse, factually incorrect wikilawyering.
Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic...
2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.
This has been mildly bothering me for a while now, and I thought I'd mention it and see if others felt the same way. I often use Wikipedia to help solve crossword puzzles, and frequently face clues like "Pop singer Jones". This leads me to the disambiguation page, List_of_people_with_surname_Jones#Music where I see a list of everybody named Jones involved in music. That's fine of course, but obviously some of the people listed are going to be more prominent or famous that all of the others, and thus more likely to be who myself or other readers are looking for.
Another example is the disambiguation page for Buffalo#United States, which lists 29 different US cities named Buffalo. I know that one of them is a quite large city and home to the Buffalo Sabers, but I (as a Canadian) had no idea which one, and no way of finding out short of trying each link (or using Google—I've since added a "Largest US city name Buffalo" description).
It would be great if there was some clear way of highlighting those disambiguation entries on the list that a reader is most likely after, for example using bold face for the link. Obviously a danger here is creating arguments about whether borderline entry X is prominent enough to deserve highlighting or not, but Buffalo, Oklahoma with a population of 1200 is quite clearly less prominent than Buffalo, New York (apologies to any of the 1200 Oklahoma Buffalonians who may be reading this...)
Thoughts? -- jwanders Talk 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page which is associated with William Faulkner. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.
The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.
If people want to change this guideline, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go to this link [5] to voice your opinion on this issue.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
An additional problem with relying on Google hits or incoming searches is that can be a temporary thing. For example, will the band be as well known in a few years? Should we discount library and academic lit searches, which would break almost exclusively for the novel? What defines a primary topic isn't based on mere numbers alone.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Una Smith has been requesting, all over Wikipedia (see AN/I for diffs), that the primary topic page be made the disambiguation page. This is, however, contrary to current guidelines for naming primary topic pages. This alone should be changed, the policy, if editors want it changed, rather than piecemeal allowing this user to de facto change the policy without discussing the change with the community as a change to the guidelines. I have posted at AN/I about her doing it with a plant article, learned about other attempts, some successful, and posted those diffs there. [6]
Now, if editors want to change the entire policy, this is the place to discuss it, as Born2cycle has started above. [7] I'm getting a better idea now of why plant editors are being attacked, though. It's about Born2cycle's disagreement with this policy. [8]
Anyway, this is the place to discuss it. Go ahead and get together, make a change if the community agrees it is necessary, and go for it. But, until then, Una Smith should stop policy shopping. And, don't keep coming over and shooting at plants editors as your battleground, either.
-- KP Botany ( talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The ANI that KP Botany mentioned is here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
While I've disagreed with Una Smith on some of the moves, I think they stem from a view that those names in particular do not have primary topics. Before y'all get much farther down the official dispute resolution processes, perhaps we might be able to identify some possible solutions that might come out of them anyway? Like:
? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Orlady and Lar are welcome to try changing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wish them luck. My view is that all such metrics, Wikipedia page stats and the "googletest" alike, indeed are based on a fallacy. That fallacy is the "primary topic" concept itself. I think it almost always makes more sense to put the disambiguation page at the ambiguous title, because at least then the incoming links can be corrected per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and it would eliminate much of the rather pointless debate and power struggles for control of Wikipedia page titles. An example is the often cited debate over Joshua tree and Yucca brevifolia. "Joshua tree" is just one of several common names for Yucca brevifolia; that common name may be the most commonly used common name in western Arizona but it probably is not the most commonly used common name for the species throughout the species' range in English-speaking North America. The debate over what to name the Wikipedia article on the species is little more than "is to!" vs "is not!". For what it's worth, I think the common name is notable enough for its own article, but that would be an article about the name Joshua tree, not about the species. And let's not forget the years-long fight over Ireland, which went all the way to ArbCom. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What happens if a primary topic is another disambiguation page, such as in the case of Zip (disambiguation) and Zip? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This is a request for a personal name dab page. I'm not sure if it should be titled Tom or Thomas Brock. In any case, I was looking for the famous microbiologist Thomas Brock (microbiologist), when I discovered Thomas Brock, (needs to be moved to Thomas Brock (sculptor) and Tom Brock (needs to be moved to Tom Brock (singer). Should the microbiologist title use his full name instead (Thomas D. Brock)? Any and all help with this would be appreciated. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please move Thomas Brock (sculptor) back to Thomas Brock? It should be the primary dab, at least for now. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where to ask this, so I'm hoping someone here might know.
I want to create an article called "Dirty hands," a concept in moral and political philosophy. There already was a page called Dirty Hands (upper case), the name of a Jean-Paul Sartre play, so I moved it to Dirty Hands (play). But now Dirty Hands is a redirect, and it won't let me create "Dirty hands" (lower case); when I type that in, it takes me to Dirty Hands (upper case).
Does anyone know of a way round this? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some input about the dab page Order (sort) before I clean it up? I am pretty sure it should be merged into Order or into some existing non-dab article. – sgeureka t• c 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe the latest posting by Wolfkeeper is related to a dispute that he alone has had with several other people, including me and an administrator. I will not go into the details of the dispute which was referred to the Administrators' Noticeboard. However he made a previous attempt to justify his opinion on an article by simultaneously amending the NPOV guidelines. This was stopped. Wolfkeeper attaches an unusual meaning to the NPOV policy and has tried to use it to justify some very odd edits. This amendment to the disambiguation guidelines seems to be another attempt to alter the meaning of NPOV. If you believe that this amendment by Wolfkeeper was justified, or if you have a contrary view, please may we have a debate here before altering a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If Wolfkeeper disagrees with the reversal, I hope that he will explain his point of view here first and will allow a debate before making this change JMcC ( talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia's guidelines can be changed too quickly. They are not just any set of articles, but fundamental to how Wikipedia works. I have suggested on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that there should always be a discussion period. JMcC ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just seems wrong to me, e.g. Now That's What I Call Music (album) (N.Z. series). Is this normal practice, unusual but accepted practice, or cause for moving an article, or something else? My reading of policy is that there is no explicit ban on this, but a single qualifier is implicitly assumed. Opinions and pointers to applicable policy welcome.-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on the discussions above about Zip, there are now different views about where the people named "Zip" (forename or surname) should appear in the list of Zips. It's a general point: if a term is a personal name as well as having various senses, where should these entries appear in the sequence of the dab page. One of us thinks that "People with the name" should come after "Other uses"; one of us thinks before. Has anyone any views, or policies to cite? PamD ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Bird of paradise (disambiguation)#Requested move is a debate over which of two candidates, a bird family or a plant family, or neither, is the primary topic for "bird of paradise". -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC currently states:
See discussion above. I think we also want to ignore the case where there are exactly two uses for one name. Regardless of whether one of the two uses is primary, often it is preferable to have a hat note on one to the other (ideally the hat note on the one whose use is more common, even if it's not "primary"), rather than having a dab page. So, maybe something like this?
I'm using the "three or more" wording because of the point I just made above.
I think the reference to WP:CONSENSUS should suffice in preventing a few "outliers" -- the one or two who argue that one of the other topics is primary when everyone else agrees on one other -- from causing non-unanimous consensus about one of the articles being the primary topic to be overturned.
I think this will also appropriately handle the case where only one of the three or more is even a candidate for primary topic (everyone agrees it's not any of the others - the only debate is about whether one in particular is primary or not). If consensus cannot be reached on that point, the dab page should be at the plain title.
Thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
DMR (disambiguation) page states DMR for Democratic Republic of the Congo : I doubt this is true. Common abbreviations for that country are mentioned in the article : DRC (english), RDC (french). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.72.245 ( talk) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes have just been made at WP:NC and WP:Naming_conventions_(common_names) that I believe wrongly give precedence to the jargon of specialists over that of non-specialists (assuming there is a conflict) in the process of choosing a name for a WP article title. I've started a strawpoll to see if there really is consensus for this. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the place to bring up specific page issues, but I was hoping the "disambig experts" could take a look at something that doesn't seem right to me, and make any necessary assisted moves. Someone moved Fashion House (the TV series) to Fashion House (TV series), and then redirected both Fashion House and Fashion house to Fashion house (disambiguation), which consists merely of a dictionary-style definition of the generic term and a link to the series. I am of the mind that none of these moves and redirects should have occurred at all since the TV series seems to be the most notable or (at least) substantive topic at this point, the alternative being a dictionary entry. And even if the experts agree with the disambiguation of the series article, I would think the disambig page itself should drop the "(disambiguation)" qualifier.— TAnthony Talk 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article Vancouver lands on the Canadian city in British Columbia. There is a United States city of Vancouver, Washington to which the occasional editor (usually from Vancouver, Washington) wants to have Vancouver as a disambiguation page rather than landing on the Canadian city. I'm looking for some unbiased opinions. Below is a link to an essay I constructed on the argumentative points on why Vancouver has the notability as well as fits the criteria of a primary topic.
Make Vancouver a disambiguation page and move its content to Vancouver, British Columbia?
RBC used to redirect to the Royal Bank of Canada and I thought it would be better if it redirected to RBC (disambiguation) because it is also often used to refer to red blood cells amongst other things. Another user has argued that it should redirect to the bank and after some discussion, we fail to have consensus. I argued that since red blood cells have more Wiki links and have more visitors than the bank, the bank shouldn't be the primary page. It is because the bank is 1st in a Google search that I feel that a redirect to the disambiguation page is a compromise that balances those arguments. The other user doesn't have a convincing argument that the bank should be the primary page. He argues that most of the top Google results point to the bank (which isn't the case) and that it's the more common acronym in everyday use, which he didn't provide other evidence (non-Google) for.
I would like to know what everyone's opinions on this are. Temporal User ( Talk) 08:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid, a disambiguation proposal is being discussed. Editors active in the disambiguation project may be well placed to give their opinion on this. Fram ( talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
List of A9 roads, and other pages like it, are listed as dabs. However, this isn't our usual way to title a dab page, i.e. A9 (disambiguation). A list is not usually considered a dab page, but this is working much like a dab. Is this a set index article? Should the dab tag be removed? Dekimasu よ! 04:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be agreement all around that something can't be both a dab page and a set index article. As a basic example, we currently have List of A9 roads with a roaddis tag, List of highways numbered 9A with a normal dab tag, and a dab page called A9. The first two are also in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, and we have a previous argument at Template talk:Roaddis over whether something can be a dab page and be under a list category at the same time.
Our options seem to be:
Which do we like? Dekimasu よ! 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of the articles currently being listed as set indices are actually just dabs, and not articles at all. See WT:DPL for more, but I think there are a lot more recategorizations to be done. Dekimasu よ! 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello... I'd appreciate some advice as to how to proceed at Georgina. The page is under consideration for a new home for the article currently at Georgina, Ontario. However, it seems to me that the sheer number of articles using the given name "Georgina" (as evidenced at the newly created page Georgina (disambiguation)) and the fact that references to the given name far outweigh references to the city (in both Google hits and Wikipedia pages views) would speak against this. Anyway, the discussion is at Talk:Georgina, Ontario#Move proposal; any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Template:Public transport disambiguation pages is up for deletion. It's a template designed to be placed on dab pages and link to other dab pages, thus aiding navigation. However, it thus creates a large number of links to them, mixed in with the links that need to be fixed. Hoping for input. Dekimasu よ! 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue on Talk:Jafar#Redirect usage is in regards to the redirect that is being utilised at the article's hat. Some editors are conveying that Ja'far (disambiguation) is "mundane" and Ja'far (the direct link) should take its place. I've already cited WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages and several Wikipedia examples, though there's only so much I can do alone. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone turn this into a state-of-the-art disambig page? Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about how the disambig, set index and name boxes should categorise pages. See the discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested in this discussion about the categorization of set indices, surnames, etc. -- JaGa talk 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this has already been dealt with somewhere or other, but am concerned about the inclusion of unreferenced/original research items on disambiguation pages. Do Wikipedia no original research, etc. criteria also hold on disamb. pages? My particular case is Francism (disambiguation), a page set up last month and which includes a term that I have never come across before and which gets re-directed to the commonly-accepted term. Feedback? Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to look for a disambiguation tool or bot that I swear I've seen others use from time to time. I see no note of it on the page, so I'm hoping that maybe someone here can point me in the right direction (or maybe I'm just dreaming things up). Thanks. Wizard191 ( talk) 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
We are having a discussion about how to best disambiguate articles about named trains. Feel free to chime in, the more the merrier. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I see this from time to time and usually take off since I'm quite sure it's not allowed. But can't find it in "What not to include." (Did I miss it?) If I am correct, that needs to be there. Currently trying to convince someone promoting a video at Israel lobby disambig page who has reverted and probably will keep doing it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I see several DAB pages having a See also section pointing to articles or other DAB pages which "look" very similar to the DAB page, i.e., having an extra alphabet or having an alphabet missing. I don't find a mention of this kind of disambiguation in the project page. Also what is policy on homophones, if 2 article titles "sound" very similar or sound exactly the same but are written in a different way, do they qualify for disambiguation? I wanted to create DAB links to each other from Reema Sen, Raima Sen and Rimi Sen. Jay ( talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
...at Talk:Queens College to help resolve slow-burning edit war over the target of the redirect ( Queen's College or Queens College, City University of New York). For that matter, is Queens College, City University of New York even the correct title for that page? Dekimasu よ! 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Pradesh would be considered a disambiguation page or not. Should it have {{ Geodis}}? ~EdGl (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Over the past few months, a single editor appears to have engaged in a project to create a disambiguation page for the adjectival form corresponding to every one of the World's 200+ independent states -- e.g., Jamaican, Moldovan, Monegasque, Angolan, etc. Although I am sure this editor was acting in good faith, he or she appears to have been unaware of the concept of a primary topic, and in many cases replaced existing redirects with these new disambig pages. I and other users have in a few cases moved these pages (for example, Jamaican to Jamaican (disambiguation), and reinstated redirects to the primary topic, but I'm sure there are many that haven't been examined yet. I hasten to add that the country is not always the primary topic for these adjectives, although in many cases it is; each one has to be examined on an individual basis. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be getting into a bit of a edit war over at Hun (disambiguation) concerning the correct way to list the term's use in relation to Protestantism and football. It would be helpful to get a few more eyeballs on this and break the deadlock. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a debate about whether the Dio page should belong to a pop band or become a disambiguation page, see Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band). Similar pages are U2 and Iron Maiden. This is also being discussed on the Music Project here.
I note the guideline says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"."
Any opinions? Thanks. -- Klein zach 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thinking a bit more about this — in connection with the lively ongoing debate at Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band) — I see two problems with simply defining the 'primary topic' by current Google/WikiStats popularity. 1. It implies that the structure of the encyclopedia should be constantly changing with the popularity of articles. 2. It encourages readers to access popular articles, thereby making the popular, more popular, and the less read, even less read. To take the Dio example, if the band is the primary topic it encourages pop music fans to use Wikipedia, but also discourages those who are interested in other subjects. So Wikipedia would be increasingly identified with popular commercial culture. -- Klein zach 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Some disruptive editor named User:SkyWalker has been moronically undoing my good faith reverts at this dab page for no reason. I could really use some help here, as this appears to be pure idiocy on his/her part. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on about whether "RBI" has a primary topic, and if so, what it is. Interested editors may wish to participate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A fellow editor has requested that I move Zero-sum (game theory) to zero sum (and consequently, zero sum to Zero sum (disambiguation) - up until today, Zero sum was a redirect to Zero sum (disambiguation), which I repaired). No strong opinion here. Thoughts? bd2412 T 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Here's a link to a discussion I began at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirecting plurals. The issue is basically what to do when the plural form is a proper noun in a way that the singular is not. An example of currently inconsistent use is: Freaks/ freak, but Slackers/ Slackers (film). Both are films with sole claim to their names (nothing else is called "Slackers" or "Freaks"), except that each has for its name the plural of a common noun. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found it a common practice for disambiguation pages titled with acronyms of several letters to list multi-word titles that happen to have the initials of the disambiguation page's title, even though the subject does not officially use such an abbreviation. For example, look at Is#Abbreviations. This has many titles that just happen to have the initials IS. LIT lists Long Island Iced Tea, which nowhere in the article says it is abbreviated this way. BOA lists Bank of America, which is mentioned in one of the sources under that title, but also Book of Abraham, which is not. And on Jew (disambiguation), one of the listings is Jimmy Eat World; not only is there no indication the subject uses this name, but since this refers to an ethnic group to which sensitivity is expected, some may be offended.
Some acronyms are well recognized for a subject. For example, MARC has several such meanings, including MARC Train. I see nothing wrong with such a listing. And some acronyms are so well known for one particular meaning that they redirect to that page, and all other more obscure meanings are found on a separate disambiguation page, like IQ redirecting to Intelligence quotient.
Before we go removing such listings from disambiguation pages, I would like to know what others think. Sebwite ( talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any sentiment against restoring the following text to WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate that was deleted on 28 October 2008?:
It is more succinct than the current version and is still cited at WP:PRECISION. — AjaxSmack 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes find references in disambigation pages. I delete them and leave in the edit summary "No references are needed in a disambigation page. If important, incorporate in article".
I think this is a good guideline, and would like to add to the section Wikipedia:Disambigation#What_not_to_include the subsection
== References == A disambigation page should not contain references. If you have a relevant reference, incorporate it into the pertaining article in stead.
Your opinions, please. Debresser ( talk) 12:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References, which has most of your formulation, but not all of it. Debresser ( talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This important criterion is still missing from the Project page. Answers are welcome here, and in said page as well. -- AVM ( talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth adding to this section about allowing partial matches in disamb. pages about surnames? --neon white talk 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since my edit to the page had been reverted with a comment of "Where was this discussed? This clearly gives the article at the main name space pioroty", I'd like to open discussion on this. In the course of discussion a requested move at Talk:Portland, a user was suggesting that the fact that there were so many more incoming links to Portland, Oregon than any of the other similarly named pages is evidence that that article is the primary topic. I could not understand that reasoning. As far as I have always understood the guidance, the only really useful evidence provided by incoming links is to see the relative proportions of the links to the undisambiguated term. That is, if many, many links were persistently created for the undisambiguated term intending one particular topic, that is evidence that that topic might be the primary topic. On the other hand, if the intended targets of incoming links to the undisambiguated term were distributed amonst various titles, that would mean there is no evidence of primary topic on the basis of incoming links. I realize that if a page already occupies the undisambiguated title, it would be misleading to look at the preponderance of incoming links as evidence that it is the primary topic. In such a case, incoming links is not a useful test unless it can be shown that a substantial proportion of incoming links are intended for some other page. I don't see any case where examining links to already disambiguated titles 9that is, of examining anything other than links to the undisambiguated title) provides any meaningful evidence for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Yes, basically we agree, though I think the specific situation we're talking about (where one of two otherwise-primary topics can't be at the base name anyway due to naming conventions) can usefully be treated as an exception, precisely because in this situation the debate need not concern which topic is more important or common.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
<-- I'm still perplexed. How is one supposed to use What links here to already disambiguated titles to help determine what a primary topic is? older ≠ wiser 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether Ticket to Ride should be a disambiguation page. Opinions from other editors would be appreciated at Talk:Ticket to Ride or Talk:Ticket to Ride (disambiguation). — Lowellian ( reply) 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved here boldly from WP:RM, since it's not yet a well-defined move request. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help me I am in good faith here but really not sure what to do. I was doing some edits about fonts and looked up links for ascender and descender, checked they went where I wanted them to go (i.e. typography related). Ascender goes to a dab page; I needed ascender (typography). But Descender goes to the typography page.
Now, I could maybe live with that. But ascenders redirects to ascender (climbing) and descenders to descender i.e. the typography article, which doesn't have a dab page but says for the cycling term, see Bicycling terminology.
So: "descender" and "descenders" go to the typography article directly (which is just called "descender", and has a "for x see y") whereas "ascender" goes to a dab page (my desire being at ascender (typography) and "ascenders" goes to a climbing page. That seems rather off-balanced.
I imagine this has come about through the "gor there first" rule whatever it's formally called; and that the bicycling term was inserted by someone more interested in cycling than typefaces. That's just a guess at its evolution and I've no problem with that as such and I'm sure good faith all round but this is a bit of an anomaly and rather surprising. I don't know whether to suggest:
I'm sorry this is probably a bit out of order as I have not posted on those pages, but since I don't really know what pages to post on, and it seems fruitless to post on the redirect pages (and probably on the dab pages), whether there is any policy about that I don't know. I will happily follow the steps but really don't know which steps to follow, so I thought I would throw myself at your mercy first.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing (rather than adding to) this my own entry as I just fouled up leaving detritus at the end. Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem with terms that appear to be "even" having Wikipedia article titles that appear to be "uneven". Of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only one goes to an anthroponymy article, and the others go to dabs. Firefox goes the the browser, but Chrome does not. If one of "ascender" and "descender" has a primary topic and the other does not, then one should go to an article and the other should go to a dab. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved 10 Years to 10 Years (band) and created a disambiguation page at 10 Years. Fire 55 ( talk · contribs) asserted on my talk page that the band is the primary topic. Before I could revert my actions (which would require an admin), another user reverted Fire 55's revert of my edits to 10 Years, implying he agrees with my initial decision. So, is the band the primary topic, or should 10 Years be a dab page? ~EdGl ★ 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Following up the "Primary topic for 10 Years?" topic above: I'm often unsure about whether to choose the uppercase or lowercase version when choosing a dab page title for an ambiguous phrase. Usually I opt for the uppercase, as JHunterJ did for 10 Years (disambiguation), when all (or nearly all) of the entries are proper nouns. I only suggested the lowercase version to be inclusive of the Decade entry. I've also seen other editors move dab pages from the uppercase page to the lowercase, asserting that this is "preferred", but without citing a guideline to support it. Is there a guideline or precedent for deciding this issue? And if not, should this page-naming issue be addressed in MOSDAB?-- ShelfSkewed Talk 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering how complicate this can be, this article needs to be more explicit about where people might seek help with topics not clearly addressed here. Especially if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation is such a place. (It's page also unclear but people have sought help on its talk page.) Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
'Another similar type of page is the multi-stub article. This is a page containing brief, stub-like information about a number of similarly-named topics, such as saints with the same name (e.g. Abundantius). Like set index articles, these pages are not subject to the disambiguation style guidelines.' I don't get it. I have never heard of these sorts of page before. Where is this rule to be found? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors of this page may be interested in this discussion, about deprecating the inclusion of external links on disambiguation and category pages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone with a better understanding of the rules could look at the situation with Brian Nelson. Originally there were only two Brian Nelson's on Wikipedia, so it was decided one would be the primary page, and the second would be disambiguated as "Brian Nelson (descriptor)" with a top hat saying "not to be confused with the other Brian Nelson". There was also a "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page created. Then about a month later, a third Brian Nelson was added to Wikipedia. What should happen? My understanding is, the "Brian Nelson" page becomes the new dab page, the "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page goes away (redirects to "Brian Nelson" which is now the dab page), and the three Brian Nelson's now all have the format "Brian Nelson (descriptor)". Is this correct? I've seen this often done, but am having trouble finding the MOS guidelines for it. Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone posted a question on the Help Desk related to disambiguation here (dealing with primary topic) ~EdGl ★ 14:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for a certain template. For example at Running amok, I see: {{about|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok (disambiguation)}}. And I wonder if there is a template like {{ about}}, which I don't have to include „ (disambiguation)” into using it. A template that would produce the same output, using: {{aboutX|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok}}. I am looking for that aboutX template. There should be equivalent to every disambiguation template, for cases when you link to a page that contains „ (disambiguation)” into it or not. Thanks Ark25 ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
redirect|Amok}}
there, producing:{{
redirect}}
-type hatnote is normally more appropriate (as illustrated by JHJ above).--
Kotniski (
talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC){{otheruses4|{{{1}}}||{{{2}}} (disambiguation)}}
Sorry for late answer. I just created the otheruses9 template. In case the template is considered useful, it should be advertised with a more sugestive name, like "this1" (this2 is taken already), or I can suggest "dabthis" ( = "this" with disambiguation ) or "dabnote" ( = disambiguation note).
For example at Sydney, Nova Scotia:
{{otheruses|Sidney}}
{{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{This|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}
{{This1|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}
Therefore, if the editor is lazy, they can use "otheruses" or "otheruses2". If not, use "this" or "this1".
However, main question is: What is the recommended procedure: articles like Sydney, Nova Scotia, Evolution (film) shall include disambiguation note or not? For example many Avalon towns articles do not have any: Avalon, New South Wales, Avalon, Victoria etc; and most of the articles that end with (film) dont have disambiguation note. Seems Sydney, Nova Scotia is an exception. Therefore, if it's recommended to include a disambiguation note on that kind of articles, then this template would be quite useful. Otherwise, it would be only used in articles like The African Queen, where {{this|the film|African Queen (disambiguation)}} can be replaced with {{otheruses9|the film|African Queen}} - because of the "The" particle in the article name. Ark25 ( talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
I am currently disambiguating Thomas Arundel, and the bulk is gone, with the remainder at Article namespace. The remaining few have Thomas Arundel in the {{ Archbishops of Canterbury}} template. Now I have been in and modified the template accordingly, and VDE links show that it all is modified, that said, there are still stubborn links in only a few of the remaining archbishops. Where else do I look? Thx -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Re this revert -- what's the contradiction? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Some additional input at Talk:Wizard#Cleanup would be helpful, please. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The sections on wp:dab#Sister projects and wp:dab#Summary or multi-stub pages mean nothing to me (and I understand dab pages quite well); what do they mean? would an example of each make them more accessible? Abtract ( talk) 08:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone pointed me here from this discussion. My examples there were people: Abundantius, Aglaophon, Alexander (artists). I'd call them a special type of disambiguation page - a dead-end disambiguation page, where instead of the dab page directing you somewhere, the information you need is somewhere on the page. People of the same name about which so little is known (common in antiquity) that they get covered in one page instead of tiny, tiny permanent stubs. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I known this has been discussed ad nauseum previously, but I have to ask, why? In general I think I agree that if there is a page with very roughly equivalent proportion of word-like forms and abbreviation-like forms, then the word form should be preferred. But does it really make sense to force a page where the majority of entries are abbreviations to use a word form? The page that made me think about this is PUB, which a user has requested to be moved to Pub (disambiguation), with the reason being it is the "Expected location for PUB/Pub combined disambiguation page". This is not really such a big deal and I suppose either form is acceptable, but it made me wonder if always defaulting to word form is necessarily the best rule. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The text says "A word is preferred to an abbreviation. For example, the disambiguation page for Arc and ARC is named Arc." This is a bad example: currently there are two pages, Arc and ARC ! 128.232.1.193 ( talk) 14:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I was somewhat disappointed to learn of a rule (?) that apparently says that "content-specific categories are inappropriate for a disambiguation page." I request that an exception be made in this regarding a certain project that I started over two years ago.
Since March 2006 I've written almost exclusively about snakes and have worked to provide some 500 articles with a complete set of redirects for all known common names and taxonomic synonyms. These outnumber the articles by about 10 to 1. To keep this large number organized, I created a series of categories for them, for example
Crotalinae by common name and
Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms. Some of these categories are now actually rather complete and links to the relevant ones are present in all of the articles.
Of course, every once in a while it is discovered that a common name or taxonomic synonym that can refer to more than one taxon (e.g. genus, species, subspecies). In such cases, the redirect is turned into a disambiguation page and the new entries and category tags are added. This is where the problem lies.
Obviously, if the rule against using content-specific categories in disambiguation pages is applied in this case without any further consideration, several years of my work will be undone: the categories rendered forever incomplete as there will be many obvious omissions. I cannot imagine that anyone would consider this to be constructive. Therefore, to preserve this work I humbly request that an exception be made to the aforementioned rule when it comes to the systematic categorization of disambiguation pages for common names and taxonomic synonyms. --
Jwinius (
talk) 03:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not exactly what I was hoping for. The last solution means that if, for example, there were to be a nice {{ SIA}} page for "Keelback" with 30 snake entries and one day somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it, then that person may very well decide (and be within their rights) to change the article to a {{ Disambig}} page. Subsequently, it's possible that the category tags would also be removed. Another example would be when there is only a redirect for "Keelback" with a category tag and somebody comes along to add a single video game entry to it. They would of course change it to a {{ Disambig}} page and again the category tag would probably be removed, immediately or eventually. In both cases it would be unlikely that any of these people would think to create "Keelback (snake)," so that it would almost certainly be up to people like myself to keep a constant lookout for this kind of damage and fix it. Oh, goodie. However, even that won't work in the long run, because after I'm gone and if there is no one else left who has this page on their watchlist and cares (or understands), then in many cases deterioration of this kind will likely be permanent. -- Jwinius ( talk) 12:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of WP:INTDABLINK? My understanding is that it was always preferable to link to an exact target, rather than a redirected target, especially on disambiguation pages. For example, in the "see also" of a disambiguation page, I normally put something like:
However, I see some other editors changing it to:
Even though the second one is a redirect which goes to the same place.
I am not understanding why this is preferable, could someone please explain? Thanks, -- El on ka 21:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I see there's a new search box feature, whereby if you prefix the search term with "intitle:" you return just articles which have that term in their titles. Might be useful when creating dab pages... it might also be useful to include hard links to such searches on certain dab pages (like we already use links to "all pages beginning with..." on some given-name pages and the like).-- Kotniski ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is another example of ignoring primary usage as a criteria. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find any pointers here on how to locate an appropriate template for a disambiguation page. Without that we can't create the page.. the format appears to be {{xxxdis..}} ? Rcbutcher ( talk) 10:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Template Template:Otheruses should not be used in articles with brackets, since you get there only following a already qualified link in another text or a disambiguation page, not by searching. I removed all those cases in the German wikipedia (about 50), but there are much more in the English WP. You can find them by searching for ") (transclusion)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Otheruses&limit=5000.
Couldn't that job be done easily by a bot?
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 11:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, then the English WP has a different approach than the German WP regarding this. For instance, if I already am on article Aquarius (constellation), I actually don't really need a hint that there other meanings. I can clearly tell from the expression in the brackets, in this case (constellation). A hint is useful in article Angst, since there are no brackets. I would see it as some kind of information overload. Also, it is not consistent, as Aquarius (astrology) does not have any hint. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 14:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
If I am looking for a special James King, I will find James King, from where I will find the right one. If I get to the wrong one, then the disambiguation is bad and should be improved. If I get to the wrong one somehow else, for instance James King (footballer), than I now that I have to look at James King for other meanings. This can be easier by a hatnote. But then every page with brackets could automatically be supplied with hatnote, that does nothing more than to either remove the brackets or add (disambiguation). I understand your point, but it's just not consistent right. Eventually it's a matter of taste though. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This guideline says:
This is wrong. We don't link to redirects but to the target article. That's standard practice and guidelines should reflect standard practice. I changed the wording to reflect that reality but I was reverted.-- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
1. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka (disambiguation)]] |
---|---|---|
2. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka]] (disambiguation) |
3. | Baraka (disambiguation) | [[Baraka|Baraka (disambiguation)]] |
I would appreciate someone keeping an eye on this page for a while. Abtract ( talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rinku, Hellsing (disambiguation), and Ryuk come to mind. IIRC, the guideline prefers hatnoting when it comes to dabs with really two entries. So does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
NB. Someone recently changed the guidelines. Under "Disambiguation page or disambiguation links?", it used to say: "If there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page may be used; an alternative is to set up a redirect from the term to one of the topics, and use disambiguation links only." It now says: "However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used.". Sam5 ( talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just happened upon the page Johann Salver. It is a disambiguation page with no article links, just mentions of three people, two of whom may be the same, all (or both) 18th century engravers. It follows these with two links to Commons image galleries of engravings by the various Johann Salvers. Is this a proper use of a disambiguation page? Rklear ( talk) 16:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been banging on fixing links into Captain and noticed that it would be helpful to have a page like Captain (fictional spaceships) to cover myriad books, movies, T.V. shows, and so forth. Unfortunately, every time I take a stab at starting such a page, it comes out pretty snarky. Maybe Han Solo is the [[captain (spacecraft)|captain]] of the M.... would be more like it? Anybody have any feelings on this? Cheers. Haus Talk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The lead sentence for the primary topic section currently reads:
There are recent and current disputes at Talk:Nice at Talk:Malice (legal term) respectively which are essentially about whether the "ambiguous term" refers to usage within Wikipedia, or all English usage regardless of whether the term is covered in Wikipedia. For example, the argument is being made against moving the article about the legal usage of Malice to Malice since the primary topic for that term is the emotion, yet there is no article in Wikipedia about that usage (since Wikipedia is not a dictionary). So should that usage even be included in the consideration? I think our guideline needs to be clear on this one way or the other. Essentially, I think we should clarify with one of the following (proposed clarifications noted with underscores in each):
I think (a) is correct and (b) is arguably nonsensical, but want to make sure we have consensus before I make the revision. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the sentence per this discussion as follows:
-- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Incontinence is a hard one. There are 3 pages on Wikipedia, but many incoming links to incontinence cannot be changed to any of the 3 and I cannot think how to cast yet another article to cover the most common sense of "incontinence", which is in effect the person needs to wear a diaper, never mind why. Ideas? -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across a kind of odd situation that I can't quite decide what to do about. There are three articles with variations on the title "Say What". One is Say What, which is a single, and there are two other articles for "Say What?", one being a game, Say What? (game) and the other being an MTV show, Say What?. Should there be a disambiguation page? And if so, should it for all three? Or is a hatnote sufficient for each of the two with the "?" in the title? Thanks in advance for your help. Raven1977 ( talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:INTDABLINK says to create a redirect "Foo (disambiguation)" to a dab page "Foo" if that redirect does not already exist. Why? -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
There's a bot going around, "fixing" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. See for example this diff. -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time since the summer on cleaning up incoming links to disambiguation pages for broadcast call signs (e.g., KAAN, WFLA, etc.), and I think I've landed on an idea that'll make this easier going forward.
In the spirit of {{geodis}} for place names and {{schooldis}} for educational institutions, I'd like to create a new template called {{callsigndis}}. This template would be used instead of {{disambig}} on disambiguation pages that are exclusively for call signs, and would be coded to include the article in both [[Category:All disambiguation pages]] and a new [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]]. If the dab page has a mix of call signs and general articles (such as at WECC), then the same approach as is used for {{geodis}} would apply — the instruction would be to tag it with both {{disambig}} and [[Category:Broadcast call sign disambiguation pages]], so that it has the general disambiguation page visual at the bottom of the page but still hits the relevant category. There are currently some 2000 pages that would be members of the new category.
The primary benefit is that it would allow for regular comparison between the constituents of the two disambiguation categories. Since call sign pages generally fall within specific alphabetical ranges, that comparison will easily identify new pages that have been created, which can then be retagged, watched by project members, kept clean of incoming links, etc.
This proposal has been up for discussion for a couple of days now at the radio station and television station projects and, while there hasn't been much comment to date, what comment there's been has been supportive. In the meantime, while I don't see any policy problem with this, I wanted to also bring the idea here to the folks who are regularly engaged in disambiguation to get your thoughts. Mlaffs ( talk) 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten into a discussion with another editor at Talk:Pop music#Discussion about the correct usage of parenthetical clarifiers in article titles. My position is that they are appended to articles names to distinguish between multiple articles with the same name, the other editor's is that they can be added to any article title, even a primary topic, if they make the title less confusing. I'd appreciate if interested parties familiar with disambiguation naming conventions could offer their opinions here or at the Talk:Pop music discussion. -- Muchness ( talk) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) This is a case of a
Pop music RfC consensus for disambiguation, being blocked by Muchness' wikilawyering of WP:D ("same name" is a special case of the WP:D first sentence - see my explanatory post at
[2] - find "special case"); plus his jamming of the RfC with a unilateral and unfair competing WP:RM process. This apparently happened because he isn't familiar with the less common types of title disambiguation. I've previously expressed my annoyance with his stubbornly-wrong yet good intent, so let's move on.
I'm a long time editor not previously involved at
Pop music, who tried to wind up the three month RfC by summarizing and implementing a disambiguation consensus.
Talk:Pop music#RfC: What is the intended subject of this article?. I was just trying to quickly help out a struggling music editor who needed experienced help in closing and implementing a process, but now I wish I'd never gotten involved.
This article's title term fits the WP:D definition of disambiguation: The single term pop music can be associated with the topic of the genre called "pop". But for some people and cultures, "pop" is also associated with the concept of "popular music"; that is, music of many genres having mass media market appeal, including the "pop" genre. As a result, editors filled the
Pop music genre article with off-topic text intended for the article
Popular music.
The process mess is unfair to the
Pop music article, because the RM participants aren't reading the RfC, and so don't understand the ambiguation problem, or know there is a consensus to fix it.
Born2cycle is an example (see my response to him above). He apparently didn't read the RfC, and posted as opposed to the rename – yet he mentioned conditions similar to those the article faces, which I understand as validating a disambiguation title of
Pop music (genre).
I request help in cleaning up the unfair process mess. If editors here agree that the Pop music article RfC consensus is getting screwed, that might encourage an admin to pull the plug on the unfair RM that will otherwise pile-on uninformed editors for weeks.
Milo 10:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line appears to be this: at least one editor thinks Pop music needs to be disambiguated. At least one other editor does not. Rather than arguing about it, how about exploring the idea? That can be done in several ways. Two that I find useful are (1) creating or expanding a disambiguation page, and (2) disambiguating incoming links to the article with the (claimed) ambiguous title. Pop music (disambiguation) exists, but arguably needs to be expanded: it lacks the sub-genres and fusion genres and relevant see-also's found on Pop music. Pop music has over 10,000 incoming links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Pop music. Probably those links should be dispersed among the many related pages. How about all of you involved in the RfC have a go at disambiguating those links as if Pop music were a disambiguation page with links? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
←Una, thanks for the research that you and Sssoul did today.
All the useful work you are describing is wasteful to undertake
"bottom up", when some other editor will undo or work against it, because s/he has a different
"top down" interpretation of the title.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis, analogous to the synthetic controversy 'one scientist thinks there is man-made global warming and another does not'. A consensus to disambiguate the article's concept to "genre" has been made by the
three month Pop music RfC. Without implementing that RfC consensus, there is no way to stop the long, slow,
Pop music edit war. There is no way to implement that RfC consensus without
"top down" disambiguating the title using parentheses. Sssoul helped discover that a previous disambiguation hatnote had failed due to being both ignored
[3] and removed
[4].
Ok, I take your point that you want to avoid the argument, thanks for your help. I see no way to avoid an argument, if standing firm for the principle of RfC consensus, against trivial wikilawyering that the community firmly opposes, and even worse, factually incorrect wikilawyering.
Milo 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic...
2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses.
This has been mildly bothering me for a while now, and I thought I'd mention it and see if others felt the same way. I often use Wikipedia to help solve crossword puzzles, and frequently face clues like "Pop singer Jones". This leads me to the disambiguation page, List_of_people_with_surname_Jones#Music where I see a list of everybody named Jones involved in music. That's fine of course, but obviously some of the people listed are going to be more prominent or famous that all of the others, and thus more likely to be who myself or other readers are looking for.
Another example is the disambiguation page for Buffalo#United States, which lists 29 different US cities named Buffalo. I know that one of them is a quite large city and home to the Buffalo Sabers, but I (as a Canadian) had no idea which one, and no way of finding out short of trying each link (or using Google—I've since added a "Largest US city name Buffalo" description).
It would be great if there was some clear way of highlighting those disambiguation entries on the list that a reader is most likely after, for example using bold face for the link. Obviously a danger here is creating arguments about whether borderline entry X is prominent enough to deserve highlighting or not, but Buffalo, Oklahoma with a population of 1200 is quite clearly less prominent than Buffalo, New York (apologies to any of the 1200 Oklahoma Buffalonians who may be reading this...)
Thoughts? -- jwanders Talk 08:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago a very limited discussion was held by a few editors on an disambig redirect page which is associated with William Faulkner. The result was a claimed "consensus" that the article As I Lay Dying should redirect to As I Lay Dying (disambiguation). The reasoning was that a band named after the novel was now more well known than the novel, meaning the main "As I Lay Dying" phrase shouldn't link only to the novel.
The problem is that as it clearly states here, disambig pages should only be created "If there are three or more topics associated with the same term" and if one of the topics isn't the primary topic. That is not the case here. Since the band is named for the book, the book is the primary topic. In addition, the band's album has part of its title taken from the band's name, meaning there aren't three true items on that disambig page. As a result, the proper course is to have a disambig link at the top of the novel article and allow "As I Lay Dying" to either be the main article or redirect to the main article.
