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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
/from templates is basically wrapped up, with only a handful of particularly problematic links left lingering. I think /from portals is not nearly as urgent, so I propose a return to an old-fashioned collaboration of the week pick. So what's next up? bd2412 T 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the CE disambig page, and here's what I'm noticing - a lot of them are articles in the "History of Malaysia" series. However, none of these articles, nor the HoM series box link to CE, the box links to Common Era, as it should. So, the 'what links here' says they link to CE, when they don't. I dunno. Search 4 Lancer 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
How about putting the list from each new dump in a subpage and transcluding it? This would simplify the changeover procedure. Bo Lindbergh 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
2005-11-13 | 2005-12-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
The table is not depressing if you read it differently. The number of total links in Wikipedia has been increasing by 1 million in that time interval, and the percentage of links that go to disambiguation pages has actually been decreasing, so this project is making a visible impact in that metric. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the most current list of dab links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Current list and transcluded it on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. If there is a consensus to do so, it could be transcluded onto the main WP:DPL page as well. -- Russ Blau (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have moved a few comments from the 'Suggestion for future dumps' down here, to facilitate wider disucssion-- Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In regards to the creation of new ones I still think we should request (or ask about how muh load it woudl generate) a feature that warns a user in the privew page when they edit a page and add a link to a DAB page. User:Lupin's popup script is capable of doing some of this and even suggests the disambiguation targest. I have a feeling that it would likley generat too much load but it is worth asking about anyway. I mean it would be really cool if you clicked save or preview and it gave you the preview page with a warning like "You have added a link to Native American which is a Disambiguation page and may not lead to the article you desire ...." and then suggestions about alternatives. Or maybe I am just dreaming. Dalf | Talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Bo Lindbergh has kindly (thanks Bo!) generated a new report, from the Dec. 13 database dump. As we discussed previously, the new dump exists on a subpage ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2005-12-13 dump). However, if you hit one of the [edit] buttons on the main project page you are taken straight to the right spot. All discussion will continue on this page, not the subpage. More importantly, I suggest Broadway (disambiguation) for the next collaboration, thoughts?-- Commander Keane 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Updating a topic that is now in archive 03, I have nominated the Staten Island disambiguation page for deletion. If you have an opinion one way or the other, place your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island (disambiguation). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The following 3 dabs have 15 or less links to them in the main namespace, but due to difficulty or lack of motivation I can't bring myself to finish them off:
-- Commander Keane 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting going on some of the pages from the list, and I'll be cut/pasting this into my edit comment:
Corrected link to disambiguation page. ([[Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links|you can help!]])
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotter ( talk • contribs)
Do the instructions still stand for what to do when a dab page's links are fixed? The layout of this page has changed a little since I was last here, and now I noticed a lot more people editing the graph total themselves.
Not wanting to screw up stats, I've followed the instructions literally and just struck through
Bisexual but left it in the main list.. --
OliverL 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask someone to take a look at the "what links here" page for lathe? It contains a rather longish list of articles that don't seem to actually include any links to the lathe article. Most of them include one of the Wikiproject Metalworking templates, but I can't find any lathe links in there, either - only links to lathe (tool). Help. dpotter 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
re-indentingI have a slightly different problem. Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema was added to some relevant talkpages; later, it was modified to ensure that all the talkpages are automatically placed in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema. However, not all the previously up-dated talk pages are reflected in the category. Guess some null edit needs to be done on them. Can your bot handle this? btw, Commander's bot seems to be making the Working Man's barnstar redundant; great work, way to go!! -- Gurubrahma 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, what is currently the fastest way to do this tedious task? Gflores Talk 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have not read everything that has been said on the matter, but I came here to see if I could help.. Is it not possible for certain disambiguation tasks to be performed automatically on the servers? The results could be tagged for humans to check? Regards, Gregorydavid 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing some dabs for pop and it appears that most of the links are coming from album/music artist articles, meaning they are referring to pop music. I noticed techno and rap also were redirected, should the same be done with pop with a (otheruses) template? Gflores Talk 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to start working on fixing links to disambig pages, but I wanted to ask a few clarification questions:
Thanks -- Natalya 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any consensus on what to do for disambiguation links for pages that list words from a certain origin? For example, the following pages link to the yam disambiguation page:
Is there any way to tell if they are refering to a certain usage of the word or if it is just the word in general (and then would leave the link to the disambiguation page)? Thanks -- Natalya 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow up: Though it has already been dealt with, from the reply on the List of English words of African origin talk page, it turns out that the word origin is referring to yam (vegetable), and has been correctly linked.
