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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Am I right in asuming that if you are fixing up the DAB Rage, for example, since the word rage (meaning angry etc) doesn't have its own article, you should remove any links that attempt to link to the angry meaning of rage? -- Commander Keane 04:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have mispellings in DAB pages? What about the special case of Dike and Dyke, these page need to be linked, what is the best way? -- Commander Keane 13:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
In Johnson, for example, at the top of the article (it is a dab) there is explantion about the orign of the name "Johnson". I don't think this info complies with the Manual of style for a dab, but it could have a place somewhere else in Wikipedia, where should I put it? -- Commander Keane 07:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Can we get rid of the struck through links? We could either move them to a separate page of fixed disambiguation pages that we can check later, or we could just delete them. I would be willing to do this, if others agree. Oh, and if we do just move the pages, the we could move them back some time in the future, like in half a year or something...just so we wouldn't have to keep checking them. -- Quadraxis 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Having racked up a few thousand edits on this project and learnt a good few time-saving tricks along the way, I wondered whether it would be worth writing a brief guide to efficient disambiguation? I'm sure there are plenty of handy tips that the many other dedicated contributors to this project could add, too. How about it? Agentsoo 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
What should we do when a dam page links to anothe dam page? For example, The Director links to Director, but there's no way to disambiguate which particular sort of director it should link to. Should we just leave them? It would be a bit annoying to jump from dam to dam, but what else can we do? Agentsoo 09:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I was working on Norman which had links to a person a romance language spoken in part of france, a city in Oklahoma and the people. I got through about 30-40 and then realised that, with the exception of some that needed to be changed from [[Norman]] invasion to [[Norman invasion]] they were all for Normans. Also about 10 of them people had written [[Norman]]s so that the correct page would display but link to the disambig page. I decided that raher than re-map all 450 links and then watch for the few a week which would most likley show up it would make more sense to move the disambiguation page to Norman (disambiguation) and redirected to Normans. I'm new to this project though so if thats wrong, could some one let me know so I don't repeat the error. Dalf | Talk 05:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
and other refs to an occult Vatican are the things I find hardest to disambiguate. Just who is Jack Chick accusing of plotting World Wars I and II? Is it the Holy See or the Roman Curia or the Vatican City who send immortal action heroes out in numerous (I find) comic books? Who is it that conspires in so many murders, and just which Vatican will be excommunicating star systems from essentially political protection in the year 3000? I begin to wonder if a new article, Vatican (urban legend) or even Vatican (fantasy) isn't needed, and that we should be dab'ing all those kind of things to it.. but I don't feel competent to write it, and if I did I'd have to go back and undo hundreds of disambiguations, and even then the writers of the articles that refer to it would change the link: they'd insist that they meant the real Vatican, not that urban legend article, that's only for stories that aren't true... etc Opinions anyone? ~ Veledan 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is the Maintenance Collaboration of the Week. The following comments are preserved from the nomination and voting process because they may be useful to contributors.
Having completed categories listed I agree as a good idea, but I was wondering if I could perhaps seperate finished from unfinished so my poor olde eyes can see exactly which ones are finished and which are not. Magicmonster 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there a channel on the wikipedia IRC chat for people working on disambiguation to chat and ask questions in real time? I just get all set up and joined but did not see anything obvious in the channel listing. It might be a good idea to set up a room at least while its the COTW and link to instructions on the project page. I suspect it might prevent some bad disambiguation form happening. Dalf | Talk 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've come unstuck almost immediately with this one, and have withdrawn my hand till I get advice on how to proceed!
Most of the links to Period are linking to the technical meaning of an interval, a lapse of time. The opposite of frequency. This is the one meaning that is defined in the dab but has no article, probably because it's too general a meaning to have an article longer than a dictionary definition. Any anyway, it's the opposite of frequency and its definition in the dab links to that article. So it'll probably never have an article. I can't link them to frequency because that would cause either confusion, or me having to re-word every sentence it appeared in. Should I de-link? Create a stub that pretends to be an article, but which is really just a specialised dab, linking to frequency or other pages? Redirect to wiktionary? Help! ~ Veledan | Talk | c . 21:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Tiffanicita 21:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the correct place to recommend a disambiguation, but
-- Kim Nevelsteen 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (I am too new to know how to create a disamb page)
I sometimes wonder if we can ever complete this project. We really need some kind of tool to catch the new dam links as they come in. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to write, would it? At the moment, we seem to have so much to do that, by the time we finish it, the new dump will come along with a whole lot more links to dam pages. A more permanent solution would be very useful. Soo 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, in trying to fix the links to Rush I'm baffled by the links in Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack. The reference there is obviously not to Rush (band). (I've played the game, too.) I can't find ANY information on the apparent rap/hip-hop artist "Rush" except that it might be Russell Simmons. http://www.allmusic.com lists "Rush" in the rap genre, but has absolutely no information.
Anybody have a clue?
Al 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been suggested that American be redirected to United States, and the contents of American be moved to American (disambiguation). A lot of "American" wikilinks currently should be directed to "United States", so this change would result saving a lot of work. -- Commander Keane 07:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
All of the links I've fixed so far should go to United States of America. We might consider automatically redirecting 'American' there. Franzeska 05:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
What sort of tools exist for automating this process? — Pekinensis 16:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The disambiguation page Tatar currently has a lot of links to it. I worked on it for a while and found that of the first 20 links 18 of them were to Tatars of which people had actually displayed the text Tatars while linking to Tatar. The other two links were mostly wikified incorrectly Crimean [[Tatar]]s changed to [[Crimean Tatars]]. My inclination is to move the disambiguaiton page to Tatar (disambiguation) (currently a redirect) and redirect Tatar to Tatars. However, it looks like Tatars use to live at Tatar and was moved intentionally. I left a note similar to this on Talk: Tatars a few days ago but have not got any response. Should I go ahead and re-arrange the articles as described aboe then check through the links for any that should be changed? Dalf | Talk 21:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Concentrating on one word at a time is a necessity, but when you come across an article with multiple similar links (e.g. a Scandinavian history article containing [[Danish]], [[Norwegian]], and [[Swedish]]), the right thing to do is to fix all of them rather than just the one you're working on. Otherwise, the article history gets filled up with multiple edits by different people but with identical summaries, which is inefficient and looks silly.
While going through the disambiguation collaborations, I have found that many of the disambiguation pages don't have everything that it could link to, example: Byzantine seems to occasionally link to the Greek Orthodox Church, which isn't on the disambig page. We could have a section for each major disambig, so that if we have to reopen a previously finished disambig, we have help and don't have to rediscover things like Byzantine emperors. Magicmonster 02:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Specific lists section seems to be just like Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. Should we move the contents there instead? -- Commander Keane 11:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
==Additional pages needing monitoring==
''See'' [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance]] for lists of disambiguation pages needing to be monitored for new links.
Afghan is done—thanks to everyone who helped! I hesitate to suggest Persia for the next collaboration; I tried it once and found it extremely tricky. How about Byzantine? -- Russ Blau (talk) 17:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I vote for Byzantine as well, doing Persia could flirt dangerously with having a collaboration that has no motivation into it. Magicmonster 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Persia is a sticky issue; it will need at least one person with a significant degree of expertise in the area who is also willing to put a lot of time into the project. So I agree that Byzantine is a much better choice. -- Soo 15:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been working on Byzantine for the last couple of days. Byzantine was until recntly a redirect to Byzantine Empire and then changed to disambig, so most will be [[Byzatine Empire|Byzantine]] (of course, there's again the issue of where an adjective such as "Byzantine" describing a person should point). Whitejay251 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Goodness, this one is going faster than anticipated.... Already down to under 200 Magicmonster 02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Finished this morning. The following four are a bit mysterious to me:
Of course in all these cases we can use the hammer of [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]].
Wouldn't it be nice to have a new database dump? A lot of the estimates for number of pages that need fixing are very wrong now. Is there someone we can pester? Soo 15:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Since we only need to fix up links in the Main namespace, wouldn't it be useful to be able to view only the Main namespace in the "What links here" page. What we need is the namespace slector that is available in "Special:Contributions". How do we go about getting that. I'm not too familar with the bugzilla method, if that's what needs to be done. -- Commander Keane 07:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "What links here" for Persian and Turk are rather difficult. Perhaps for frequently linked to dab's we could have a section on the dab's talk (eg entitled "What link here") with tips for discerning the appropriate destination of the various incoming links. I'm sure this would help for Persian and Turk, and all the other dab's with links also. -- Commander Keane 03:03, September 8, 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Am I right in asuming that if you are fixing up the DAB Rage, for example, since the word rage (meaning angry etc) doesn't have its own article, you should remove any links that attempt to link to the angry meaning of rage? -- Commander Keane 04:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have mispellings in DAB pages? What about the special case of Dike and Dyke, these page need to be linked, what is the best way? -- Commander Keane 13:18, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
In Johnson, for example, at the top of the article (it is a dab) there is explantion about the orign of the name "Johnson". I don't think this info complies with the Manual of style for a dab, but it could have a place somewhere else in Wikipedia, where should I put it? -- Commander Keane 07:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Can we get rid of the struck through links? We could either move them to a separate page of fixed disambiguation pages that we can check later, or we could just delete them. I would be willing to do this, if others agree. Oh, and if we do just move the pages, the we could move them back some time in the future, like in half a year or something...just so we wouldn't have to keep checking them. -- Quadraxis 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Having racked up a few thousand edits on this project and learnt a good few time-saving tricks along the way, I wondered whether it would be worth writing a brief guide to efficient disambiguation? I'm sure there are plenty of handy tips that the many other dedicated contributors to this project could add, too. How about it? Agentsoo 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
What should we do when a dam page links to anothe dam page? For example, The Director links to Director, but there's no way to disambiguate which particular sort of director it should link to. Should we just leave them? It would be a bit annoying to jump from dam to dam, but what else can we do? Agentsoo 09:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I was working on Norman which had links to a person a romance language spoken in part of france, a city in Oklahoma and the people. I got through about 30-40 and then realised that, with the exception of some that needed to be changed from [[Norman]] invasion to [[Norman invasion]] they were all for Normans. Also about 10 of them people had written [[Norman]]s so that the correct page would display but link to the disambig page. I decided that raher than re-map all 450 links and then watch for the few a week which would most likley show up it would make more sense to move the disambiguation page to Norman (disambiguation) and redirected to Normans. I'm new to this project though so if thats wrong, could some one let me know so I don't repeat the error. Dalf | Talk 05:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
and other refs to an occult Vatican are the things I find hardest to disambiguate. Just who is Jack Chick accusing of plotting World Wars I and II? Is it the Holy See or the Roman Curia or the Vatican City who send immortal action heroes out in numerous (I find) comic books? Who is it that conspires in so many murders, and just which Vatican will be excommunicating star systems from essentially political protection in the year 3000? I begin to wonder if a new article, Vatican (urban legend) or even Vatican (fantasy) isn't needed, and that we should be dab'ing all those kind of things to it.. but I don't feel competent to write it, and if I did I'd have to go back and undo hundreds of disambiguations, and even then the writers of the articles that refer to it would change the link: they'd insist that they meant the real Vatican, not that urban legend article, that's only for stories that aren't true... etc Opinions anyone? ~ Veledan 23:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This page is the Maintenance Collaboration of the Week. The following comments are preserved from the nomination and voting process because they may be useful to contributors.
Having completed categories listed I agree as a good idea, but I was wondering if I could perhaps seperate finished from unfinished so my poor olde eyes can see exactly which ones are finished and which are not. Magicmonster 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Is there a channel on the wikipedia IRC chat for people working on disambiguation to chat and ask questions in real time? I just get all set up and joined but did not see anything obvious in the channel listing. It might be a good idea to set up a room at least while its the COTW and link to instructions on the project page. I suspect it might prevent some bad disambiguation form happening. Dalf | Talk 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I've come unstuck almost immediately with this one, and have withdrawn my hand till I get advice on how to proceed!
Most of the links to Period are linking to the technical meaning of an interval, a lapse of time. The opposite of frequency. This is the one meaning that is defined in the dab but has no article, probably because it's too general a meaning to have an article longer than a dictionary definition. Any anyway, it's the opposite of frequency and its definition in the dab links to that article. So it'll probably never have an article. I can't link them to frequency because that would cause either confusion, or me having to re-word every sentence it appeared in. Should I de-link? Create a stub that pretends to be an article, but which is really just a specialised dab, linking to frequency or other pages? Redirect to wiktionary? Help! ~ Veledan | Talk | c . 21:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Tiffanicita 21:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the correct place to recommend a disambiguation, but
-- Kim Nevelsteen 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (I am too new to know how to create a disamb page)
I sometimes wonder if we can ever complete this project. We really need some kind of tool to catch the new dam links as they come in. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to write, would it? At the moment, we seem to have so much to do that, by the time we finish it, the new dump will come along with a whole lot more links to dam pages. A more permanent solution would be very useful. Soo 00:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, in trying to fix the links to Rush I'm baffled by the links in Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack. The reference there is obviously not to Rush (band). (I've played the game, too.) I can't find ANY information on the apparent rap/hip-hop artist "Rush" except that it might be Russell Simmons. http://www.allmusic.com lists "Rush" in the rap genre, but has absolutely no information.
Anybody have a clue?
Al 15:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It has been suggested that American be redirected to United States, and the contents of American be moved to American (disambiguation). A lot of "American" wikilinks currently should be directed to "United States", so this change would result saving a lot of work. -- Commander Keane 07:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
All of the links I've fixed so far should go to United States of America. We might consider automatically redirecting 'American' there. Franzeska 05:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
What sort of tools exist for automating this process? — Pekinensis 16:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The disambiguation page Tatar currently has a lot of links to it. I worked on it for a while and found that of the first 20 links 18 of them were to Tatars of which people had actually displayed the text Tatars while linking to Tatar. The other two links were mostly wikified incorrectly Crimean [[Tatar]]s changed to [[Crimean Tatars]]. My inclination is to move the disambiguaiton page to Tatar (disambiguation) (currently a redirect) and redirect Tatar to Tatars. However, it looks like Tatars use to live at Tatar and was moved intentionally. I left a note similar to this on Talk: Tatars a few days ago but have not got any response. Should I go ahead and re-arrange the articles as described aboe then check through the links for any that should be changed? Dalf | Talk 21:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Concentrating on one word at a time is a necessity, but when you come across an article with multiple similar links (e.g. a Scandinavian history article containing [[Danish]], [[Norwegian]], and [[Swedish]]), the right thing to do is to fix all of them rather than just the one you're working on. Otherwise, the article history gets filled up with multiple edits by different people but with identical summaries, which is inefficient and looks silly.
While going through the disambiguation collaborations, I have found that many of the disambiguation pages don't have everything that it could link to, example: Byzantine seems to occasionally link to the Greek Orthodox Church, which isn't on the disambig page. We could have a section for each major disambig, so that if we have to reopen a previously finished disambig, we have help and don't have to rediscover things like Byzantine emperors. Magicmonster 02:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Specific lists section seems to be just like Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. Should we move the contents there instead? -- Commander Keane 11:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
==Additional pages needing monitoring==
''See'' [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance]] for lists of disambiguation pages needing to be monitored for new links.
Afghan is done—thanks to everyone who helped! I hesitate to suggest Persia for the next collaboration; I tried it once and found it extremely tricky. How about Byzantine? -- Russ Blau (talk) 17:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I vote for Byzantine as well, doing Persia could flirt dangerously with having a collaboration that has no motivation into it. Magicmonster 00:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Persia is a sticky issue; it will need at least one person with a significant degree of expertise in the area who is also willing to put a lot of time into the project. So I agree that Byzantine is a much better choice. -- Soo 15:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I've been working on Byzantine for the last couple of days. Byzantine was until recntly a redirect to Byzantine Empire and then changed to disambig, so most will be [[Byzatine Empire|Byzantine]] (of course, there's again the issue of where an adjective such as "Byzantine" describing a person should point). Whitejay251 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Goodness, this one is going faster than anticipated.... Already down to under 200 Magicmonster 02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Finished this morning. The following four are a bit mysterious to me:
Of course in all these cases we can use the hammer of [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]].
Wouldn't it be nice to have a new database dump? A lot of the estimates for number of pages that need fixing are very wrong now. Is there someone we can pester? Soo 15:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Since we only need to fix up links in the Main namespace, wouldn't it be useful to be able to view only the Main namespace in the "What links here" page. What we need is the namespace slector that is available in "Special:Contributions". How do we go about getting that. I'm not too familar with the bugzilla method, if that's what needs to be done. -- Commander Keane 07:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The "What links here" for Persian and Turk are rather difficult. Perhaps for frequently linked to dab's we could have a section on the dab's talk (eg entitled "What link here") with tips for discerning the appropriate destination of the various incoming links. I'm sure this would help for Persian and Turk, and all the other dab's with links also. -- Commander Keane 03:03, September 8, 2005 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |