![]() | 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Proposal: Change Disambiguation and Deletion policy pages to eliminate deletion of two-item disambiguation pages.
IMO, deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense. If neither of two exact match items is primary, all should agree the dab is needed. If one of two is primary, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept. Why?
Why not?
The current process described in wp:Disambiguation's wp:TWODABS section involves tagging TWODABS disambiguation pages with {{ Only-two-dabs}}, and allowing deletion if, after some non-defined length of time, other items are not added. Let's stop the bureaucracy, reduce slightly the pipeline of articles into AFD, stop the slow churning that goes on here, and get rid of one small component of Wikipedia's negativity. RFC reopened by Gorthian ( talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC); originally opened by -- do ncr am 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
disambiguation pages are glorified redirects" is pretty ingenuous. There's a lot of thought and effort that go into a good dab page, even if there are only two entries. — Gorthian ( talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
10 areas for valid disagreement
|
---|
|
off topic
|
---|
|
Their existence is not harmful: but I think it can be. Consider: Two articles exist, "Thingabc" (the primary topic - a village in Lancashire) and "Thingabc (album)". A hatnote on "Thingabc" points to the album. No problem. The editor who then wants to create "Thingabc (film)" finds the article at the base name, and expands the hatnote to point to this third sense of "Thingabc". No problem. But if in the mean time someone has created the unnecessary "Thingabc (disambiguation)", not linked from the primary topic, then the hatnote will be expanded but not the dab page. If anyone then finds the dab page they will not be led to the film. So the existence of a dab page unlinked from the primary topic is potentially harmful, as well as unnecessary. Pam D 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
We allow it to exist← as a user who feels strongly, warn and handle, don't know what else to say. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
For the Foobarian person, see John Doe (foo).). -- Tavix ( talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
high level of consensusrequired from guideline proposals.) -- Tavix ( talk) 15:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.-- Tavix ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Re Mobile phone safety, more opinions are sought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile phone safety . Widefox; talk 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
So I've just created a guide on how to change the link color of disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Visualizing disambiguation pages.
It is based on Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects and can be very useful by allowing you to quickly identify (especially faulty) disambig links in articles.
Note that the color could be changed.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't do much with dabs and redirects, so I'm posting here for advice. I just created Scoops, an article about a 1930s UK magazine. I made the title without disambiguation because all the articles listed at the dab page, Scoop, are for the singular form, so this is the only article with the plural name. Scoops previously redirected to Scoop, unsurprisingly. It now has a hatnote, but since there's no dab page named Scoops (disambiguation) I've pointed the hatnote at Scoop. Is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like your opinions on the ADA page. I tried to organize the long list into manageable and sensible categories (Headings and Sub-headings). I also tried to put the more recognizable items closer to the top (rather than put headings in alpha. sort). Your thoughts? Would you do it differently?
Another question: the Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area has the word "In" preceding most headings and subheadings, yet I don't see this very often. Should "in" be used headings and subheadings?
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 01:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
For a long time I've wanted to say that I never use the "short list format" ie "In" as detailed in MOS:DABGROUPING, consider it obsolete, and I convert all I come across to the "long list format". Two reasons, 1. KISS - the format takes more effort to write and more importantly IMHO looks less clear for all list lengths both on desktop and mobile 2. the lack of sections is significantly less useful as a navigation aid for our growing proportion of mobile users which are aided with a section menu for the section headings. It would please me to drop/deprecate that format completely from MOSDAB and the essay (which I've seen for the first time). As User:JHunterJ points out, according to style elsewhere (I've seen it recently but can't place where) the short format seems to contradict our broader style guideline. Widefox; talk 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
==subheadings==
..or TOC in the disambig pages, just categories? Dig Deeper ( talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for some opinions on what to do with this DAB page. It was originally a redirect to Digital Revolution. Then it was made into a DAB when a book by that name was added. The only link to it is from 3D printing, which adds another wrinkle.
I don't see anything in Digital Revolution that talks about it being a Third Industrial Revolution. I don't think the original redirect should have been created and I should remove it entirely - leaving a one item DAB page which would need to be deleted.
3D Printing says 3D printing is the third industrial revolution. That needs to be unlinked. I could put 3D printing in the DAB page and keep it as a two-item DAB. MB 06:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Digital Revolution, also sometimes called the third industrial revolution, is....There are a few different mentions of "Third industrial revolution" on Wikipedia, including two other books, but Rifkin's book dominates the search. The others are only passing mentions, nowhere near article status. — Gorthian ( talk) 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am surprised that explicitly visiting "Wings" goes to "wing" (the generic part of a bird), despite the band Wings being a famous one. Could someone confirm that this matches policy? I'm having trouble with the legalese. (For the sake of clarity, pretend there's nothing else called "wing" or "wings" on the entire wiki: just the bird-part and the band.) Equinox ◑ 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled onto these two DAB pages, both for geo locations. There are places called Miana in each. I could put everything into Mianeh and redirect Miana to there, or put all the Mianas in Miana and add See alsos in each referring to the other. Does anyone have an opinion which solution is better? MB 06:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This DAB was created a month ago (and not by a new editor) but clearly has issues. Since there is only one notable person by this name, there is no need for a DAB page. I can remove the red-linked one per MOSDAB. Then what? I could take it to technical requests at RM to move the artist back to the primary name, or should I go to AFD first since the editor who created the DAB is likely to object? MB 07:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I told a coworker yesterday that I was planning on seeing "Star Wars" after work and she knew what I was talking about (moreso than she would have if I said "Rogue One"), and basically any time a new Star Wars film has been in theatres it has almost certainly been referred to (casually) as simply "Star Wars". Does this mean that the article title " Star Wars (film)" is still technically ambiguous, even if only during periods when there is a new film in the franchise?
I posted on the talk page saying that perhaps a headnote should be added linking to the article that lists all the other films, but then I remembered that someone once told me that we don't use parenthetical disambiguators that don't by themselves fully disambiguate titles. The Avengers (2012 film) can't be moved to The Avengers (film) for this reason even though it is a much more common search than the only other film with that title. "Star Wars" is kind of muddier because it's rare to refer to any film other than the first simply as "Star Wars" in print (although it almost certanly does happen) or retroactively, and only one film was ever released with that as its "official" title.
So would a headnote be a out-of-place because it would explicitly undermine the parenthetically disambiguated title? I really don't think an RM to Star Wars (1977 film) would be a good idea, mind.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Both RM discussions are ongoing. I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, a few months ago I posted a question regarding whether a major city's sports teams should be included on dab pages for the city's name, over at Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Sports. Being a dab talk page, it's far from shocking that the response was crickets. However, I'm still curious about the issue, so I wouldn't mind if some dab-minded folks weighed in. Thanks - Antepenultimate ( talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello All, I wish to create a W:DAB for Norker, for reasons stated on it's talk page. However, when I googled Wikipedia Template, and disambiguation, I couldn't find any template that showed how to easily create one. I successfully used a template to create a redirect and was hoping there was a template for protocol pages like this. Does anyone know where it is if it exists, and if not how to easily make a DAB page? Thanks L3X1 ( talk) 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:refer}}
, which produces the opening line. End with {{disambiguation}}
. In between, type it yourself following the pattern of existing dab pages, and looking at
WP:MOSDAB.