I am seeing too many pages where the same word is disambiguated according to where it is used. For example, the efficiency page should not be called a disambiguation page. Efficiency is one word. It is starting to have its own article. The others are special cases that should be linked from the main article for the word. Of course there are cases that should go the other way, as in the social sciences. ("Function" has several meanings in psychology alone, not to mention ordinary English and mathematics.)
What I am saying is that a word (not a tense of a verb or other derived word) often deserves its own article, even if that ends up resembling a disambiguation page. This may or may not be easy but it is part of the difference between rote memory and real learning for our readers. David R. Ingham 06:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything ambiguous, but I can't find how to put it in the done list either. David R. Ingham 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That rose question above is a little too abstract for me to respond to, but I'll give this one a go. Usually a dab page is put on the done list when no more pages link to it (eg for German all the "What links here" were pointed to go to either German language or Germany). Birth is a special case, because although it has a {{ disambig}} that is incorrect. It's really just an article that directs people to things about the same topic. So what should be done is remove the {{ disambig}}, and move any real disambiguation material to Birth (disambiguation). I've done that now.-- Commander Keane 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. David R. Ingham 08:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the links refer to a debut of some other kind, such as directorial debut, debut single, and film debut. What should be done in this case? Gflores Talk 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Lots of choices here but given the casual usage of the term in general I think a large number of them actually SHOULD point to the DAB page. I have created Radiation (disambiguation) to sort out the ones that should go to a DAB from the rest. Dalf | Talk 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also since this is something of a hardone after we reach some sort of consensus on it, and make any changes we may or may not make to thedisambiguation page itself. Can I nominate this (allong with some written guidelines) as a colaboration of the week and see if we can get it done, this is one of the DAB pages that I think having it processed would add a lot of value to the user expirence of people on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I just did some 30 links, but there are 734 remaining. People continue linking to the disambig, so this might be an uphill battle. -- Zsinj 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on these lately. Some of them are straightforward and some are not. I was hoping to start some discussion here so we can try to come up with some rules of thumb. I don't have any particular special knowledge of Bosnian history, but I've read through the articles involved and I'm trying to get a clear picture in mind. I wrote this while doing research and so it's long and rambling but it's a collection of my thoughts on different time periods. Here's what I've come up with so far:
If an article refers to Bosnia as the modern nation, it should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's the name of the modern country. Herzegovina is, as far as I can tell, not governed separately, and it does not have its own distinctive cultural group. The Bosnia and Herzegovina page even says there's no solidly defined border between Bosnia and Herzegovina.
If an article refers to Bosnia in the sense of the Bosnian War, it should almost certainly be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian War was fought throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even if it's describing an incident that happened in a city that's undoubtedly in Bosnia (region) it should, in my opinion, be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
From the end of World War II until Yugoslavia's breakup in 1992, references to Bosnia should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the six Socialist Republics that made up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
If an article refers to Bosnia during World War II, when Yugoslavia was invaded and a puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia was established, I'm not sure what to do. It would depend a lot on the context and this is one of the issues that I'd really like input on.
Between World War I and World War II, Yugoslavia was intentionally divided up into provinces that did not correspond to traditional boundaries. I wouldn't know what to do with a reference to Bosnia during this time period.
This picture shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered one entity in 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire began to exert control over the area, ending in formal annexation in 1908. It seems to me that between 1878 and the end of World War I, the majority of references to Bosnia should point to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Between the late 15th century and 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina were/was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have an article specifically for this located at Bosnia Province, Ottoman Empire, so I think most references to Bosnia during that time period should point to that.
Before annexation by the Ottoman Empire, things are very confusing for me. I'm not sure whether to link to Bosnia (region), to Bosnia and Herzegovina, or perhaps even to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The name Herzegovina was apparently first adopted in "1435/1448" according to the History article. I... don't know. TomTheHand 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Needs an editor knowledgeable in British history to determine whether the reference means the First, Second, or both. See also Boer Wars and Talk:Boer Wars. -- Smack ( talk) 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also been working on Boer War, and while I agree that in some cases there is a need for someone knowledgeable in British history, there is a lot that can be done by people without specific knowledge.