If people want to change this guideline, that is fine. But to do that, we need to have a true consensus building discussion. Please go to this link [5] to voice your opinion on this issue.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
An additional problem with relying on Google hits or incoming searches is that can be a temporary thing. For example, will the band be as well known in a few years? Should we discount library and academic lit searches, which would break almost exclusively for the novel? What defines a primary topic isn't based on mere numbers alone.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Una Smith has been requesting, all over Wikipedia (see AN/I for diffs), that the primary topic page be made the disambiguation page. This is, however, contrary to current guidelines for naming primary topic pages. This alone should be changed, the policy, if editors want it changed, rather than piecemeal allowing this user to de facto change the policy without discussing the change with the community as a change to the guidelines. I have posted at AN/I about her doing it with a plant article, learned about other attempts, some successful, and posted those diffs there. [6]
Now, if editors want to change the entire policy, this is the place to discuss it, as Born2cycle has started above. [7] I'm getting a better idea now of why plant editors are being attacked, though. It's about Born2cycle's disagreement with this policy. [8]
Anyway, this is the place to discuss it. Go ahead and get together, make a change if the community agrees it is necessary, and go for it. But, until then, Una Smith should stop policy shopping. And, don't keep coming over and shooting at plants editors as your battleground, either.
-- KP Botany ( talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The ANI that KP Botany mentioned is here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
While I've disagreed with Una Smith on some of the moves, I think they stem from a view that those names in particular do not have primary topics. Before y'all get much farther down the official dispute resolution processes, perhaps we might be able to identify some possible solutions that might come out of them anyway? Like:
? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Orlady and Lar are welcome to try changing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I wish them luck. My view is that all such metrics, Wikipedia page stats and the "googletest" alike, indeed are based on a fallacy. That fallacy is the "primary topic" concept itself. I think it almost always makes more sense to put the disambiguation page at the ambiguous title, because at least then the incoming links can be corrected per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and it would eliminate much of the rather pointless debate and power struggles for control of Wikipedia page titles. An example is the often cited debate over Joshua tree and Yucca brevifolia. "Joshua tree" is just one of several common names for Yucca brevifolia; that common name may be the most commonly used common name in western Arizona but it probably is not the most commonly used common name for the species throughout the species' range in English-speaking North America. The debate over what to name the Wikipedia article on the species is little more than "is to!" vs "is not!". For what it's worth, I think the common name is notable enough for its own article, but that would be an article about the name Joshua tree, not about the species. And let's not forget the years-long fight over Ireland, which went all the way to ArbCom. -- Una Smith ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
What happens if a primary topic is another disambiguation page, such as in the case of Zip (disambiguation) and Zip? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This is a request for a personal name dab page. I'm not sure if it should be titled Tom or Thomas Brock. In any case, I was looking for the famous microbiologist Thomas Brock (microbiologist), when I discovered Thomas Brock, (needs to be moved to Thomas Brock (sculptor) and Tom Brock (needs to be moved to Tom Brock (singer). Should the microbiologist title use his full name instead (Thomas D. Brock)? Any and all help with this would be appreciated. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please move Thomas Brock (sculptor) back to Thomas Brock? It should be the primary dab, at least for now. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where to ask this, so I'm hoping someone here might know.
I want to create an article called "Dirty hands," a concept in moral and political philosophy. There already was a page called Dirty Hands (upper case), the name of a Jean-Paul Sartre play, so I moved it to Dirty Hands (play). But now Dirty Hands is a redirect, and it won't let me create "Dirty hands" (lower case); when I type that in, it takes me to Dirty Hands (upper case).
Does anyone know of a way round this? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some input about the dab page Order (sort) before I clean it up? I am pretty sure it should be merged into Order or into some existing non-dab article. – sgeureka t• c 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe the latest posting by Wolfkeeper is related to a dispute that he alone has had with several other people, including me and an administrator. I will not go into the details of the dispute which was referred to the Administrators' Noticeboard. However he made a previous attempt to justify his opinion on an article by simultaneously amending the NPOV guidelines. This was stopped. Wolfkeeper attaches an unusual meaning to the NPOV policy and has tried to use it to justify some very odd edits. This amendment to the disambiguation guidelines seems to be another attempt to alter the meaning of NPOV. If you believe that this amendment by Wolfkeeper was justified, or if you have a contrary view, please may we have a debate here before altering a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If Wolfkeeper disagrees with the reversal, I hope that he will explain his point of view here first and will allow a debate before making this change JMcC ( talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that Wikipedia's guidelines can be changed too quickly. They are not just any set of articles, but fundamental to how Wikipedia works. I have suggested on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that there should always be a discussion period. JMcC ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Just seems wrong to me, e.g. Now That's What I Call Music (album) (N.Z. series). Is this normal practice, unusual but accepted practice, or cause for moving an article, or something else? My reading of policy is that there is no explicit ban on this, but a single qualifier is implicitly assumed. Opinions and pointers to applicable policy welcome.-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on the discussions above about Zip, there are now different views about where the people named "Zip" (forename or surname) should appear in the list of Zips. It's a general point: if a term is a personal name as well as having various senses, where should these entries appear in the sequence of the dab page. One of us thinks that "People with the name" should come after "Other uses"; one of us thinks before. Has anyone any views, or policies to cite? PamD ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
On Talk:Bird of paradise (disambiguation)#Requested move is a debate over which of two candidates, a bird family or a plant family, or neither, is the primary topic for "bird of paradise". -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The second paragraph at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC currently states:
See discussion above. I think we also want to ignore the case where there are exactly two uses for one name. Regardless of whether one of the two uses is primary, often it is preferable to have a hat note on one to the other (ideally the hat note on the one whose use is more common, even if it's not "primary"), rather than having a dab page. So, maybe something like this?
I'm using the "three or more" wording because of the point I just made above.
I think the reference to WP:CONSENSUS should suffice in preventing a few "outliers" -- the one or two who argue that one of the other topics is primary when everyone else agrees on one other -- from causing non-unanimous consensus about one of the articles being the primary topic to be overturned.
I think this will also appropriately handle the case where only one of the three or more is even a candidate for primary topic (everyone agrees it's not any of the others - the only debate is about whether one in particular is primary or not). If consensus cannot be reached on that point, the dab page should be at the plain title.
Thoughts? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
DMR (disambiguation) page states DMR for Democratic Republic of the Congo : I doubt this is true. Common abbreviations for that country are mentioned in the article : DRC (english), RDC (french). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.72.245 ( talk) 10:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes have just been made at WP:NC and WP:Naming_conventions_(common_names) that I believe wrongly give precedence to the jargon of specialists over that of non-specialists (assuming there is a conflict) in the process of choosing a name for a WP article title. I've started a strawpoll to see if there really is consensus for this. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the place to bring up specific page issues, but I was hoping the "disambig experts" could take a look at something that doesn't seem right to me, and make any necessary assisted moves. Someone moved Fashion House (the TV series) to Fashion House (TV series), and then redirected both Fashion House and Fashion house to Fashion house (disambiguation), which consists merely of a dictionary-style definition of the generic term and a link to the series. I am of the mind that none of these moves and redirects should have occurred at all since the TV series seems to be the most notable or (at least) substantive topic at this point, the alternative being a dictionary entry. And even if the experts agree with the disambiguation of the series article, I would think the disambig page itself should drop the "(disambiguation)" qualifier.— TAnthony Talk 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article Vancouver lands on the Canadian city in British Columbia. There is a United States city of Vancouver, Washington to which the occasional editor (usually from Vancouver, Washington) wants to have Vancouver as a disambiguation page rather than landing on the Canadian city. I'm looking for some unbiased opinions. Below is a link to an essay I constructed on the argumentative points on why Vancouver has the notability as well as fits the criteria of a primary topic.
Make Vancouver a disambiguation page and move its content to Vancouver, British Columbia?
RBC used to redirect to the Royal Bank of Canada and I thought it would be better if it redirected to RBC (disambiguation) because it is also often used to refer to red blood cells amongst other things. Another user has argued that it should redirect to the bank and after some discussion, we fail to have consensus. I argued that since red blood cells have more Wiki links and have more visitors than the bank, the bank shouldn't be the primary page. It is because the bank is 1st in a Google search that I feel that a redirect to the disambiguation page is a compromise that balances those arguments. The other user doesn't have a convincing argument that the bank should be the primary page. He argues that most of the top Google results point to the bank (which isn't the case) and that it's the more common acronym in everyday use, which he didn't provide other evidence (non-Google) for.
I would like to know what everyone's opinions on this are. Temporal User ( Talk) 08:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Use of prefix "Sir" as a disambiguation aid, a disambiguation proposal is being discussed. Editors active in the disambiguation project may be well placed to give their opinion on this. Fram ( talk) 07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
List of A9 roads, and other pages like it, are listed as dabs. However, this isn't our usual way to title a dab page, i.e. A9 (disambiguation). A list is not usually considered a dab page, but this is working much like a dab. Is this a set index article? Should the dab tag be removed? Dekimasu よ! 04:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be agreement all around that something can't be both a dab page and a set index article. As a basic example, we currently have List of A9 roads with a roaddis tag, List of highways numbered 9A with a normal dab tag, and a dab page called A9. The first two are also in Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title, and we have a previous argument at Template talk:Roaddis over whether something can be a dab page and be under a list category at the same time.
Our options seem to be:
Which do we like? Dekimasu よ! 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a lot of the articles currently being listed as set indices are actually just dabs, and not articles at all. See WT:DPL for more, but I think there are a lot more recategorizations to be done. Dekimasu よ! 03:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello... I'd appreciate some advice as to how to proceed at Georgina. The page is under consideration for a new home for the article currently at Georgina, Ontario. However, it seems to me that the sheer number of articles using the given name "Georgina" (as evidenced at the newly created page Georgina (disambiguation)) and the fact that references to the given name far outweigh references to the city (in both Google hits and Wikipedia pages views) would speak against this. Anyway, the discussion is at Talk:Georgina, Ontario#Move proposal; any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Ckatz chat spy 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Template:Public transport disambiguation pages is up for deletion. It's a template designed to be placed on dab pages and link to other dab pages, thus aiding navigation. However, it thus creates a large number of links to them, mixed in with the links that need to be fixed. Hoping for input. Dekimasu よ! 13:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue on Talk:Jafar#Redirect usage is in regards to the redirect that is being utilised at the article's hat. Some editors are conveying that Ja'far (disambiguation) is "mundane" and Ja'far (the direct link) should take its place. I've already cited WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages and several Wikipedia examples, though there's only so much I can do alone. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Could someone turn this into a state-of-the-art disambig page? Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is now a discussion about how the disambig, set index and name boxes should categorise pages. See the discussion over at Template talk:Dmbox#Category:All disambiguation pages.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
People may be interested in this discussion about the categorization of set indices, surnames, etc. -- JaGa talk 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure this has already been dealt with somewhere or other, but am concerned about the inclusion of unreferenced/original research items on disambiguation pages. Do Wikipedia no original research, etc. criteria also hold on disamb. pages? My particular case is Francism (disambiguation), a page set up last month and which includes a term that I have never come across before and which gets re-directed to the commonly-accepted term. Feedback? Cheers! -- Technopat ( talk) 16:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to look for a disambiguation tool or bot that I swear I've seen others use from time to time. I see no note of it on the page, so I'm hoping that maybe someone here can point me in the right direction (or maybe I'm just dreaming things up). Thanks. Wizard191 ( talk) 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
We are having a discussion about how to best disambiguate articles about named trains. Feel free to chime in, the more the merrier. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I see this from time to time and usually take off since I'm quite sure it's not allowed. But can't find it in "What not to include." (Did I miss it?) If I am correct, that needs to be there. Currently trying to convince someone promoting a video at Israel lobby disambig page who has reverted and probably will keep doing it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I see several DAB pages having a See also section pointing to articles or other DAB pages which "look" very similar to the DAB page, i.e., having an extra alphabet or having an alphabet missing. I don't find a mention of this kind of disambiguation in the project page. Also what is policy on homophones, if 2 article titles "sound" very similar or sound exactly the same but are written in a different way, do they qualify for disambiguation? I wanted to create DAB links to each other from Reema Sen, Raima Sen and Rimi Sen. Jay ( talk) 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
...at Talk:Queens College to help resolve slow-burning edit war over the target of the redirect ( Queen's College or Queens College, City University of New York). For that matter, is Queens College, City University of New York even the correct title for that page? Dekimasu よ! 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Pradesh would be considered a disambiguation page or not. Should it have {{ Geodis}}? ~EdGl (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Over the past few months, a single editor appears to have engaged in a project to create a disambiguation page for the adjectival form corresponding to every one of the World's 200+ independent states -- e.g., Jamaican, Moldovan, Monegasque, Angolan, etc. Although I am sure this editor was acting in good faith, he or she appears to have been unaware of the concept of a primary topic, and in many cases replaced existing redirects with these new disambig pages. I and other users have in a few cases moved these pages (for example, Jamaican to Jamaican (disambiguation), and reinstated redirects to the primary topic, but I'm sure there are many that haven't been examined yet. I hasten to add that the country is not always the primary topic for these adjectives, although in many cases it is; each one has to be examined on an individual basis. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be getting into a bit of a edit war over at Hun (disambiguation) concerning the correct way to list the term's use in relation to Protestantism and football. It would be helpful to get a few more eyeballs on this and break the deadlock. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a debate about whether the Dio page should belong to a pop band or become a disambiguation page, see Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band). Similar pages are U2 and Iron Maiden. This is also being discussed on the Music Project here.
I note the guideline says "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"."
Any opinions? Thanks. -- Klein zach 02:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thinking a bit more about this — in connection with the lively ongoing debate at Talk:Dio#Dio or Dio (band) — I see two problems with simply defining the 'primary topic' by current Google/WikiStats popularity. 1. It implies that the structure of the encyclopedia should be constantly changing with the popularity of articles. 2. It encourages readers to access popular articles, thereby making the popular, more popular, and the less read, even less read. To take the Dio example, if the band is the primary topic it encourages pop music fans to use Wikipedia, but also discourages those who are interested in other subjects. So Wikipedia would be increasingly identified with popular commercial culture. -- Klein zach 01:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Some disruptive editor named User:SkyWalker has been moronically undoing my good faith reverts at this dab page for no reason. I could really use some help here, as this appears to be pure idiocy on his/her part. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on about whether "RBI" has a primary topic, and if so, what it is. Interested editors may wish to participate. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
A fellow editor has requested that I move Zero-sum (game theory) to zero sum (and consequently, zero sum to Zero sum (disambiguation) - up until today, Zero sum was a redirect to Zero sum (disambiguation), which I repaired). No strong opinion here. Thoughts? bd2412 T 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Here's a link to a discussion I began at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Redirecting plurals. The issue is basically what to do when the plural form is a proper noun in a way that the singular is not. An example of currently inconsistent use is: Freaks/ freak, but Slackers/ Slackers (film). Both are films with sole claim to their names (nothing else is called "Slackers" or "Freaks"), except that each has for its name the plural of a common noun. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found it a common practice for disambiguation pages titled with acronyms of several letters to list multi-word titles that happen to have the initials of the disambiguation page's title, even though the subject does not officially use such an abbreviation. For example, look at Is#Abbreviations. This has many titles that just happen to have the initials IS. LIT lists Long Island Iced Tea, which nowhere in the article says it is abbreviated this way. BOA lists Bank of America, which is mentioned in one of the sources under that title, but also Book of Abraham, which is not. And on Jew (disambiguation), one of the listings is Jimmy Eat World; not only is there no indication the subject uses this name, but since this refers to an ethnic group to which sensitivity is expected, some may be offended.
Some acronyms are well recognized for a subject. For example, MARC has several such meanings, including MARC Train. I see nothing wrong with such a listing. And some acronyms are so well known for one particular meaning that they redirect to that page, and all other more obscure meanings are found on a separate disambiguation page, like IQ redirecting to Intelligence quotient.
Before we go removing such listings from disambiguation pages, I would like to know what others think. Sebwite ( talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any sentiment against restoring the following text to WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate that was deleted on 28 October 2008?:
It is more succinct than the current version and is still cited at WP:PRECISION. — AjaxSmack 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes find references in disambigation pages. I delete them and leave in the edit summary "No references are needed in a disambigation page. If important, incorporate in article".
I think this is a good guideline, and would like to add to the section Wikipedia:Disambigation#What_not_to_include the subsection
== References == A disambigation page should not contain references. If you have a relevant reference, incorporate it into the pertaining article in stead.
Your opinions, please. Debresser ( talk) 12:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I added Wikipedia:Disambiguation#References, which has most of your formulation, but not all of it. Debresser ( talk) 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This important criterion is still missing from the Project page. Answers are welcome here, and in said page as well. -- AVM ( talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth adding to this section about allowing partial matches in disamb. pages about surnames? --neon white talk 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since my edit to the page had been reverted with a comment of "Where was this discussed? This clearly gives the article at the main name space pioroty", I'd like to open discussion on this. In the course of discussion a requested move at Talk:Portland, a user was suggesting that the fact that there were so many more incoming links to Portland, Oregon than any of the other similarly named pages is evidence that that article is the primary topic. I could not understand that reasoning. As far as I have always understood the guidance, the only really useful evidence provided by incoming links is to see the relative proportions of the links to the undisambiguated term. That is, if many, many links were persistently created for the undisambiguated term intending one particular topic, that is evidence that that topic might be the primary topic. On the other hand, if the intended targets of incoming links to the undisambiguated term were distributed amonst various titles, that would mean there is no evidence of primary topic on the basis of incoming links. I realize that if a page already occupies the undisambiguated title, it would be misleading to look at the preponderance of incoming links as evidence that it is the primary topic. In such a case, incoming links is not a useful test unless it can be shown that a substantial proportion of incoming links are intended for some other page. I don't see any case where examining links to already disambiguated titles 9that is, of examining anything other than links to the undisambiguated title) provides any meaningful evidence for determining primary topic. older ≠ wiser 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Yes, basically we agree, though I think the specific situation we're talking about (where one of two otherwise-primary topics can't be at the base name anyway due to naming conventions) can usefully be treated as an exception, precisely because in this situation the debate need not concern which topic is more important or common.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
<-- I'm still perplexed. How is one supposed to use What links here to already disambiguated titles to help determine what a primary topic is? older ≠ wiser 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether Ticket to Ride should be a disambiguation page. Opinions from other editors would be appreciated at Talk:Ticket to Ride or Talk:Ticket to Ride (disambiguation). — Lowellian ( reply) 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved here boldly from WP:RM, since it's not yet a well-defined move request. -- AndrewHowse ( talk) 01:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please help me I am in good faith here but really not sure what to do. I was doing some edits about fonts and looked up links for ascender and descender, checked they went where I wanted them to go (i.e. typography related). Ascender goes to a dab page; I needed ascender (typography). But Descender goes to the typography page.
Now, I could maybe live with that. But ascenders redirects to ascender (climbing) and descenders to descender i.e. the typography article, which doesn't have a dab page but says for the cycling term, see Bicycling terminology.
So: "descender" and "descenders" go to the typography article directly (which is just called "descender", and has a "for x see y") whereas "ascender" goes to a dab page (my desire being at ascender (typography) and "ascenders" goes to a climbing page. That seems rather off-balanced.
I imagine this has come about through the "gor there first" rule whatever it's formally called; and that the bicycling term was inserted by someone more interested in cycling than typefaces. That's just a guess at its evolution and I've no problem with that as such and I'm sure good faith all round but this is a bit of an anomaly and rather surprising. I don't know whether to suggest:
I'm sorry this is probably a bit out of order as I have not posted on those pages, but since I don't really know what pages to post on, and it seems fruitless to post on the redirect pages (and probably on the dab pages), whether there is any policy about that I don't know. I will happily follow the steps but really don't know which steps to follow, so I thought I would throw myself at your mercy first.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm editing (rather than adding to) this my own entry as I just fouled up leaving detritus at the end. Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem with terms that appear to be "even" having Wikipedia article titles that appear to be "uneven". Of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, only one goes to an anthroponymy article, and the others go to dabs. Firefox goes the the browser, but Chrome does not. If one of "ascender" and "descender" has a primary topic and the other does not, then one should go to an article and the other should go to a dab. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I moved 10 Years to 10 Years (band) and created a disambiguation page at 10 Years. Fire 55 ( talk · contribs) asserted on my talk page that the band is the primary topic. Before I could revert my actions (which would require an admin), another user reverted Fire 55's revert of my edits to 10 Years, implying he agrees with my initial decision. So, is the band the primary topic, or should 10 Years be a dab page? ~EdGl ★ 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Following up the "Primary topic for 10 Years?" topic above: I'm often unsure about whether to choose the uppercase or lowercase version when choosing a dab page title for an ambiguous phrase. Usually I opt for the uppercase, as JHunterJ did for 10 Years (disambiguation), when all (or nearly all) of the entries are proper nouns. I only suggested the lowercase version to be inclusive of the Decade entry. I've also seen other editors move dab pages from the uppercase page to the lowercase, asserting that this is "preferred", but without citing a guideline to support it. Is there a guideline or precedent for deciding this issue? And if not, should this page-naming issue be addressed in MOSDAB?-- ShelfSkewed Talk 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering how complicate this can be, this article needs to be more explicit about where people might seek help with topics not clearly addressed here. Especially if Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation is such a place. (It's page also unclear but people have sought help on its talk page.) Thanks. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
'Another similar type of page is the multi-stub article. This is a page containing brief, stub-like information about a number of similarly-named topics, such as saints with the same name (e.g. Abundantius). Like set index articles, these pages are not subject to the disambiguation style guidelines.' I don't get it. I have never heard of these sorts of page before. Where is this rule to be found? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Editors of this page may be interested in this discussion, about deprecating the inclusion of external links on disambiguation and category pages. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone with a better understanding of the rules could look at the situation with Brian Nelson. Originally there were only two Brian Nelson's on Wikipedia, so it was decided one would be the primary page, and the second would be disambiguated as "Brian Nelson (descriptor)" with a top hat saying "not to be confused with the other Brian Nelson". There was also a "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page created. Then about a month later, a third Brian Nelson was added to Wikipedia. What should happen? My understanding is, the "Brian Nelson" page becomes the new dab page, the "Brian Nelson (disambiguation)" page goes away (redirects to "Brian Nelson" which is now the dab page), and the three Brian Nelson's now all have the format "Brian Nelson (descriptor)". Is this correct? I've seen this often done, but am having trouble finding the MOS guidelines for it. Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Someone posted a question on the Help Desk related to disambiguation here (dealing with primary topic) ~EdGl ★ 14:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for a certain template. For example at Running amok, I see: {{about|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok (disambiguation)}}. And I wonder if there is a template like {{ about}}, which I don't have to include „ (disambiguation)” into using it. A template that would produce the same output, using: {{aboutX|the '''amok''' behaviour and state of mind|other potential meanings|Amok}}. I am looking for that aboutX template. There should be equivalent to every disambiguation template, for cases when you link to a page that contains „ (disambiguation)” into it or not. Thanks Ark25 ( talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
redirect|Amok}}
there, producing:{{
redirect}}
-type hatnote is normally more appropriate (as illustrated by JHJ above).--
Kotniski (
talk) 06:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC){{otheruses4|{{{1}}}||{{{2}}} (disambiguation)}}
Sorry for late answer. I just created the otheruses9 template. In case the template is considered useful, it should be advertised with a more sugestive name, like "this1" (this2 is taken already), or I can suggest "dabthis" ( = "this" with disambiguation ) or "dabnote" ( = disambiguation note).
For example at Sydney, Nova Scotia:
{{otheruses|Sidney}}
{{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{otheruses2|Sidney}} {{This|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}
{{This1|the community in Nova Scotia, Canada|Sydney}}
Therefore, if the editor is lazy, they can use "otheruses" or "otheruses2". If not, use "this" or "this1".
However, main question is: What is the recommended procedure: articles like Sydney, Nova Scotia, Evolution (film) shall include disambiguation note or not? For example many Avalon towns articles do not have any: Avalon, New South Wales, Avalon, Victoria etc; and most of the articles that end with (film) dont have disambiguation note. Seems Sydney, Nova Scotia is an exception. Therefore, if it's recommended to include a disambiguation note on that kind of articles, then this template would be quite useful. Otherwise, it would be only used in articles like The African Queen, where {{this|the film|African Queen (disambiguation)}} can be replaced with {{otheruses9|the film|African Queen}} - because of the "The" particle in the article name. Ark25 ( talk) 01:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)