Pam
D
08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
More opinions are sought at (our most viewed dab page ~1M/day every year) Talk:'Tis the Season. Widefox; talk 13:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or related discussions about whether or not "The" as a prefix is enough of a disambiguation between two topics? I am having difficulty finding anything because "the" is not searchable as too common of a word, plus "article" being both grammar and what we call Wikipedia mainspace pages. Please ping me here if you know of something to read. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
After participating in a handful of move discussions, it seems like we might want to document some of the factors involved in when a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is appropriate for surnames. It is already pretty well established how to handle people as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for mononyms. But I see move requests go both ways, many of the times rehashing the same points, for when a PD is appropriate when a mononym is not involved. It seems to me that when it comes to names, that are not clearly a mononym, the only case for a PRIMARYREDIRECT is when the surname alone is an extremely COMMONNAME. There seems to be a lot of support that surnames such as even extremely popular targets such as Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and Otto von Bismarck. It appears people become particularly impassioned about these being PRIMARYREDIRECTS based on what comes to mind, so we end up with exceptions like Obama. The current discussion that comes to mind is Talk:Gladstone. Tiggerjay ( talk) 20:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The RfD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Tylenol might be of interest to this page's watchers. Tylenol (a drug brand) currently redirects to Paracetamol (Tylenol's active ingredient), yet at the same time there is a disambiguated stand-alone page about the brand: Tylenol (brand). -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs some clarifications:
A tremendous amount of pointless churn and dispute could be avoided at WP:RM (i.e., at the talk pages of thousands of articles, discussions which don't have anything to do with actually improving the articles), if these clarifications were added, in whatever wording and whatever number adjustments seem reasonable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have seen so many discussions about "primary topic" and all the dab stuff. Yet there's not an {{ FAQ}} banner. If we have an FAQ on top of the page, what frequently asked questions shall we insert? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a (somewhat disorganized) RfC being held at Talk:Nissan_Caravan#RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles seeking to determine whether longstanding disambiguation hatnotes distinguishing Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan which were removed unilaterally by User:Mr.choppers in opposition to other editors prior to initiating an RfC should instead remain in place/be restored in some form. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've had debates with other editors about whether it's appropriate to have a dictionary entry as the lead sentence (paragraph, page...) on a disambiguation page. MOS:DAB seems quite clear on this, at MOS:WTLINK:
However, that "(see link)" clause kicks back to here, specifically WP:DABDIC, where it says:
This gets interpreted as a license to add a lead dictionary definition to any disambiguation page.
Looking back at when this was added here in 2006, the revision summary refers to what "was agreed on WP:MOSDAB", which did not say at that time anything about exceptions -- it just said, as it does now, "no; include a Wiktionary link".
I don't believe I've ever seen a dab page where adding a top definition of any kind is helpful for disambiguation. Practically by definition, if there's a disambiguation page, the "common meaning" is ambiguous. (If there's a preferred meaning, that sounds an awful lot like a primary topic, and we have a well-defined practice for dealing with that.)
I propose striking the sentence " A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." Alternatively, I would like to see a clearer description and examples of when this would be appropriate.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 08:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm a little confused with where to put this so if I'm in the wrong place, I apologise. I haven't dealt with disambiguation pages before, I don't think.
I was looking up LRU on Google and was directed to the disambiguation page on Wiki:
/info/en/?search=LRU
The first entry was clearly the one I wanted but I was a little confused by the brief summary, which is sometimes all you need to know, so I read the article. Having done so, I'm wondering if the text on the disambiguation page is accurate or should be changed. (Please note, out of my field of expertise, which is why I'm throwing this over to someone else.) The text reads:
"Line-replaceable unit, a complex component of a vehicle that can be replaced quickly at the organizational level."
It's that word, 'organizational' the I'm wondering about - should it be 'operational' instead?
Thanks for dealing with this, whoever does.
Mathsgirl ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to introduce and explain this term somewhere, and provide an anchor for OVERDIS, OVERDAB and OVERDISAMBIG shortcuts to it. The concept comes up frequently at RM, and has for years, but is not properly codified in the DAB rules. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The parenthetical phrase should only include the minimum information necessary to distinguish the topic from others with the same name. For example, if there is only one footballer named "Joe Blenkinsop", his article should be titled "Joe Blenkinsop (footballer)", not "Joe Blenkinsop (English footballer, born 1965)".
Something needs to be done about these two WP:INCOMPDAB pages. bd2412 T 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
More opinions on the styling of a primary topic are welcome at Fake news (disambiguation) in the section Talk:Fake news (disambiguation)#Primary topic . Widefox; talk 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
In
"Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:
The last two seem like they are supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. But "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic" and the first two examples seem to say 'these questions are *independent* of whether this should be the primary topic,' which is not the same thing. I think this need clarifying. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. As I read the list, they all seem to be describing criteria that in various ways are not exclusively determinant of primary topic. And I'm also not sure I agree with @ Trystan:'s assessment that the
next section (Birmingham, Perth etc.) conveys that relevance only to particular groups is a relevant criteria for determining a primary topic.That section seems fairly clear that even though for some groups (such as USians and Scots) Birmingham and Perth might have one specific primary referent, in the global context the primary topic for these terms are otherwise. That is to say, I think it describes the third point rather than contradicts it. For the fourth bullet, I agree it is largely a restatement of long-term significance older ≠ wiser 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:
What to do RMs on hurricanes, tornados, and tropical storms, like Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)#Requested move 5 February 2017? I don't think I can provide so many. Clearly, those RMs come and then usually fail. What else to do about this issue if we can't limit the number of such RMs in the future? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged here, for obvious reasons. Essentially, I relisted them all RMs without comments for the simple reason of, well, given this issue, I expected most of them to get at least one oppose !vote; because of that, I didn't want to close and move it as uncontroversial since it very much was, and I didn't want to close it immediately as not moved because, well, that's just bad faith. If socks opened the RM then that's a different matter, but I honestly didn't suspect that at the time, nor did I realize (or notice) that some of the RMs were open just a single week after the other one closed. Sky Warrior 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Putting aside the sockpuppet issue for a minute, my interpretation of WP:NCDAB is that you should only use parenthetical disambiguation in titles when natural disambiguation isn't possible. In the case of hurricane names that have only been used once, there is no need for further disambiguation if the title is "Hurricane XXXX", so I would favor removing the "(year)" part in those cases. Kaldari ( talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Shall we continue the case-by-case method, or shall we make a wider, central discussion? George Ho ( talk) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There are discussions in several venues concerning this question.
Additional input welcome. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient tree. — Gorthian ( talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we add Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Subpages (particularly ones in user-space) to the list? I just like things to be explicit. As it is I'm not completely sure what consensus is. I'm fairly certain but I'd like to be 100%. Not really sure if it is notable enough though. Endercase ( talk) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion at WP:TV, there is a discussion on a proposal to harmonize the text at WP:NCTV with the text at MOS:TV#Naming conventions in regards to the necessity of disambiguation text for List of episode or List of character articles. Please add any thoughts or comments to the discussion on this proposal, which can be found, here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY currently says:
...
Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:
- Historical age ( Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man)
- If a topic was the original ( Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)
- Principal relevance only to certain people or groups
- If a topic has only ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently ( Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)
I know this has been discussed before, but that third bullet is still causing confusion. At this discussion Laurel Lodged has interpreted the third bullet to mean that certain people (like Patrick Leahy cannot have "principal relevance" which Laurel seems to think means an article about a person cannot be a primary topic for the name of the person. I am going to modify the wording to be similar to the 2nd and 4th bullets so that it's more clear:
- If a topic has principal relevance only to certain people or groups
If anyone has any suggestions on how to clarify it even better, that would be great. In particular, maybe someone has an example in mind? Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Talk of moving the goal posts. This is a highly unethical thing to do in the middle of a discussion I would have thought. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:
- While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. ( Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man)
- Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary. ( Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)
- A topic may have principle relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as a local place name), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience.
- A topic that has only achieved to widespread popularity recently should be weighed against the longer-term significance of alternative topics. ( Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)
-- Trystan ( talk) 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Trystan, regarding the revised fourth bullet, I think the main concern is when topics that are recently popular are also likely to be brief in popularity. However, say an unknown is nominated to be on the SCOTUS and all other uses of that name are relatively obscure. This person's popularity suddenly spikes of course, but given that she is now on the SCOTUS we know this is not just a flash in the pan, and therefore the recentism is not very important. Can we capture that? How about this?
-- В²C ☎ 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The answer probably exist for this question, but I ask that an answer be indulged to me for I only have time for the asking right now. Is it allowed to link an ambiguous term to a Wiktionary page for disambiguation of the term and justification of the term's placement on a DAB page? Thanks.-- John Cline ( talk) 15:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
Wiktionary}}
, which adds a link to Wiktionary in the upper-right corner. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The section " Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include begins with a discussion of what not to include in an entry and then has a discussion of what entries not to include. These are actually distinct topics that should be under separate headings.
As a separate matter, Under the heading "Related subjects" it says, "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article." I think that more guidance should be provide here, and also at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Entries to clarify if an entry deserves inclusion if it is minimally mentioned in the target article. For example, Oukhellou consists of two entries, both of which are redirects, and in each case the name appears but the reader learns almost nothing about the topics. In particular, the entry Yazmin Oukhellou redirects to The Only Way Is Essex (series 20), and all one learns there is that Yazmin Oukellou was a member of the cast. Adam Oukhellou redirects to Ex on the Beach (series 6), and all one learns there is that Adam Oukhellou appeared on two episodes, that his hometown is London, and the names of individuals with whom he had "Ex" relationships. I believe that these redirects should be treated as if they were redlinks. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links, it explains, "A link to a non-existent article (a 'red link') should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." So, I would propose this language:
If you agree that this is a a problem, please offer constructive suggestions and improvements on this language and placement among Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. If you disagree and think the Oukhellou entries are proper for Wikipedia disambiguations, please share that as well. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#Liveable. MB 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The first part of PRIMARYTOPIC currently says:
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage ( Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance ( Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic.
Per the above discussion with SmokeyJoe, which I summarize as follows: giving long-term significance separate consideration is redundant to giving usage in reliable sources consideration (since usage in reliable sources already accounts for long-term significance by having more coverage of topics with long-term significance), I hereby propose changing the above to this:
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is only one criterion for determining a primary topic:
- A topic is primary for a term, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Likelihood of being sought is primarily determined by looking at how the term in question is used in reliable sources and by article access statistics.
Note that by looking at usage in reliable sources we are implicitly accounting for the long-term significance of the various uses of the term in question. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to assess long-term significance directly ourselves.
-- В²C ☎ 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@
SmokeyJoe: I'm not sure what disturbs you with the "go" searching, as you call it. The WP search box, both on desktop and on mobile, displays a set of matching articles to the reader, dynamically as the query is typed. If we have a bunch of similar titles, it's extremely easy to pick the correct one, provided that article titles have been properly chosen (which is most often the case). You only get the "go" effect if you quickly type your search term followed by Enter. However, for most words, it's faster to push the down-arrow a couple times and "go" (or tap the entry you want on mobile) rather than keep typing the full word. Given this UX setuop user experience, adding an intermediary "search results" page looks totally superfluous. —
JFG
talk
04:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
And what makes an article's title controversial? Unclear and/or conflicting guidance about what the title should be for that article. This is why my main goal within the realm of article titles at WP is wording and interpreting the guidance (policy, guidelines, conventions) in a consistent manner. Adding the long-term significance criterion to primary topic was probably the biggest step in the wrong direction in this respect that I'm aware of. I mean, it's explicitly creating conflicting guidance for the same title. Consider "likelihood of being sought" and the title should be A, consider long-term significance and the title should be B. Okay, duke it out!
What happens is that people can provide reasonable arguments based in policy for whichever title their personal predilections favor. It creates a steaming pile of excrement where WP:JDLI and WP:Wikilawyering "justifications" thrive. Obviously this proposal isn't going anywhere, but I urge everyone to think this through over the coming weeks and months, and remember these words any time you encounter an RM discussion involving primary topic, and the inevitable silly tug-of-war between likelihood of being sought and long-term significance arguments. People like to claim we weigh these two considerations, but we have no objective way to compare them. In the Corvette example both are man-made transportation devices and the car has twice as many page views as the small ship class, yet the ship class is at the base name because it has a longer history? My point is you can make strong arguments for either case, and there is no way to really settle this. Consider that we have the disambiguated Boston, Lincolnshire, founded around 1200, while the much newer namesake in America is at the base name. Again, it can arguably go either way. And it is argued both ways. And there is no reason to believe these and countless other cases with equally conflicting guidance won't be argued again. And again and again. All because some believe "long term significance" needs to be given explicit consideration. I say, the degree to which the long-term significance is significant is manifested within the likelihood of the topic being sought, so when we look at likelihood of being sought, we are inherently already giving long-term significance appropriate consideration. And that's all the consideration it requires. Giving long-term significance explicit consideration simply creates conflict about what titles should be. To what end? So articles like Corvette are not at titles like Corvette (ship)? Is that worth all the ambiguity (about what the title should be) and arguing? -- В²C ☎ 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Martin Luther may well be highly notable, but his popularity among random wikipedia readers does not eclipse all other uses of the surname.Right, conveniently forgetting that nearly all other uses of the surname are derived from this one Luther guy from 1483. — JFG talk 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I would love the criterion "topic that is the basis for other topics named after it" being included as an important point for long-term significance. From an encyclopedic perspective, this is this a strong reason for having things like Corvette or Avatar at the base name, or at least to oppose having a popular search term at the base name (like Madonna or Trump).
I would also like to formalize in the guideline that, in case of two or more topics competing for the term, those should be placed together at the top of the DAB page. This is common practice anyway, even if it has never been recorded in policy, and policies should reflect accepted common usage. Diego ( talk) 16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The Hungarian On the Spot (documentary TV series) is a ambiguously titled as there was also a notable Canadian documentary TV series, which is now at On the Spot (Canadian TV series) -- indeed, I came across the Hungarian one by accident. I think they should both be retitled as On the Spot (Hungarian documentary TV series) and On the Spot (Canadian documentary TV series). I don't see why the newer Hungarian series would be granted the primary topic as a doc series. Do others agree? But then what would we do with the On the Spot (documentary TV series)? The gamut of On the Spot TV series are listed at On the spot, but these are the only two documentary series. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be noted that on July 23, 2012, the Mike Flynn disambiguation page was redirected to the Michael Flynn disambiguation page where it remained for nearly 5 years, until May 20, 2017, when these two dab pages were again separated (with the edit summary "More Mikes than Michaels"). Since most such dab pages keep the two forms combined (i.e. Mike Smith redirects to Michael Smith), editors may agree that, in this particular instance, "Michael" should redirect to "Mike". Taking into account that, less than a month ago, on May 27, 2017, General Michael Flynn became the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Michael Flynn dab page, the suggestion of combining all the Mikes and Michaels under Mike Flynn, rather than under Michael Flynn (disambiguation), has the additional advantage of eliminating the need for the qualifier "(disambiguation)". The current [as of this writing] WP:RM discussion at Talk:Mike Flynn#Requested move 13 June 2017 indirectly raises / touches upon these issues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Each of these have 2 #redirect targets (only the first works, of course), that someone here might want to turn into disambig pages, or at least fixed in some way.
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The introductory line at Maneka is: "Maneka is a common English spelling of the Sanskrit and Hindi: मेनका. It is also spelled Menaka, and may refer to:". Maneka does not even contain a link to Menaka (disambiguation), which also does not contain a reciprocal link to Maneka but does contain two ( Menaka (actress) and Maneka Gandhi) of Maneka's five entries. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion that may be of interest at Talk:Tom Baker (English actor) § Page Move.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Lhasa (disambiguation). Narky Blert ( talk) 11:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Other (disambiguation). Other members of this WikiProject may wish to contribute. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:INTDAB section, one of the the examples is:
An intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)", placed in the "See also" section of a disambiguation page
It seems to make sense that this would apply whether or not it is in the "See also" section. Can we remove that from the example?-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do some small-scale disambiguation work, but am not sure of the proper procedure here. William Brown (disambiguation) exists, and has a number of "see also"s for related disambiguation pages: Willie Brown, Bill Brown, William Browne, etc. William J. Brown (disambiguation) seems to have been created in August, with three men listed. Two of them showed up in the larger William Brown (disambiguation), but one ( William J. Brown (architect)) did not, so I added a link.
It seems kind of weird to me to split out one middle initial and not others, and maybe not your standard procedure? For example, the Willie Browns do not show up in William Brown, I believe. I figured I'd ask here, but if there's a better place, feel free to point me to it. Cleancutkid ( talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Advice appreciated at Talk:Great Experiment#Great Experiment please. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a style guideline as to whether the (actress) parenthetical should be used for female performers? I noticed the page Danielle Spencer (actor) was changed from Danielle Spencer (actress) but I cannot find a definitive statement on whether this change should hold. 9 3 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. We really need your help on sorting out the following issue: Talk:Sex characteristics#RfC: Should the article be merged? If so, should it be the destination point for the merge?. A permalink for it is here. This issue concerns one Wikipedia article being titled " Sexual characteristics" and the other being titled " Sex characteristics." Because of this, a merge has been proposed to address confusion. At the moment, the thing that somewhat distinguishes the latter article is the inclusion of intersex/legal material. Some editors have opposed merging the article, stating that we should not be mixing the legal terminology about sex characteristics (which is mainly about intersex people) with the purely biological material about sex characteristics, and that two separate articles are therefore reasonable. Titles for renaming the latter article have been proposed. Other editors have stated that the latter article already mixes the two aspects, that one article can adequately cover both since the legal material also concerns biology, and that there are already existing intersex articles for the intersex/legal material; these can be used to address all of the intersex/legal material currently in the article, with nothing but a summary of the issues in the Sex characteristics article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Two WP:RM discussions — Talk:Kate Lee (English singer)#Requested move 4 September 2017 and Talk:Katherine Lee#Requested move 4 September 2017 raise some issues which may be of interest to editors who contribute to resolving disambiguation concerns. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oisín is very often referred to as Oisin, and vice versa. This feels wrong to me, but it's prominent enough that I feel like someone must have thought about it and based the status quo on some guideline or policy, so I figured I'd ask here rather than open an RM and create a big unnecessary mess. I can't find anything on this page justifying it, just that natural disambiguation is better than parenthetical disambiguation
(It's not really the same problem since it does disambiguate, but it still feels completely arbitrary and looks ugly so I might as well also link this.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that we're at it, could we rename the template {{ only two dabs}} to {{ primary with two dabs}}? The template is being incorrectly applied to disambiguation pages with no primary topic, like this and this. There are not many DABs using it, anyway; so it wouldn't have a large impact. Diego ( talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree too that "one other topic" is a good name for the template as it is currently worded. But I have applied the template to 2-dabs pages with no primary topic thinking (although admittedly failing to do anything about it) that the wording of the template doesn't fit, rather than the name of the template is wrong. Doesn't there need to be a way of drawing attention to, and therefore categorising, dab pages with no primary topic and only 2 entries, in order to either encourage more entries, or move the page because there actually is a primary topic? (The section above is related) Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The editing guideline cites an example, John Quested, where there are 2 articles to be disambiguated, but there is no clear primary topic, and gives a solution of a two-entry dab page at the base name. My problem with this is that everyone's a loser. Let's say 50% of readers want the RAF officer, and 50% want the producer (but didn't know when they used the Search box whether their query was an RAF officer or a producer). With the dab page, 100% of users require an extra click to get to what they want. If one of the articles was, even arbitrarily, chosen as primary topic, and had a hatnote to the only other topic, then only 50% of searchers require the extra click (good for users), and Wikipedia has one less WP:COSTLY dab page to maintain (good for editors). "There are three important aspects to disambiguation ... Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." So where there is uncertainty (or indecision) about which article of two to allocate as a primary topic, an arbitrary choice is better than no choice, isn't it? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
For}}
cases where TWODABS has been applied. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if we can do something to identify commonly mislinked topics- Having a disambiguation page whenever in doubt definitely helps. I created First post, and now I get a warning every time someone creates a wrong link that may go to either The First Post (British) or Firstpost (Indian). The editor creating the ambiguous link to a DAB page will too get a notice from the bot. Diego ( talk) 11:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose changing "Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors" to "Direct links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are always errors". Because they are, as the rest of WP:INTDAB makes clear, and as WP:DPL regulars know all too well, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
non-redirectedexclude intentional links if the dab page has "(disambiguation)" in its title? – Uanfala 20:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
the whole of, or can we allow links to Vague term (disambiguation)#Section as in the hatnote on Loved (song)? Certes ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Further opinions are welcome about their validity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Redirects_to_dab_pages. (apologies for this adding this specific dab question Enclosure (disambiguation) to the more general discussion above where redirects are mentioned.) Widefox; talk 00:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently at this RM discussion there was much disagreement over whether to use comma or parenthetical disambiguation in the title of two statue-related articles, which were recently moved to parenthetical style. Indeed, there are many articles in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Statues by subject use WP:COMMADIS rather than WP:PARENDIS to disambiguate the location of a statue, and there is nothing in WP:COMMADIS which prohibits its use to geographical locations only. Any thoughts? I personally don't see anything wrong with using comma disambiguation with such articles.-- Nevé – selbert 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
DPLbot politely warns editors who link to dabs. However, there's another way to create bad links: by moving an article and replacing (the redirect from) its old title by a dab. Most contributors to this talk page will have cleaned up after quite a few of those moves. Should we be notifying those editors in some standard way that they've done half a job? Of course, their contribution is positive (half a job is better than none) but sometimes they're the best people to finish it off. That's especially true in a specialised field where the distinction between meanings is subtle. (I gave up on White Russia (malplaced) and Modern synthesis, and asked for expert help.) Any thoughts? Certes ( talk) 10:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There's discussion about standardizing naming of ship index pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Ship Index pages - another try and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Proposal that may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a third opinion on Heater please. I can't really discuss it with the other editor as they have a dynamic IP. I don't want to start an edit war, but does the team think I should keep reverting this change, or should we create a redirect such as Heater (building) → HVAC#Heating and divert the existing links there? (Hey, I found yet another way to create bad links...) Certes ( talk) 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion would be welcome at redirect Talk page Talk:Escort ship#Convert to disambig page. Mathglot ( talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm appalled by the use of the expression "the AD era" in number disambig pages: ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) e.g., "the eighth year of the AD era". (The expression also shows up at Year Zero and Phantom time hypothesis.) When looking for an adjective to modify the word "era", there is already a perfectly good adjective in common use and it is common, as in, "the common era."
AD stands for the prepositional phrase Anno domini (in the year of the Lord), so the expression "the fifth year of the AD era" is literally equivalent to "the fifth year of the in the year of the Lord era", which is an abomination. Mathglot ( talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I have started a draft on the concept of "looking" which I expect will end up being the primary topic for about a half dozen current disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
See new RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC about river disambiguation conventions. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see: WT:WikiProject Dogs#Domestic animal breed page names, an informal RfC of sorts, in response to a WP:RM discussion the (entirely routine) outcome of which someone objects to. The proposal would reverse over two years of RM discussions to apply natural disambiguation to animal breed article titles, and instead impose not just parenthetic, but multi-word parenthetic, plus allow it to be variable by wikiproject. Perhaps this is a good idea, perhaps not.
I think broader input is needed specifically because a) it's an attempt overturn long-standing and many-times-confirmed consensus (which is possible but unlikely without a strong site-wide showing of agreement), yet b) the discussion has not been "advertised" anywhere but wikiprojects about animal breeds (i.e., the only editors who've ever favored parenthetic disambiguation in such cases, because it matches breeder jargon better, have effectively been directly canvassed, though I doubt that was the intent). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to have a primary parenthetical disambiguation (album) (other artist album) tabled by editor see Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(music)#Proposal for (debut album) etc. dab In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (born 1958)#Discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at Talk:Other (philosophy)#Requested move 30 December 2017 which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. -- wooden superman 09:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Esplanade#WP:PTOPIC? which may be of interest to other editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Proposal: Change Disambiguation and Deletion policy pages to eliminate deletion of two-item disambiguation pages.
IMO, deletion of disambiguation pages based on wp:TWODABS NEVER makes sense. If neither of two exact match items is primary, all should agree the dab is needed. If one of two is primary, the dab page is not absolutely required, but if it is created, it should be kept. Why?
Why not?
The current process described in wp:Disambiguation's wp:TWODABS section involves tagging TWODABS disambiguation pages with {{ Only-two-dabs}}, and allowing deletion if, after some non-defined length of time, other items are not added. Let's stop the bureaucracy, reduce slightly the pipeline of articles into AFD, stop the slow churning that goes on here, and get rid of one small component of Wikipedia's negativity. RFC reopened by Gorthian ( talk) 22:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC); originally opened by -- do ncr am 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
disambiguation pages are glorified redirects" is pretty ingenuous. There's a lot of thought and effort that go into a good dab page, even if there are only two entries. — Gorthian ( talk) 01:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
10 areas for valid disagreement
|
---|
|
off topic
|
---|
|
Their existence is not harmful: but I think it can be. Consider: Two articles exist, "Thingabc" (the primary topic - a village in Lancashire) and "Thingabc (album)". A hatnote on "Thingabc" points to the album. No problem. The editor who then wants to create "Thingabc (film)" finds the article at the base name, and expands the hatnote to point to this third sense of "Thingabc". No problem. But if in the mean time someone has created the unnecessary "Thingabc (disambiguation)", not linked from the primary topic, then the hatnote will be expanded but not the dab page. If anyone then finds the dab page they will not be led to the film. So the existence of a dab page unlinked from the primary topic is potentially harmful, as well as unnecessary. Pam D 07:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
We allow it to exist← as a user who feels strongly, warn and handle, don't know what else to say. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
For the Foobarian person, see John Doe (foo).). -- Tavix ( talk) 00:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
high level of consensusrequired from guideline proposals.) -- Tavix ( talk) 15:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.-- Tavix ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Re Mobile phone safety, more opinions are sought at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile phone safety . Widefox; talk 01:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
So I've just created a guide on how to change the link color of disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Visualizing disambiguation pages.
It is based on Wikipedia:Visualizing redirects and can be very useful by allowing you to quickly identify (especially faulty) disambig links in articles.
Note that the color could be changed.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 09:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't do much with dabs and redirects, so I'm posting here for advice. I just created Scoops, an article about a 1930s UK magazine. I made the title without disambiguation because all the articles listed at the dab page, Scoop, are for the singular form, so this is the only article with the plural name. Scoops previously redirected to Scoop, unsurprisingly. It now has a hatnote, but since there's no dab page named Scoops (disambiguation) I've pointed the hatnote at Scoop. Is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like your opinions on the ADA page. I tried to organize the long list into manageable and sensible categories (Headings and Sub-headings). I also tried to put the more recognizable items closer to the top (rather than put headings in alpha. sort). Your thoughts? Would you do it differently?
Another question: the Wikipedia:Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area has the word "In" preceding most headings and subheadings, yet I don't see this very often. Should "in" be used headings and subheadings?
Thanks Dig Deeper ( talk) 01:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
For a long time I've wanted to say that I never use the "short list format" ie "In" as detailed in MOS:DABGROUPING, consider it obsolete, and I convert all I come across to the "long list format". Two reasons, 1. KISS - the format takes more effort to write and more importantly IMHO looks less clear for all list lengths both on desktop and mobile 2. the lack of sections is significantly less useful as a navigation aid for our growing proportion of mobile users which are aided with a section menu for the section headings. It would please me to drop/deprecate that format completely from MOSDAB and the essay (which I've seen for the first time). As User:JHunterJ points out, according to style elsewhere (I've seen it recently but can't place where) the short format seems to contradict our broader style guideline. Widefox; talk 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
==subheadings==
..or TOC in the disambig pages, just categories? Dig Deeper ( talk) 05:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for some opinions on what to do with this DAB page. It was originally a redirect to Digital Revolution. Then it was made into a DAB when a book by that name was added. The only link to it is from 3D printing, which adds another wrinkle.
I don't see anything in Digital Revolution that talks about it being a Third Industrial Revolution. I don't think the original redirect should have been created and I should remove it entirely - leaving a one item DAB page which would need to be deleted.
3D Printing says 3D printing is the third industrial revolution. That needs to be unlinked. I could put 3D printing in the DAB page and keep it as a two-item DAB. MB 06:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Digital Revolution, also sometimes called the third industrial revolution, is....There are a few different mentions of "Third industrial revolution" on Wikipedia, including two other books, but Rifkin's book dominates the search. The others are only passing mentions, nowhere near article status. — Gorthian ( talk) 07:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am surprised that explicitly visiting "Wings" goes to "wing" (the generic part of a bird), despite the band Wings being a famous one. Could someone confirm that this matches policy? I'm having trouble with the legalese. (For the sake of clarity, pretend there's nothing else called "wing" or "wings" on the entire wiki: just the bird-part and the band.) Equinox ◑ 03:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I stumbled onto these two DAB pages, both for geo locations. There are places called Miana in each. I could put everything into Mianeh and redirect Miana to there, or put all the Mianas in Miana and add See alsos in each referring to the other. Does anyone have an opinion which solution is better? MB 06:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This DAB was created a month ago (and not by a new editor) but clearly has issues. Since there is only one notable person by this name, there is no need for a DAB page. I can remove the red-linked one per MOSDAB. Then what? I could take it to technical requests at RM to move the artist back to the primary name, or should I go to AFD first since the editor who created the DAB is likely to object? MB 07:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I told a coworker yesterday that I was planning on seeing "Star Wars" after work and she knew what I was talking about (moreso than she would have if I said "Rogue One"), and basically any time a new Star Wars film has been in theatres it has almost certainly been referred to (casually) as simply "Star Wars". Does this mean that the article title " Star Wars (film)" is still technically ambiguous, even if only during periods when there is a new film in the franchise?
I posted on the talk page saying that perhaps a headnote should be added linking to the article that lists all the other films, but then I remembered that someone once told me that we don't use parenthetical disambiguators that don't by themselves fully disambiguate titles. The Avengers (2012 film) can't be moved to The Avengers (film) for this reason even though it is a much more common search than the only other film with that title. "Star Wars" is kind of muddier because it's rare to refer to any film other than the first simply as "Star Wars" in print (although it almost certanly does happen) or retroactively, and only one film was ever released with that as its "official" title.
So would a headnote be a out-of-place because it would explicitly undermine the parenthetically disambiguated title? I really don't think an RM to Star Wars (1977 film) would be a good idea, mind.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Both RM discussions are ongoing. I invite you to discuss. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, a few months ago I posted a question regarding whether a major city's sports teams should be included on dab pages for the city's name, over at Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Sports. Being a dab talk page, it's far from shocking that the response was crickets. However, I'm still curious about the issue, so I wouldn't mind if some dab-minded folks weighed in. Thanks - Antepenultimate ( talk) 06:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello All, I wish to create a W:DAB for Norker, for reasons stated on it's talk page. However, when I googled Wikipedia Template, and disambiguation, I couldn't find any template that showed how to easily create one. I successfully used a template to create a redirect and was hoping there was a template for protocol pages like this. Does anyone know where it is if it exists, and if not how to easily make a DAB page? Thanks L3X1 ( talk) 01:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
{{subst:refer}}
, which produces the opening line. End with {{disambiguation}}
. In between, type it yourself following the pattern of existing dab pages, and looking at
WP:MOSDAB.
Pam
D
08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
More opinions are sought at (our most viewed dab page ~1M/day every year) Talk:'Tis the Season. Widefox; talk 13:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines or related discussions about whether or not "The" as a prefix is enough of a disambiguation between two topics? I am having difficulty finding anything because "the" is not searchable as too common of a word, plus "article" being both grammar and what we call Wikipedia mainspace pages. Please ping me here if you know of something to read. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
After participating in a handful of move discussions, it seems like we might want to document some of the factors involved in when a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is appropriate for surnames. It is already pretty well established how to handle people as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for mononyms. But I see move requests go both ways, many of the times rehashing the same points, for when a PD is appropriate when a mononym is not involved. It seems to me that when it comes to names, that are not clearly a mononym, the only case for a PRIMARYREDIRECT is when the surname alone is an extremely COMMONNAME. There seems to be a lot of support that surnames such as even extremely popular targets such as Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, William Shakespeare and Otto von Bismarck. It appears people become particularly impassioned about these being PRIMARYREDIRECTS based on what comes to mind, so we end up with exceptions like Obama. The current discussion that comes to mind is Talk:Gladstone. Tiggerjay ( talk) 20:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The RfD Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 13#Tylenol might be of interest to this page's watchers. Tylenol (a drug brand) currently redirects to Paracetamol (Tylenol's active ingredient), yet at the same time there is a disambiguated stand-alone page about the brand: Tylenol (brand). -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 09:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC needs some clarifications:
A tremendous amount of pointless churn and dispute could be avoided at WP:RM (i.e., at the talk pages of thousands of articles, discussions which don't have anything to do with actually improving the articles), if these clarifications were added, in whatever wording and whatever number adjustments seem reasonable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have seen so many discussions about "primary topic" and all the dab stuff. Yet there's not an {{ FAQ}} banner. If we have an FAQ on top of the page, what frequently asked questions shall we insert? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a (somewhat disorganized) RfC being held at Talk:Nissan_Caravan#RFC on disambiguation hatnotes for 'Caravan' named vehicles seeking to determine whether longstanding disambiguation hatnotes distinguishing Nissan Caravan and Dodge Caravan which were removed unilaterally by User:Mr.choppers in opposition to other editors prior to initiating an RfC should instead remain in place/be restored in some form. -- Kevjonesin ( talk) 20:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've had debates with other editors about whether it's appropriate to have a dictionary entry as the lead sentence (paragraph, page...) on a disambiguation page. MOS:DAB seems quite clear on this, at MOS:WTLINK:
However, that "(see link)" clause kicks back to here, specifically WP:DABDIC, where it says:
This gets interpreted as a license to add a lead dictionary definition to any disambiguation page.
Looking back at when this was added here in 2006, the revision summary refers to what "was agreed on WP:MOSDAB", which did not say at that time anything about exceptions -- it just said, as it does now, "no; include a Wiktionary link".
I don't believe I've ever seen a dab page where adding a top definition of any kind is helpful for disambiguation. Practically by definition, if there's a disambiguation page, the "common meaning" is ambiguous. (If there's a preferred meaning, that sounds an awful lot like a primary topic, and we have a well-defined practice for dealing with that.)
I propose striking the sentence " A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context." Alternatively, I would like to see a clearer description and examples of when this would be appropriate.-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 08:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm a little confused with where to put this so if I'm in the wrong place, I apologise. I haven't dealt with disambiguation pages before, I don't think.
I was looking up LRU on Google and was directed to the disambiguation page on Wiki:
/info/en/?search=LRU
The first entry was clearly the one I wanted but I was a little confused by the brief summary, which is sometimes all you need to know, so I read the article. Having done so, I'm wondering if the text on the disambiguation page is accurate or should be changed. (Please note, out of my field of expertise, which is why I'm throwing this over to someone else.) The text reads:
"Line-replaceable unit, a complex component of a vehicle that can be replaced quickly at the organizational level."
It's that word, 'organizational' the I'm wondering about - should it be 'operational' instead?
Thanks for dealing with this, whoever does.
Mathsgirl ( talk) 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to introduce and explain this term somewhere, and provide an anchor for OVERDIS, OVERDAB and OVERDISAMBIG shortcuts to it. The concept comes up frequently at RM, and has for years, but is not properly codified in the DAB rules. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The parenthetical phrase should only include the minimum information necessary to distinguish the topic from others with the same name. For example, if there is only one footballer named "Joe Blenkinsop", his article should be titled "Joe Blenkinsop (footballer)", not "Joe Blenkinsop (English footballer, born 1965)".
Something needs to be done about these two WP:INCOMPDAB pages. bd2412 T 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
More opinions on the styling of a primary topic are welcome at Fake news (disambiguation) in the section Talk:Fake news (disambiguation)#Primary topic . Widefox; talk 00:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
In
"Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:
The last two seem like they are supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. But "we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic" and the first two examples seem to say 'these questions are *independent* of whether this should be the primary topic,' which is not the same thing. I think this need clarifying. NPalgan2 ( talk) 00:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
supposed to be indicators that something should *not* be the primary topic. As I read the list, they all seem to be describing criteria that in various ways are not exclusively determinant of primary topic. And I'm also not sure I agree with @ Trystan:'s assessment that the
next section (Birmingham, Perth etc.) conveys that relevance only to particular groups is a relevant criteria for determining a primary topic.That section seems fairly clear that even though for some groups (such as USians and Scots) Birmingham and Perth might have one specific primary referent, in the global context the primary topic for these terms are otherwise. That is to say, I think it describes the third point rather than contradicts it. For the fourth bullet, I agree it is largely a restatement of long-term significance older ≠ wiser 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:
What to do RMs on hurricanes, tornados, and tropical storms, like Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)#Requested move 5 February 2017? I don't think I can provide so many. Clearly, those RMs come and then usually fail. What else to do about this issue if we can't limit the number of such RMs in the future? -- George Ho ( talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged here, for obvious reasons. Essentially, I relisted them all RMs without comments for the simple reason of, well, given this issue, I expected most of them to get at least one oppose !vote; because of that, I didn't want to close and move it as uncontroversial since it very much was, and I didn't want to close it immediately as not moved because, well, that's just bad faith. If socks opened the RM then that's a different matter, but I honestly didn't suspect that at the time, nor did I realize (or notice) that some of the RMs were open just a single week after the other one closed. Sky Warrior 11:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Putting aside the sockpuppet issue for a minute, my interpretation of WP:NCDAB is that you should only use parenthetical disambiguation in titles when natural disambiguation isn't possible. In the case of hurricane names that have only been used once, there is no need for further disambiguation if the title is "Hurricane XXXX", so I would favor removing the "(year)" part in those cases. Kaldari ( talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Shall we continue the case-by-case method, or shall we make a wider, central discussion? George Ho ( talk) 00:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There are discussions in several venues concerning this question.
Additional input welcome. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient tree. — Gorthian ( talk) 20:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we add Wikipedia:Namespace and Wikipedia:Subpages (particularly ones in user-space) to the list? I just like things to be explicit. As it is I'm not completely sure what consensus is. I'm fairly certain but I'd like to be 100%. Not really sure if it is notable enough though. Endercase ( talk) 00:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
As a result of this discussion at WP:TV, there is a discussion on a proposal to harmonize the text at WP:NCTV with the text at MOS:TV#Naming conventions in regards to the necessity of disambiguation text for List of episode or List of character articles. Please add any thoughts or comments to the discussion on this proposal, which can be found, here. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY currently says:
...
Among several other proposed criteria that have never won acceptance as a general rule, we do not generally consider any one of the following criteria as a good indicator of primary topic:
- Historical age ( Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man)
- If a topic was the original ( Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)
- Principal relevance only to certain people or groups
- If a topic has only ascended to widespread notability and prominence recently ( Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)
I know this has been discussed before, but that third bullet is still causing confusion. At this discussion Laurel Lodged has interpreted the third bullet to mean that certain people (like Patrick Leahy cannot have "principal relevance" which Laurel seems to think means an article about a person cannot be a primary topic for the name of the person. I am going to modify the wording to be similar to the 2nd and 4th bullets so that it's more clear:
- If a topic has principal relevance only to certain people or groups
If anyone has any suggestions on how to clarify it even better, that would be great. In particular, maybe someone has an example in mind? Thanks. -- В²C ☎ 16:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Talk of moving the goal posts. This is a highly unethical thing to do in the middle of a discussion I would have thought. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Some general principles for determining a primary topic include:
- While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. ( Kennewick, Washington is primary for Kennewick over the much older Kennewick Man)
- Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary. ( Boston is about Boston, Massachusetts, not the English city that first bore that name)
- A topic may have principle relevance for a specific group of people (for example, as a local place name), but not be the primary meaning among a general audience.
- A topic that has only achieved to widespread popularity recently should be weighed against the longer-term significance of alternative topics. ( Muse does not take the reader to an article about a current band)
-- Trystan ( talk) 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Trystan, regarding the revised fourth bullet, I think the main concern is when topics that are recently popular are also likely to be brief in popularity. However, say an unknown is nominated to be on the SCOTUS and all other uses of that name are relatively obscure. This person's popularity suddenly spikes of course, but given that she is now on the SCOTUS we know this is not just a flash in the pan, and therefore the recentism is not very important. Can we capture that? How about this?
-- В²C ☎ 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The answer probably exist for this question, but I ask that an answer be indulged to me for I only have time for the asking right now. Is it allowed to link an ambiguous term to a Wiktionary page for disambiguation of the term and justification of the term's placement on a DAB page? Thanks.-- John Cline ( talk) 15:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
{{
Wiktionary}}
, which adds a link to Wiktionary in the upper-right corner. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The section " Wikipedia:Disambiguation#What not to include begins with a discussion of what not to include in an entry and then has a discussion of what entries not to include. These are actually distinct topics that should be under separate headings.
As a separate matter, Under the heading "Related subjects" it says, "Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article." I think that more guidance should be provide here, and also at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards#Entries to clarify if an entry deserves inclusion if it is minimally mentioned in the target article. For example, Oukhellou consists of two entries, both of which are redirects, and in each case the name appears but the reader learns almost nothing about the topics. In particular, the entry Yazmin Oukhellou redirects to The Only Way Is Essex (series 20), and all one learns there is that Yazmin Oukellou was a member of the cast. Adam Oukhellou redirects to Ex on the Beach (series 6), and all one learns there is that Adam Oukhellou appeared on two episodes, that his hometown is London, and the names of individuals with whom he had "Ex" relationships. I believe that these redirects should be treated as if they were redlinks. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Red links, it explains, "A link to a non-existent article (a 'red link') should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." So, I would propose this language:
If you agree that this is a a problem, please offer constructive suggestions and improvements on this language and placement among Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. If you disagree and think the Oukhellou entries are proper for Wikipedia disambiguations, please share that as well. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from editors interested in dab pages are welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 21#Liveable. MB 21:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The first part of PRIMARYTOPIC currently says:
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
- A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage ( Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance ( Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic.
Per the above discussion with SmokeyJoe, which I summarize as follows: giving long-term significance separate consideration is redundant to giving usage in reliable sources consideration (since usage in reliable sources already accounts for long-term significance by having more coverage of topics with long-term significance), I hereby propose changing the above to this:
Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated). The primary topic might be a broad-concept article, as mentioned above.
There is only one criterion for determining a primary topic:
- A topic is primary for a term, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. Likelihood of being sought is primarily determined by looking at how the term in question is used in reliable sources and by article access statistics.
Note that by looking at usage in reliable sources we are implicitly accounting for the long-term significance of the various uses of the term in question. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to assess long-term significance directly ourselves.
-- В²C ☎ 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@
SmokeyJoe: I'm not sure what disturbs you with the "go" searching, as you call it. The WP search box, both on desktop and on mobile, displays a set of matching articles to the reader, dynamically as the query is typed. If we have a bunch of similar titles, it's extremely easy to pick the correct one, provided that article titles have been properly chosen (which is most often the case). You only get the "go" effect if you quickly type your search term followed by Enter. However, for most words, it's faster to push the down-arrow a couple times and "go" (or tap the entry you want on mobile) rather than keep typing the full word. Given this UX setuop user experience, adding an intermediary "search results" page looks totally superfluous. —
JFG
talk
04:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
And what makes an article's title controversial? Unclear and/or conflicting guidance about what the title should be for that article. This is why my main goal within the realm of article titles at WP is wording and interpreting the guidance (policy, guidelines, conventions) in a consistent manner. Adding the long-term significance criterion to primary topic was probably the biggest step in the wrong direction in this respect that I'm aware of. I mean, it's explicitly creating conflicting guidance for the same title. Consider "likelihood of being sought" and the title should be A, consider long-term significance and the title should be B. Okay, duke it out!
What happens is that people can provide reasonable arguments based in policy for whichever title their personal predilections favor. It creates a steaming pile of excrement where WP:JDLI and WP:Wikilawyering "justifications" thrive. Obviously this proposal isn't going anywhere, but I urge everyone to think this through over the coming weeks and months, and remember these words any time you encounter an RM discussion involving primary topic, and the inevitable silly tug-of-war between likelihood of being sought and long-term significance arguments. People like to claim we weigh these two considerations, but we have no objective way to compare them. In the Corvette example both are man-made transportation devices and the car has twice as many page views as the small ship class, yet the ship class is at the base name because it has a longer history? My point is you can make strong arguments for either case, and there is no way to really settle this. Consider that we have the disambiguated Boston, Lincolnshire, founded around 1200, while the much newer namesake in America is at the base name. Again, it can arguably go either way. And it is argued both ways. And there is no reason to believe these and countless other cases with equally conflicting guidance won't be argued again. And again and again. All because some believe "long term significance" needs to be given explicit consideration. I say, the degree to which the long-term significance is significant is manifested within the likelihood of the topic being sought, so when we look at likelihood of being sought, we are inherently already giving long-term significance appropriate consideration. And that's all the consideration it requires. Giving long-term significance explicit consideration simply creates conflict about what titles should be. To what end? So articles like Corvette are not at titles like Corvette (ship)? Is that worth all the ambiguity (about what the title should be) and arguing? -- В²C ☎ 16:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Martin Luther may well be highly notable, but his popularity among random wikipedia readers does not eclipse all other uses of the surname.Right, conveniently forgetting that nearly all other uses of the surname are derived from this one Luther guy from 1483. — JFG talk 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I would love the criterion "topic that is the basis for other topics named after it" being included as an important point for long-term significance. From an encyclopedic perspective, this is this a strong reason for having things like Corvette or Avatar at the base name, or at least to oppose having a popular search term at the base name (like Madonna or Trump).
I would also like to formalize in the guideline that, in case of two or more topics competing for the term, those should be placed together at the top of the DAB page. This is common practice anyway, even if it has never been recorded in policy, and policies should reflect accepted common usage. Diego ( talk) 16:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 05:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The Hungarian On the Spot (documentary TV series) is a ambiguously titled as there was also a notable Canadian documentary TV series, which is now at On the Spot (Canadian TV series) -- indeed, I came across the Hungarian one by accident. I think they should both be retitled as On the Spot (Hungarian documentary TV series) and On the Spot (Canadian documentary TV series). I don't see why the newer Hungarian series would be granted the primary topic as a doc series. Do others agree? But then what would we do with the On the Spot (documentary TV series)? The gamut of On the Spot TV series are listed at On the spot, but these are the only two documentary series. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
It may be noted that on July 23, 2012, the Mike Flynn disambiguation page was redirected to the Michael Flynn disambiguation page where it remained for nearly 5 years, until May 20, 2017, when these two dab pages were again separated (with the edit summary "More Mikes than Michaels"). Since most such dab pages keep the two forms combined (i.e. Mike Smith redirects to Michael Smith), editors may agree that, in this particular instance, "Michael" should redirect to "Mike". Taking into account that, less than a month ago, on May 27, 2017, General Michael Flynn became the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the Michael Flynn dab page, the suggestion of combining all the Mikes and Michaels under Mike Flynn, rather than under Michael Flynn (disambiguation), has the additional advantage of eliminating the need for the qualifier "(disambiguation)". The current [as of this writing] WP:RM discussion at Talk:Mike Flynn#Requested move 13 June 2017 indirectly raises / touches upon these issues. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Each of these have 2 #redirect targets (only the first works, of course), that someone here might want to turn into disambig pages, or at least fixed in some way.
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 14:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Currently, Template:no source and Template:nosource, both of which redirect to template:di-no source, are nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:No source, where I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The introductory line at Maneka is: "Maneka is a common English spelling of the Sanskrit and Hindi: मेनका. It is also spelled Menaka, and may refer to:". Maneka does not even contain a link to Menaka (disambiguation), which also does not contain a reciprocal link to Maneka but does contain two ( Menaka (actress) and Maneka Gandhi) of Maneka's five entries. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion that may be of interest at Talk:Tom Baker (English actor) § Page Move.-- Trystan ( talk) 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Lhasa (disambiguation). Narky Blert ( talk) 11:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
A move discussion is in progress at Talk:Other (disambiguation). Other members of this WikiProject may wish to contribute. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
In the WP:INTDAB section, one of the the examples is:
An intentional link to another disambiguation page that does not contain "(disambiguation)", placed in the "See also" section of a disambiguation page
It seems to make sense that this would apply whether or not it is in the "See also" section. Can we remove that from the example?-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 20:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I do some small-scale disambiguation work, but am not sure of the proper procedure here. William Brown (disambiguation) exists, and has a number of "see also"s for related disambiguation pages: Willie Brown, Bill Brown, William Browne, etc. William J. Brown (disambiguation) seems to have been created in August, with three men listed. Two of them showed up in the larger William Brown (disambiguation), but one ( William J. Brown (architect)) did not, so I added a link.
It seems kind of weird to me to split out one middle initial and not others, and maybe not your standard procedure? For example, the Willie Browns do not show up in William Brown, I believe. I figured I'd ask here, but if there's a better place, feel free to point me to it. Cleancutkid ( talk) 00:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Advice appreciated at Talk:Great Experiment#Great Experiment please. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a style guideline as to whether the (actress) parenthetical should be used for female performers? I noticed the page Danielle Spencer (actor) was changed from Danielle Spencer (actress) but I cannot find a definitive statement on whether this change should hold. 9 3 15:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish Grand Prix (disambiguation).
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
08:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. We really need your help on sorting out the following issue: Talk:Sex characteristics#RfC: Should the article be merged? If so, should it be the destination point for the merge?. A permalink for it is here. This issue concerns one Wikipedia article being titled " Sexual characteristics" and the other being titled " Sex characteristics." Because of this, a merge has been proposed to address confusion. At the moment, the thing that somewhat distinguishes the latter article is the inclusion of intersex/legal material. Some editors have opposed merging the article, stating that we should not be mixing the legal terminology about sex characteristics (which is mainly about intersex people) with the purely biological material about sex characteristics, and that two separate articles are therefore reasonable. Titles for renaming the latter article have been proposed. Other editors have stated that the latter article already mixes the two aspects, that one article can adequately cover both since the legal material also concerns biology, and that there are already existing intersex articles for the intersex/legal material; these can be used to address all of the intersex/legal material currently in the article, with nothing but a summary of the issues in the Sex characteristics article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Two WP:RM discussions — Talk:Kate Lee (English singer)#Requested move 4 September 2017 and Talk:Katherine Lee#Requested move 4 September 2017 raise some issues which may be of interest to editors who contribute to resolving disambiguation concerns. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Oisín is very often referred to as Oisin, and vice versa. This feels wrong to me, but it's prominent enough that I feel like someone must have thought about it and based the status quo on some guideline or policy, so I figured I'd ask here rather than open an RM and create a big unnecessary mess. I can't find anything on this page justifying it, just that natural disambiguation is better than parenthetical disambiguation
(It's not really the same problem since it does disambiguate, but it still feels completely arbitrary and looks ugly so I might as well also link this.)
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that we're at it, could we rename the template {{ only two dabs}} to {{ primary with two dabs}}? The template is being incorrectly applied to disambiguation pages with no primary topic, like this and this. There are not many DABs using it, anyway; so it wouldn't have a large impact. Diego ( talk) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree too that "one other topic" is a good name for the template as it is currently worded. But I have applied the template to 2-dabs pages with no primary topic thinking (although admittedly failing to do anything about it) that the wording of the template doesn't fit, rather than the name of the template is wrong. Doesn't there need to be a way of drawing attention to, and therefore categorising, dab pages with no primary topic and only 2 entries, in order to either encourage more entries, or move the page because there actually is a primary topic? (The section above is related) Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The editing guideline cites an example, John Quested, where there are 2 articles to be disambiguated, but there is no clear primary topic, and gives a solution of a two-entry dab page at the base name. My problem with this is that everyone's a loser. Let's say 50% of readers want the RAF officer, and 50% want the producer (but didn't know when they used the Search box whether their query was an RAF officer or a producer). With the dab page, 100% of users require an extra click to get to what they want. If one of the articles was, even arbitrarily, chosen as primary topic, and had a hatnote to the only other topic, then only 50% of searchers require the extra click (good for users), and Wikipedia has one less WP:COSTLY dab page to maintain (good for editors). "There are three important aspects to disambiguation ... Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be." So where there is uncertainty (or indecision) about which article of two to allocate as a primary topic, an arbitrary choice is better than no choice, isn't it? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
{{
For}}
cases where TWODABS has been applied. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if we can do something to identify commonly mislinked topics- Having a disambiguation page whenever in doubt definitely helps. I created First post, and now I get a warning every time someone creates a wrong link that may go to either The First Post (British) or Firstpost (Indian). The editor creating the ambiguous link to a DAB page will too get a notice from the bot. Diego ( talk) 11:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I propose changing "Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors" to "Direct links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are always errors". Because they are, as the rest of WP:INTDAB makes clear, and as WP:DPL regulars know all too well, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
non-redirectedexclude intentional links if the dab page has "(disambiguation)" in its title? – Uanfala 20:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
the whole of, or can we allow links to Vague term (disambiguation)#Section as in the hatnote on Loved (song)? Certes ( talk) 00:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Further opinions are welcome about their validity at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Redirects_to_dab_pages. (apologies for this adding this specific dab question Enclosure (disambiguation) to the more general discussion above where redirects are mentioned.) Widefox; talk 00:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently at this RM discussion there was much disagreement over whether to use comma or parenthetical disambiguation in the title of two statue-related articles, which were recently moved to parenthetical style. Indeed, there are many articles in ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Statues by subject use WP:COMMADIS rather than WP:PARENDIS to disambiguate the location of a statue, and there is nothing in WP:COMMADIS which prohibits its use to geographical locations only. Any thoughts? I personally don't see anything wrong with using comma disambiguation with such articles.-- Nevé – selbert 16:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
DPLbot politely warns editors who link to dabs. However, there's another way to create bad links: by moving an article and replacing (the redirect from) its old title by a dab. Most contributors to this talk page will have cleaned up after quite a few of those moves. Should we be notifying those editors in some standard way that they've done half a job? Of course, their contribution is positive (half a job is better than none) but sometimes they're the best people to finish it off. That's especially true in a specialised field where the distinction between meanings is subtle. (I gave up on White Russia (malplaced) and Modern synthesis, and asked for expert help.) Any thoughts? Certes ( talk) 10:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There's discussion about standardizing naming of ship index pages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Ship Index pages - another try and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Proposal that may be of interest. older ≠ wiser 20:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd appreciate a third opinion on Heater please. I can't really discuss it with the other editor as they have a dynamic IP. I don't want to start an edit war, but does the team think I should keep reverting this change, or should we create a redirect such as Heater (building) → HVAC#Heating and divert the existing links there? (Hey, I found yet another way to create bad links...) Certes ( talk) 12:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Your opinion would be welcome at redirect Talk page Talk:Escort ship#Convert to disambig page. Mathglot ( talk) 10:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm appalled by the use of the expression "the AD era" in number disambig pages: ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) e.g., "the eighth year of the AD era". (The expression also shows up at Year Zero and Phantom time hypothesis.) When looking for an adjective to modify the word "era", there is already a perfectly good adjective in common use and it is common, as in, "the common era."
AD stands for the prepositional phrase Anno domini (in the year of the Lord), so the expression "the fifth year of the AD era" is literally equivalent to "the fifth year of the in the year of the Lord era", which is an abomination. Mathglot ( talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I have started a draft on the concept of "looking" which I expect will end up being the primary topic for about a half dozen current disambiguation pages. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
See new RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC about river disambiguation conventions. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see: WT:WikiProject Dogs#Domestic animal breed page names, an informal RfC of sorts, in response to a WP:RM discussion the (entirely routine) outcome of which someone objects to. The proposal would reverse over two years of RM discussions to apply natural disambiguation to animal breed article titles, and instead impose not just parenthetic, but multi-word parenthetic, plus allow it to be variable by wikiproject. Perhaps this is a good idea, perhaps not.
I think broader input is needed specifically because a) it's an attempt overturn long-standing and many-times-confirmed consensus (which is possible but unlikely without a strong site-wide showing of agreement), yet b) the discussion has not been "advertised" anywhere but wikiprojects about animal breeds (i.e., the only editors who've ever favored parenthetic disambiguation in such cases, because it matches breeder jargon better, have effectively been directly canvassed, though I doubt that was the intent). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 09:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposal to have a primary parenthetical disambiguation (album) (other artist album) tabled by editor see Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions_(music)#Proposal for (debut album) etc. dab In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Prince Michael of Yugoslavia (born 1958)#Discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 10:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion underway at Talk:Other (philosophy)#Requested move 30 December 2017 which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. -- wooden superman 09:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Esplanade#WP:PTOPIC? which may be of interest to other editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)