The First Boer War was fought from December 16, 1880, to March 23, 1881. That's just over three months.
The Second Boer War was fought from October 11, 1899 to May 31, 1902. That's over two and a half years.
Both the twenty-year separation between the two wars and the difference in the lengths are of great help in figuring out which to link to. I would say that 80% of articles that refer to Boer War can be pointed at the right place by looking at the date. Also, the Second Boer War is often referred to in discussions of concentration camps. If it's talking about concentration camps, it's talking about the Second Boer War. TomTheHand 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on String. I was pretty bad, but I think I've got it untangled. (Get it?) I ended up cleaning up Strings, too. I could use some advice at this point:
Thank you for your advice. -- Mikeblas 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Tail" really shouldn't be a disambig - the anatomical meaning is the overwhelming use, and the basic theme of links to the page. bd2412 T 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sticking my toe in with Nemesis and finding that most examples are the common noun, which is not even mentioned in the disambig page. I've changed some to Nemesis (mythology)|nemesis, since that's the nearest thing available, but am not convinced that's the right thing to do. — Tamfang 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Once upon a time, this list (or was it the Offline reports list in its day?) excluded links to pages that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles. That's because if somebody links to such a title, then it's obviously deliberate. And so by creating a redirect from the "(disambiguation)" title, a means was created for marking links as deliberate so that they don't appear in this list.
However, the current list includes some such pages. Why was this criterion for exclusion removed? Or am I just imagining it being in here in the first place? -- Smjg 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just wrote a PHP script that takes "What links here" page and sorts them into the different namespaces, so you can see exactly how many links remain. Would anyone be interested in having access to this tool? I was going to recalculate all of the figures and place them on a subpage of my Userpage, but if more people are interested, I can make it more widely available. -- light darkness ( talk) 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be adverse to add a bit to the "How to help" section about upkeeping pages that one has fixed disambiguation links to? It would be nice to just say something along the lines of "after you have fixed all the links to a disambiguation page, check back once in a while to fix all new links to the page". I know Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance kind of deals with this, but adding something short to the instructions might make it easier on a smaller scale. -- Nataly a 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I just started doing this disambig thing and found that many times ambiguous term refers to a definition which doesn't have article of its own but is covered under that term's disambiguation page. Should I just leave it like that or remove the link at all? Example: circulation and its use as 'number of newspaper/magazines readers'. Ashish G 02:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Another question: I see that most of links are repaired by removing the disambiguation page and making it redirect to most common use ('no longer a dab page'). Is there any way to check that what article is redirected is indeed most common use, other than to check all pages manually? Or it is just done based on sample of those pages? Because, otherwise, it is the easiest way of doing this. Ashish G 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think disambiguation pages are a convenient place to accommodate alternative usage of a term that may not have an existing article. If these terms are always deleted from the disambiguation page one would loose a lot of variety coming from the user Wiki community. Is there an easy way to determine the Wiktionary content for the specific ambiguous term? Has the system not got counters to determine most populour usage? Gregorydavid 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have written a very short Python script that reports on our progress on fixing links in the current database dump; it is available for your inspection at User:RussBlau/dplcount.py. This tool makes it unnecessary to manually update the subtotals and running totals on the dump page.
Also, let me take this opportunity to thank and encourage everyone who has been working on this project. Sometimes it seems like a hopeless task to fix all the zillions of disambig links; and, in fact (as some have pointed out in the past), this project will never be "finished" because editors are creating new links to disambig pages every day. But looking at the statistics on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance does show that we are making progress. Even though the weekly scans continually pick up new disambig pages from the database dumps, and new links to existing pages, the general trend in the total number of links needing to be fixed is downward. On February 12 (the first week that I was able to merge in a new database dump since the Christmas/New Years hiatus), there were 169,272 links needing to be fixed. Two weeks later, despite two new database dumps that picked up over a hundred more disambig pages, and many new links to existing pages, the total was down to 168,255. In other words, we are fixing the links (a little bit) faster than others are creating them! If we can get a few more volunteers to pitch in, we can whittle down the total even faster. Keep up the good work, and recruit your friends! :-) -- Russ Blau (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Gregorydavid 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just submitted a bug report requesting a namespace filter for "What links here". This would allow us to view only the Main: namespace when doing link repair (like you can do in Special:Contributions) - a feature long sought after by many. If you would like the feature, I recommend that you vote for it at the bug description page.-- Commander Keane 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible for those fixing the links to also clean up the dab page? Or is it too much to ask for? The reason I ask is because sometimes the person doing the dab page, say for lattice, may also have experience with those terms and would be better suited to fix and/or add descriptions to the links on the dab page. If they're not familiar with the DAB MoS, then they can just add a {{ disambig-cleanup}} tag. It would also help with the countless number of dab pages needing clean up. Gflores Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing some dabbing of various articles mostly Perth and Keyboards what I'm finding is that a lot of the dab links are from talk pages that get archived. Is there any way to delink these pages totally from all articles when they are created. Take this page as an example User talk:Duncharris/archive1 does it still need to maintain links to articles, it contains 8 links to the Perth DAB page in one subsection. Gnangarra 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Should be an easy one, if you want a job. I've outlined what I think are appropriate guidelines on the Talk:Furry page. -- The Famous Movie Director 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Above, Russ Blau inspired us (well me at least :) about the progress we are making and he ended with "Recruit your friends!"
Recruitment is important, and one way to achieve it is through talk pages. For example, I noticed that Perth had a few inbound links so I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Perth to see if anyone would be interested. This achieved 2 things:
So consider enlisting help from various projects and noticeboards (I'm not recommending spamming though).
Another way to attact attenion is the {{ WPDPL}} template, discussed below.-- Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
{{ WPDPL}} is a template designed to go on the talk of troublesome (link repair wise) disambiguation pages.
It has been approved for use, so I guess now is the time to roll it out.
The first usage is at Talk:Italian and instructions are at Template talk:WPDPL (if you have any questions or suggestions, feel free ask here).-- Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
On BD2412's suggestion, I included the category namespace in the analysis of the latest dump and found a surprising number of dab links. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories. Bo Lindbergh 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we do another round on templates before restarting the main namespace? More than 700 templates have accumulated since the last time. Bo Lindbergh 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
pgk has just written a tool for us on the Toolserver (maybe you are familiar with the Toolserver from the edit counter).
The tool gives only the Main namespace links (and a Main namespace link count) from a "Whatlinkshere" report. It is located here.
Importantly, the toolserver sometimes lags and toolserver tools will appear to reflect an older state of Wikipedia — changes made on Wikipedia won't be seen immediately on the toolserver (more here). For example right now, the lag is 8 minutes, 55 seconds. This means that the "Whatlinkshere" will be 8 minutes 55 secs old - and incorrect if you have fixed any links in the past 8 minutes 55 secs. You can check the current lag here.
Also, the Toolserver has limited resources. So if you are going to use the tool extensively please list you name below (and no automated {ie bots} querying). Thankyou pgk! -- Commander Keane 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just corrected seven new links to endemic, which was placed on the completed list by Draeco just nine days ago. It's a little discouraging how fast work can get undone. Isn't there some way to let more people know about this whole problem? -- The Famous Movie Director 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done approximately half of these, the residue are slightly more complex and probably require the creation of a page to explain the American usage of Pantomime or $another_solution. Politepunk 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In many cases, when the term "Chief of Staff" is used it is used in a general reference. I believe there should be a non-disambiguation page for the general reference of " Chief of Staff." For example, it makes almost no sense to make a page for the Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army during the time of Carl von Clausewitz. The disambiguation page already has some info for the general meaning of the term. This should fix the disambiguity problem in this case. - Mac OS X 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I've encountered a few disambiguation pages with links that turn out not to be listed here - Daredevil, for example. Why aren't they on this list? Is it because they don't have enough links? Should I add them to the list myself? -- The Famous Movie Director 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
can someone make a user box for people who fix dab page links? if this has already been done, please point me to it, but I could not find one. -- Phantom784 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion:
This user helps fix disambiguation pages with links. |
The colors can probably be improved, though. Kusma (討論) 20:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why Mongol invasions is a disambig page, as it recites nothing more than the dates of a series of specific events within this category. bd2412 T 17:42, 29 March 2006 (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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
/from templates is basically wrapped up, with only a handful of particularly problematic links left lingering. I think /from portals is not nearly as urgent, so I propose a return to an old-fashioned collaboration of the week pick. So what's next up? bd2412 T 02:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the CE disambig page, and here's what I'm noticing - a lot of them are articles in the "History of Malaysia" series. However, none of these articles, nor the HoM series box link to CE, the box links to Common Era, as it should. So, the 'what links here' says they link to CE, when they don't. I dunno. Search 4 Lancer 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
How about putting the list from each new dump in a subpage and transcluding it? This would simplify the changeover procedure. Bo Lindbergh 19:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
2005-11-13 | 2005-12-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
The table is not depressing if you read it differently. The number of total links in Wikipedia has been increasing by 1 million in that time interval, and the percentage of links that go to disambiguation pages has actually been decreasing, so this project is making a visible impact in that metric. Kusma (討論) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I've moved the most current list of dab links to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Current list and transcluded it on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance. If there is a consensus to do so, it could be transcluded onto the main WP:DPL page as well. -- Russ Blau (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have moved a few comments from the 'Suggestion for future dumps' down here, to facilitate wider disucssion-- Commander Keane 10:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In regards to the creation of new ones I still think we should request (or ask about how muh load it woudl generate) a feature that warns a user in the privew page when they edit a page and add a link to a DAB page. User:Lupin's popup script is capable of doing some of this and even suggests the disambiguation targest. I have a feeling that it would likley generat too much load but it is worth asking about anyway. I mean it would be really cool if you clicked save or preview and it gave you the preview page with a warning like "You have added a link to Native American which is a Disambiguation page and may not lead to the article you desire ...." and then suggestions about alternatives. Or maybe I am just dreaming. Dalf | Talk 09:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Bo Lindbergh has kindly (thanks Bo!) generated a new report, from the Dec. 13 database dump. As we discussed previously, the new dump exists on a subpage ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2005-12-13 dump). However, if you hit one of the [edit] buttons on the main project page you are taken straight to the right spot. All discussion will continue on this page, not the subpage. More importantly, I suggest Broadway (disambiguation) for the next collaboration, thoughts?-- Commander Keane 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Updating a topic that is now in archive 03, I have nominated the Staten Island disambiguation page for deletion. If you have an opinion one way or the other, place your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staten Island (disambiguation). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The following 3 dabs have 15 or less links to them in the main namespace, but due to difficulty or lack of motivation I can't bring myself to finish them off:
-- Commander Keane 20:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting going on some of the pages from the list, and I'll be cut/pasting this into my edit comment:
Corrected link to disambiguation page. ([[Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links|you can help!]])
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotter ( talk • contribs)
Do the instructions still stand for what to do when a dab page's links are fixed? The layout of this page has changed a little since I was last here, and now I noticed a lot more people editing the graph total themselves.
Not wanting to screw up stats, I've followed the instructions literally and just struck through
Bisexual but left it in the main list.. --
OliverL 11:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask someone to take a look at the "what links here" page for lathe? It contains a rather longish list of articles that don't seem to actually include any links to the lathe article. Most of them include one of the Wikiproject Metalworking templates, but I can't find any lathe links in there, either - only links to lathe (tool). Help. dpotter 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
re-indentingI have a slightly different problem. Template:Wikiproject Indian cinema was added to some relevant talkpages; later, it was modified to ensure that all the talkpages are automatically placed in Category:WikiProject Indian cinema. However, not all the previously up-dated talk pages are reflected in the category. Guess some null edit needs to be done on them. Can your bot handle this? btw, Commander's bot seems to be making the Working Man's barnstar redundant; great work, way to go!! -- Gurubrahma 05:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering, what is currently the fastest way to do this tedious task? Gflores Talk 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have not read everything that has been said on the matter, but I came here to see if I could help.. Is it not possible for certain disambiguation tasks to be performed automatically on the servers? The results could be tagged for humans to check? Regards, Gregorydavid 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing some dabs for pop and it appears that most of the links are coming from album/music artist articles, meaning they are referring to pop music. I noticed techno and rap also were redirected, should the same be done with pop with a (otheruses) template? Gflores Talk 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm hoping to start working on fixing links to disambig pages, but I wanted to ask a few clarification questions:
Thanks -- Natalya 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any consensus on what to do for disambiguation links for pages that list words from a certain origin? For example, the following pages link to the yam disambiguation page:
Is there any way to tell if they are refering to a certain usage of the word or if it is just the word in general (and then would leave the link to the disambiguation page)? Thanks -- Natalya 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Follow up: Though it has already been dealt with, from the reply on the List of English words of African origin talk page, it turns out that the word origin is referring to yam (vegetable), and has been correctly linked.
I am seeing too many pages where the same word is disambiguated according to where it is used. For example, the efficiency page should not be called a disambiguation page. Efficiency is one word. It is starting to have its own article. The others are special cases that should be linked from the main article for the word. Of course there are cases that should go the other way, as in the social sciences. ("Function" has several meanings in psychology alone, not to mention ordinary English and mathematics.)
What I am saying is that a word (not a tense of a verb or other derived word) often deserves its own article, even if that ends up resembling a disambiguation page. This may or may not be easy but it is part of the difference between rote memory and real learning for our readers. David R. Ingham 06:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I can't find anything ambiguous, but I can't find how to put it in the done list either. David R. Ingham 06:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
That rose question above is a little too abstract for me to respond to, but I'll give this one a go. Usually a dab page is put on the done list when no more pages link to it (eg for German all the "What links here" were pointed to go to either German language or Germany). Birth is a special case, because although it has a {{ disambig}} that is incorrect. It's really just an article that directs people to things about the same topic. So what should be done is remove the {{ disambig}}, and move any real disambiguation material to Birth (disambiguation). I've done that now.-- Commander Keane 07:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. David R. Ingham 08:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the links refer to a debut of some other kind, such as directorial debut, debut single, and film debut. What should be done in this case? Gflores Talk 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Lots of choices here but given the casual usage of the term in general I think a large number of them actually SHOULD point to the DAB page. I have created Radiation (disambiguation) to sort out the ones that should go to a DAB from the rest. Dalf | Talk 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Also since this is something of a hardone after we reach some sort of consensus on it, and make any changes we may or may not make to thedisambiguation page itself. Can I nominate this (allong with some written guidelines) as a colaboration of the week and see if we can get it done, this is one of the DAB pages that I think having it processed would add a lot of value to the user expirence of people on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I just did some 30 links, but there are 734 remaining. People continue linking to the disambig, so this might be an uphill battle. -- Zsinj 00:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on these lately. Some of them are straightforward and some are not. I was hoping to start some discussion here so we can try to come up with some rules of thumb. I don't have any particular special knowledge of Bosnian history, but I've read through the articles involved and I'm trying to get a clear picture in mind. I wrote this while doing research and so it's long and rambling but it's a collection of my thoughts on different time periods. Here's what I've come up with so far:
If an article refers to Bosnia as the modern nation, it should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's the name of the modern country. Herzegovina is, as far as I can tell, not governed separately, and it does not have its own distinctive cultural group. The Bosnia and Herzegovina page even says there's no solidly defined border between Bosnia and Herzegovina.
If an article refers to Bosnia in the sense of the Bosnian War, it should almost certainly be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian War was fought throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even if it's describing an incident that happened in a city that's undoubtedly in Bosnia (region) it should, in my opinion, be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
From the end of World War II until Yugoslavia's breakup in 1992, references to Bosnia should be linked to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the six Socialist Republics that made up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
If an article refers to Bosnia during World War II, when Yugoslavia was invaded and a puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia was established, I'm not sure what to do. It would depend a lot on the context and this is one of the issues that I'd really like input on.
Between World War I and World War II, Yugoslavia was intentionally divided up into provinces that did not correspond to traditional boundaries. I wouldn't know what to do with a reference to Bosnia during this time period.
This picture shows that Bosnia and Herzegovina were considered one entity in 1878, when the Austro-Hungarian empire began to exert control over the area, ending in formal annexation in 1908. It seems to me that between 1878 and the end of World War I, the majority of references to Bosnia should point to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Between the late 15th century and 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina were/was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have an article specifically for this located at Bosnia Province, Ottoman Empire, so I think most references to Bosnia during that time period should point to that.
Before annexation by the Ottoman Empire, things are very confusing for me. I'm not sure whether to link to Bosnia (region), to Bosnia and Herzegovina, or perhaps even to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The name Herzegovina was apparently first adopted in "1435/1448" according to the History article. I... don't know. TomTheHand 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Needs an editor knowledgeable in British history to determine whether the reference means the First, Second, or both. See also Boer Wars and Talk:Boer Wars. -- Smack ( talk) 06:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also been working on Boer War, and while I agree that in some cases there is a need for someone knowledgeable in British history, there is a lot that can be done by people without specific knowledge.
The First Boer War was fought from December 16, 1880, to March 23, 1881. That's just over three months.
The Second Boer War was fought from October 11, 1899 to May 31, 1902. That's over two and a half years.
Both the twenty-year separation between the two wars and the difference in the lengths are of great help in figuring out which to link to. I would say that 80% of articles that refer to Boer War can be pointed at the right place by looking at the date. Also, the Second Boer War is often referred to in discussions of concentration camps. If it's talking about concentration camps, it's talking about the Second Boer War. TomTheHand 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on String. I was pretty bad, but I think I've got it untangled. (Get it?) I ended up cleaning up Strings, too. I could use some advice at this point:
Thank you for your advice. -- Mikeblas 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Tail" really shouldn't be a disambig - the anatomical meaning is the overwhelming use, and the basic theme of links to the page. bd2412 T 19:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sticking my toe in with Nemesis and finding that most examples are the common noun, which is not even mentioned in the disambig page. I've changed some to Nemesis (mythology)|nemesis, since that's the nearest thing available, but am not convinced that's the right thing to do. — Tamfang 05:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Once upon a time, this list (or was it the Offline reports list in its day?) excluded links to pages that have "(disambiguation)" in their titles. That's because if somebody links to such a title, then it's obviously deliberate. And so by creating a redirect from the "(disambiguation)" title, a means was created for marking links as deliberate so that they don't appear in this list.
However, the current list includes some such pages. Why was this criterion for exclusion removed? Or am I just imagining it being in here in the first place? -- Smjg 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I just wrote a PHP script that takes "What links here" page and sorts them into the different namespaces, so you can see exactly how many links remain. Would anyone be interested in having access to this tool? I was going to recalculate all of the figures and place them on a subpage of my Userpage, but if more people are interested, I can make it more widely available. -- light darkness ( talk) 20:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be adverse to add a bit to the "How to help" section about upkeeping pages that one has fixed disambiguation links to? It would be nice to just say something along the lines of "after you have fixed all the links to a disambiguation page, check back once in a while to fix all new links to the page". I know Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance kind of deals with this, but adding something short to the instructions might make it easier on a smaller scale. -- Nataly a 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I just started doing this disambig thing and found that many times ambiguous term refers to a definition which doesn't have article of its own but is covered under that term's disambiguation page. Should I just leave it like that or remove the link at all? Example: circulation and its use as 'number of newspaper/magazines readers'. Ashish G 02:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Another question: I see that most of links are repaired by removing the disambiguation page and making it redirect to most common use ('no longer a dab page'). Is there any way to check that what article is redirected is indeed most common use, other than to check all pages manually? Or it is just done based on sample of those pages? Because, otherwise, it is the easiest way of doing this. Ashish G 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I think disambiguation pages are a convenient place to accommodate alternative usage of a term that may not have an existing article. If these terms are always deleted from the disambiguation page one would loose a lot of variety coming from the user Wiki community. Is there an easy way to determine the Wiktionary content for the specific ambiguous term? Has the system not got counters to determine most populour usage? Gregorydavid 08:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have written a very short Python script that reports on our progress on fixing links in the current database dump; it is available for your inspection at User:RussBlau/dplcount.py. This tool makes it unnecessary to manually update the subtotals and running totals on the dump page.
Also, let me take this opportunity to thank and encourage everyone who has been working on this project. Sometimes it seems like a hopeless task to fix all the zillions of disambig links; and, in fact (as some have pointed out in the past), this project will never be "finished" because editors are creating new links to disambig pages every day. But looking at the statistics on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance does show that we are making progress. Even though the weekly scans continually pick up new disambig pages from the database dumps, and new links to existing pages, the general trend in the total number of links needing to be fixed is downward. On February 12 (the first week that I was able to merge in a new database dump since the Christmas/New Years hiatus), there were 169,272 links needing to be fixed. Two weeks later, despite two new database dumps that picked up over a hundred more disambig pages, and many new links to existing pages, the total was down to 168,255. In other words, we are fixing the links (a little bit) faster than others are creating them! If we can get a few more volunteers to pitch in, we can whittle down the total even faster. Keep up the good work, and recruit your friends! :-) -- Russ Blau (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Gregorydavid 08:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just submitted a bug report requesting a namespace filter for "What links here". This would allow us to view only the Main: namespace when doing link repair (like you can do in Special:Contributions) - a feature long sought after by many. If you would like the feature, I recommend that you vote for it at the bug description page.-- Commander Keane 01:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible for those fixing the links to also clean up the dab page? Or is it too much to ask for? The reason I ask is because sometimes the person doing the dab page, say for lattice, may also have experience with those terms and would be better suited to fix and/or add descriptions to the links on the dab page. If they're not familiar with the DAB MoS, then they can just add a {{ disambig-cleanup}} tag. It would also help with the countless number of dab pages needing clean up. Gflores Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing some dabbing of various articles mostly Perth and Keyboards what I'm finding is that a lot of the dab links are from talk pages that get archived. Is there any way to delink these pages totally from all articles when they are created. Take this page as an example User talk:Duncharris/archive1 does it still need to maintain links to articles, it contains 8 links to the Perth DAB page in one subsection. Gnangarra 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Should be an easy one, if you want a job. I've outlined what I think are appropriate guidelines on the Talk:Furry page. -- The Famous Movie Director 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Above, Russ Blau inspired us (well me at least :) about the progress we are making and he ended with "Recruit your friends!"
Recruitment is important, and one way to achieve it is through talk pages. For example, I noticed that Perth had a few inbound links so I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Perth to see if anyone would be interested. This achieved 2 things:
So consider enlisting help from various projects and noticeboards (I'm not recommending spamming though).
Another way to attact attenion is the {{ WPDPL}} template, discussed below.-- Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
{{ WPDPL}} is a template designed to go on the talk of troublesome (link repair wise) disambiguation pages.
It has been approved for use, so I guess now is the time to roll it out.
The first usage is at Talk:Italian and instructions are at Template talk:WPDPL (if you have any questions or suggestions, feel free ask here).-- Commander Keane 12:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
On BD2412's suggestion, I included the category namespace in the analysis of the latest dump and found a surprising number of dab links. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from categories. Bo Lindbergh 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Should we do another round on templates before restarting the main namespace? More than 700 templates have accumulated since the last time. Bo Lindbergh 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
pgk has just written a tool for us on the Toolserver (maybe you are familiar with the Toolserver from the edit counter).
The tool gives only the Main namespace links (and a Main namespace link count) from a "Whatlinkshere" report. It is located here.
Importantly, the toolserver sometimes lags and toolserver tools will appear to reflect an older state of Wikipedia — changes made on Wikipedia won't be seen immediately on the toolserver (more here). For example right now, the lag is 8 minutes, 55 seconds. This means that the "Whatlinkshere" will be 8 minutes 55 secs old - and incorrect if you have fixed any links in the past 8 minutes 55 secs. You can check the current lag here.
Also, the Toolserver has limited resources. So if you are going to use the tool extensively please list you name below (and no automated {ie bots} querying). Thankyou pgk! -- Commander Keane 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just corrected seven new links to endemic, which was placed on the completed list by Draeco just nine days ago. It's a little discouraging how fast work can get undone. Isn't there some way to let more people know about this whole problem? -- The Famous Movie Director 05:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done approximately half of these, the residue are slightly more complex and probably require the creation of a page to explain the American usage of Pantomime or $another_solution. Politepunk 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In many cases, when the term "Chief of Staff" is used it is used in a general reference. I believe there should be a non-disambiguation page for the general reference of " Chief of Staff." For example, it makes almost no sense to make a page for the Chief of Staff of the Prussian Army during the time of Carl von Clausewitz. The disambiguation page already has some info for the general meaning of the term. This should fix the disambiguity problem in this case. - Mac OS X 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but I've encountered a few disambiguation pages with links that turn out not to be listed here - Daredevil, for example. Why aren't they on this list? Is it because they don't have enough links? Should I add them to the list myself? -- The Famous Movie Director 09:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
can someone make a user box for people who fix dab page links? if this has already been done, please point me to it, but I could not find one. -- Phantom784 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion:
This user helps fix disambiguation pages with links. |
The colors can probably be improved, though. Kusma (討論) 20:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm struggling to understand why Mongol invasions is a disambig page, as it recites nothing more than the dates of a series of specific events within this category. bd2412 T 17:42, 29 March 2006 (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 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |