![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I have been attempting to keep this obscure edit out of the page for some time. I do not understand the editor's rationale for utilizing the redirect "Tupac Amaru Shakur" when the main link "Tupac Shakur" is valid. Discussion is still taking place here. Any assistance in sorting this mess would be most appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the current discussion on List of bookstores and my own independent stumbling upon List of animals, I've got a list of some "List of" articles that are tagged as dabs that should be fixed. Either they are dabs and should be moved to a title that doesn't start with "List of", or they are regular lists (like the lists roads I fixed today), or they are lists of lists and should be moved to "Lists of" and fixed. I've got a list of lists of lists tagged as dabs at User:JHunterJ/List of X dabs to fix. Anyone is welcome to help, and I'd be happy to move it to a project subpage as well. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No one else is chiming in. How about I go back and re-cast some of the lists as dabs using this test: if there's a dab page for one of the keywords in "Y" in the title "List of X Y Z" (such as ABC (disambiguation) for List of ABC shows), and there are two lists of X Y Z that need to be disambiguated by those entries, then it's a dab. If there are no ambiguous terms, and the lists are just lists of the same things but different (such as "by GDP" vs "by population"; or "A-E" "F-R" "S-Z"), then it's a list of lists. ? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is both a Purcell and a Purcell (disambiguation) page. I propose that the contents of the former be merged with the latter, and that Purcell become a redirect to Henry Purcell (which has a link to the disambiguation page). I am not aware of any person called Purcell being as notable as Henry Purcell, but I appreciate that I may be underinformed! Any comments? almost- instinct 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Can {{DisambigProject}} be placed on SIA even though they aren't Disambig pages just so that they can be headed by a project and thus appear in the listings of some project and that people notice when there are changes made on these articles. Lincher ( talk) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I note Smackbot has created the page 1984 (album) (disambiguation) which has been put up for deletion, quite correctly in my opinion. It is my understanding that WP:DABNAME should only be applied to DAB pages at an undisambiguated name, rather than one at an incomplete disambiguation. Does my view reflect consensus? Presumably if Smackbot created this one, it will be creating others too (I haven't worked out a search to check this yet). -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears the page was created deliberately; SmackBot's owner, Rich Farmbrough has voted in the deletion debate to keep. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see here. Thank you. -- Klein zach 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There are now
I suggest:
How does that sound? (I'm not at all well versed in the relevant rules.) Morenoodles ( talk) 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
as described on the template page page and at
WP:SPEEDY; use a justification such as "there is no
primary topic for this article name". (Alternatively list as an uncontroversial move at
WP:RM, but I recommend being
bold and taking the former route.)Anyone have a better solution at Troll (disambiguation)? There is one primary (the beast) and two strong secondaries (fishing and internet). There's some discussion the talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be getting into a bit of a edit war over at Hun (disambiguation) concerning the correct way to list the term's use in relation to Protestantism and football. It would be helpful to get a few more eyeballs on this and break the deadlock. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banner for this project has have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that an album from the finnish metal band Altaria bears the name "Divinity" and is not mentioned in the Divinity (disambiguation) page. Climatic4 ( talk) 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have an issue here according to this. The last thing I want to do is get into an edit war over something quite mundane. Who can back me up here? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in setting up "Octagon House (disambiguation)" deliberately rather than "Octagon House" as a disambiguation page, given that Octagon house main topic article exists. User BD2412 just undid that, making it "Octagon House" as dab differing only by capitalization from "Octagon house". I think it should be put back the way it was (although keeping the helpful Talk edit history merge that Bd2412 accomplished). Comments? Question raised first, and some back and forth already, at User talk:BD2412#Octagon House disambiguation etc. Thanks, doncram ( talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better solution to this than linking to Special:PrefixIndex? I had a look at WP:DAB but it seemed to suggest that a standard Pygmy (disambiguation) would not be appropriate as most aren't whole-text matches. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 19:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) PamD ( talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What to do with something like Christian Democracy (Italy)? Normally, I would just point it back to the base dab, but in this case there doesn't appear to be a base dab. Another solution would be to move one of the dabbed pages to just (Italy) and have a hatnote point other readers to the other Italy page. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I recently made a post about the possibility of a bot to automatically aid link disambiguation over here. Since this is covered by this project, any comments or suggestions would be great. Thank you :) AlekseyFy ( talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
under the stunt page the driving offense 'stunting' should be listed. I don't know if its an American offense or not but it is a Canada driving offense Tydoni ( talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple, recurring issues regarding the formatting of American that need to be addressed. Such issues include formatting, which entries to include (ie, entries that are not only referred to as "American"), whether certain entries should include inline citations, and recently, whether this disambig page should take the further, unconventional step of including a disambig hat note to deepen the disambiguation. Since it's such a high traffic dab page, we need to make sure it's clean and effective, and serves the reader in the best way possible. -- Cúchullain t/ c 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of the (more complex than usual) considerations involved with regard to the disambiguation page American ( Americans also redirects there) has been in process (or suspension) for some time. Survey the talk page well before diving in. :) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SO: If that solution "works" (it has, so far), then it seems we can forget about citations in this case.
NOTE: If you disagree that we have to think about things like this in this way (saying, e.g., that some people will always be dissatisfied), then we can discuss this further at greater length, elsewhere. :) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:
American is not a run-of-the-mill disambiguation page. Cúchullain believes that the disambiguation guidelines (with no adjustments for unique page characteristics) demand that the link to
American (word) absolutely, positively cannot be at the top of the page ... and asserts his concern is for preventing reader confusion by following the wisdom of the "consensus" of the guidelines ... without adjustment, unless Cúchullain can be persuaded that the guidelines can be adjusted, which he will not consider, because he doesn't believe in adjusting the guidelines. :)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: Notice how many words I am being forced to write because of the assertion of the absolute unwavering authority of the disambiguation guidelines. It appears it will take a few hundred hours of my time to get this "clarified" from a policy perspective. One page is not the issue. This is not one particular content dispute. THE QUESTION is whether disambiguation guidelines can be used to browbeat (yes, browbeat) other editors into not making adjustments to pages that are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. (NOTE: Yes, the last sentence makes a rhetorical flourish at the end waving toward the greater good—similar to the one at the end of Cúchullain's last sentence—but mine is sincere. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I really see no purpose in this dab page. There's only one item out of the two there that can be referred to as "Zombie Powder" or similar. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Picking up from above here: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Moran Morán and Moran (surname) should probably be merged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
- DePiep ( talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We are planning to change the icon used for set index article boxes such as {{ SIA}}. See discussion and examples at Template talk:Dmbox#Set index image.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit is a fairly good example of why the stock phrase "may refer to" is not always the best phrasing and can get used as a substitute for putting brain in gear. The phrase "calculus on manifolds" may indeed refer to one of the items listed: Calculus on Manifolds (book). The other two links are articles in which one can read about calculus on manifolds, but it is not correct to say that the titles of those articles refer to the same thing as the phrase calculus on manifolds. Is there a suitable conventional stock phrase for that situation, or should I just improvise? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving the book to the base name does not make sense. "Calculus on manifolds" is not just the title of a book; it's the subject the book is about. Potentially there could be an article about that subject.
This isn't all that unusual a situation—if it were I probably would not have brought it up here. I think I've seen hundreds of such cases where "may refer to" doesn't make sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ships of the same name are disambiguated by the {{ Shipindex}} template. This generates a notice that says to consider linking to a specific article if a link lead to the shipindex page. Recently, some shipindex pages have been tagged as orphans. According to the rationale generated by the template, there should be few (if any) links to the shipindex page, and the use of the orphan tag is contrary to this. Mjroots ( talk) 05:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, no questions from me here now. I just finished the Congo dab (269 to ~5). Since it is my first big dab in this project, someone from here might like to take an extra look at the results. Maybe I could learn something more. Noteworthy experiences:
I undid that part of this edit that seemed to offend common sense. " Included angle" is a concept that occurs in both of those two articles. But the phrase "included angle" does not refer to the same thing that either of those titles refers to. I think there should be some examples in the disambiguation style manual that mention this possibility, to keep in check those who cultivate a knee-jerk reflex in the matter and point to the manual to justify it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take notice of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 17#Template:Church disambig and consider commenting there. doncram ( talk) 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When a dab page is not at the base name, but rather at a secondary name, incoming links to the base name do not get disambiguated. It occurs to me that the desirability of disambiguating these links might be estimated by looking at the number of page views of the dab page vs the base page. I am thinking that a statistical analysis of page views to (eg) Foo (disambiguation) vs Foo might be informative. Has anyone tried doing this analysis? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Craigslist Killer is an actual topic. From what I can tell it is a glorified disambiguation page pointing to three topics, Michael John Anderson, John Katehis, and Philip Markoff. I've started a discussion over at Talk:Craigslist Killer#Disambiguation page, but I'm going to need some feedback. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a question there on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hatnote, but to which disambiguation page?. - DePiep ( talk) 09:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a lot of developing and cleaning up dab pages involving U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles, in the six months since getting a lot of guidance here, in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. The guidance provided has served very well since, removing NRHP disambiguation pages entirely from AfD contention, which was frequent previously. There are currently 476 NRHP dab pages in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles and more developed that weren't put in the category yet.
Now, with hundreds of pages including most of the biggest ones converted over to newer format, I'm personally interested in getting feedback on possible refinements. I'd welcome thoughtful comments on any articles in the category. I hope you will please, however, bear with me on any ones tagged {{ NRHP dab needing cleanup}}; I am actively working on cleaning those up, but more are being created and tagged with that by other wp:NRHP editors (a good thing) so it is taking me longer to get through them all than i hoped.
Three examples that vary somewhat are:
It happens i just received some rather critical comments at Talk:Phillips House, stirring me now to ask for general feedback here sooner rather than later. doncram ( talk) 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Came across Himno Nacional, anthem for Dominican Republic, however, the links seem to indicate that the page should be considered to be a disambiguation, especially when looking at intitle:himno+nacional. -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The template {{ Church disambig}} has been proposed for deletion here. Apart from the conclusion there: I think in general all these 'Xxx disamb'-templates (gathering on the parent cat Category:Disambiguation pages) are constructed and used unhelpful. I take this to be within the scope of this project.
There is a list-article Temple Israel which was labelled as a disambiguation page but is clearly much more. I just reclassified it as a Set Index Article and created Temple Israel (disambiguation) which is needed, too, I believe. Could anyone take a look at the two of them and advise, particularly the latter. I haven't created matched SIAs and disambiguation pages before. In particular I am not sure how a disambig page's entries should be set up to link to article sections, rather than to articles; how i did it for now doesn't look right. doncram ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I have been attempting to keep this obscure edit out of the page for some time. I do not understand the editor's rationale for utilizing the redirect "Tupac Amaru Shakur" when the main link "Tupac Shakur" is valid. Discussion is still taking place here. Any assistance in sorting this mess would be most appreciated. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the current discussion on List of bookstores and my own independent stumbling upon List of animals, I've got a list of some "List of" articles that are tagged as dabs that should be fixed. Either they are dabs and should be moved to a title that doesn't start with "List of", or they are regular lists (like the lists roads I fixed today), or they are lists of lists and should be moved to "Lists of" and fixed. I've got a list of lists of lists tagged as dabs at User:JHunterJ/List of X dabs to fix. Anyone is welcome to help, and I'd be happy to move it to a project subpage as well. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No one else is chiming in. How about I go back and re-cast some of the lists as dabs using this test: if there's a dab page for one of the keywords in "Y" in the title "List of X Y Z" (such as ABC (disambiguation) for List of ABC shows), and there are two lists of X Y Z that need to be disambiguated by those entries, then it's a dab. If there are no ambiguous terms, and the lists are just lists of the same things but different (such as "by GDP" vs "by population"; or "A-E" "F-R" "S-Z"), then it's a list of lists. ? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently there is both a Purcell and a Purcell (disambiguation) page. I propose that the contents of the former be merged with the latter, and that Purcell become a redirect to Henry Purcell (which has a link to the disambiguation page). I am not aware of any person called Purcell being as notable as Henry Purcell, but I appreciate that I may be underinformed! Any comments? almost- instinct 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Can {{DisambigProject}} be placed on SIA even though they aren't Disambig pages just so that they can be headed by a project and thus appear in the listings of some project and that people notice when there are changes made on these articles. Lincher ( talk) 12:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I note Smackbot has created the page 1984 (album) (disambiguation) which has been put up for deletion, quite correctly in my opinion. It is my understanding that WP:DABNAME should only be applied to DAB pages at an undisambiguated name, rather than one at an incomplete disambiguation. Does my view reflect consensus? Presumably if Smackbot created this one, it will be creating others too (I haven't worked out a search to check this yet). -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 23:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears the page was created deliberately; SmackBot's owner, Rich Farmbrough has voted in the deletion debate to keep. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see here. Thank you. -- Klein zach 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There are now
I suggest:
How does that sound? (I'm not at all well versed in the relevant rules.) Morenoodles ( talk) 04:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
db-move}}
as described on the template page page and at
WP:SPEEDY; use a justification such as "there is no
primary topic for this article name". (Alternatively list as an uncontroversial move at
WP:RM, but I recommend being
bold and taking the former route.)Anyone have a better solution at Troll (disambiguation)? There is one primary (the beast) and two strong secondaries (fishing and internet). There's some discussion the talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be getting into a bit of a edit war over at Hun (disambiguation) concerning the correct way to list the term's use in relation to Protestantism and football. It would be helpful to get a few more eyeballs on this and break the deadlock. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I thought that I'd bring to your attention a new script which I have created, AssessorTags, which helps to add WikiProject banners to talk pages. The banner for this project has have now been included in the script, so it may be helpful when locating and tagging articles. Documentation for the script can be found here, and if you have any questions feel free to ask at my talk page. Please not that I will probably not be watching this page, so comments left here will not be responded to. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that an album from the finnish metal band Altaria bears the name "Divinity" and is not mentioned in the Divinity (disambiguation) page. Climatic4 ( talk) 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we have an issue here according to this. The last thing I want to do is get into an edit war over something quite mundane. Who can back me up here? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 00:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I was involved in setting up "Octagon House (disambiguation)" deliberately rather than "Octagon House" as a disambiguation page, given that Octagon house main topic article exists. User BD2412 just undid that, making it "Octagon House" as dab differing only by capitalization from "Octagon house". I think it should be put back the way it was (although keeping the helpful Talk edit history merge that Bd2412 accomplished). Comments? Question raised first, and some back and forth already, at User talk:BD2412#Octagon House disambiguation etc. Thanks, doncram ( talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a better solution to this than linking to Special:PrefixIndex? I had a look at WP:DAB but it seemed to suggest that a standard Pygmy (disambiguation) would not be appropriate as most aren't whole-text matches. OrangeDog ( talk • edits) 19:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) PamD ( talk) 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What to do with something like Christian Democracy (Italy)? Normally, I would just point it back to the base dab, but in this case there doesn't appear to be a base dab. Another solution would be to move one of the dabbed pages to just (Italy) and have a hatnote point other readers to the other Italy page. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I recently made a post about the possibility of a bot to automatically aid link disambiguation over here. Since this is covered by this project, any comments or suggestions would be great. Thank you :) AlekseyFy ( talk) 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
under the stunt page the driving offense 'stunting' should be listed. I don't know if its an American offense or not but it is a Canada driving offense Tydoni ( talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple, recurring issues regarding the formatting of American that need to be addressed. Such issues include formatting, which entries to include (ie, entries that are not only referred to as "American"), whether certain entries should include inline citations, and recently, whether this disambig page should take the further, unconventional step of including a disambig hat note to deepen the disambiguation. Since it's such a high traffic dab page, we need to make sure it's clean and effective, and serves the reader in the best way possible. -- Cúchullain t/ c 16:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of the (more complex than usual) considerations involved with regard to the disambiguation page American ( Americans also redirects there) has been in process (or suspension) for some time. Survey the talk page well before diving in. :) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 23:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
SO: If that solution "works" (it has, so far), then it seems we can forget about citations in this case.
NOTE: If you disagree that we have to think about things like this in this way (saying, e.g., that some people will always be dissatisfied), then we can discuss this further at greater length, elsewhere. :) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:
American is not a run-of-the-mill disambiguation page. Cúchullain believes that the disambiguation guidelines (with no adjustments for unique page characteristics) demand that the link to
American (word) absolutely, positively cannot be at the top of the page ... and asserts his concern is for preventing reader confusion by following the wisdom of the "consensus" of the guidelines ... without adjustment, unless Cúchullain can be persuaded that the guidelines can be adjusted, which he will not consider, because he doesn't believe in adjusting the guidelines. :)
--
Proofreader77 (
talk)
07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
COMMENT: Notice how many words I am being forced to write because of the assertion of the absolute unwavering authority of the disambiguation guidelines. It appears it will take a few hundred hours of my time to get this "clarified" from a policy perspective. One page is not the issue. This is not one particular content dispute. THE QUESTION is whether disambiguation guidelines can be used to browbeat (yes, browbeat) other editors into not making adjustments to pages that are in the best interest of the encyclopedia. (NOTE: Yes, the last sentence makes a rhetorical flourish at the end waving toward the greater good—similar to the one at the end of Cúchullain's last sentence—but mine is sincere. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I really see no purpose in this dab page. There's only one item out of the two there that can be referred to as "Zombie Powder" or similar. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Picking up from above here: Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Moran Morán and Moran (surname) should probably be merged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC).
- DePiep ( talk) 11:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We are planning to change the icon used for set index article boxes such as {{ SIA}}. See discussion and examples at Template talk:Dmbox#Set index image.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit is a fairly good example of why the stock phrase "may refer to" is not always the best phrasing and can get used as a substitute for putting brain in gear. The phrase "calculus on manifolds" may indeed refer to one of the items listed: Calculus on Manifolds (book). The other two links are articles in which one can read about calculus on manifolds, but it is not correct to say that the titles of those articles refer to the same thing as the phrase calculus on manifolds. Is there a suitable conventional stock phrase for that situation, or should I just improvise? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving the book to the base name does not make sense. "Calculus on manifolds" is not just the title of a book; it's the subject the book is about. Potentially there could be an article about that subject.
This isn't all that unusual a situation—if it were I probably would not have brought it up here. I think I've seen hundreds of such cases where "may refer to" doesn't make sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ships of the same name are disambiguated by the {{ Shipindex}} template. This generates a notice that says to consider linking to a specific article if a link lead to the shipindex page. Recently, some shipindex pages have been tagged as orphans. According to the rationale generated by the template, there should be few (if any) links to the shipindex page, and the use of the orphan tag is contrary to this. Mjroots ( talk) 05:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, no questions from me here now. I just finished the Congo dab (269 to ~5). Since it is my first big dab in this project, someone from here might like to take an extra look at the results. Maybe I could learn something more. Noteworthy experiences:
I undid that part of this edit that seemed to offend common sense. " Included angle" is a concept that occurs in both of those two articles. But the phrase "included angle" does not refer to the same thing that either of those titles refers to. I think there should be some examples in the disambiguation style manual that mention this possibility, to keep in check those who cultivate a knee-jerk reflex in the matter and point to the manual to justify it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please take notice of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 17#Template:Church disambig and consider commenting there. doncram ( talk) 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When a dab page is not at the base name, but rather at a secondary name, incoming links to the base name do not get disambiguated. It occurs to me that the desirability of disambiguating these links might be estimated by looking at the number of page views of the dab page vs the base page. I am thinking that a statistical analysis of page views to (eg) Foo (disambiguation) vs Foo might be informative. Has anyone tried doing this analysis? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Craigslist Killer is an actual topic. From what I can tell it is a glorified disambiguation page pointing to three topics, Michael John Anderson, John Katehis, and Philip Markoff. I've started a discussion over at Talk:Craigslist Killer#Disambiguation page, but I'm going to need some feedback. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a question there on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Hatnote, but to which disambiguation page?. - DePiep ( talk) 09:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done a lot of developing and cleaning up dab pages involving U.S. National Register of Historic Places articles, in the six months since getting a lot of guidance here, in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. The guidance provided has served very well since, removing NRHP disambiguation pages entirely from AfD contention, which was frequent previously. There are currently 476 NRHP dab pages in Category:Disambig-Class National Register of Historic Places articles and more developed that weren't put in the category yet.
Now, with hundreds of pages including most of the biggest ones converted over to newer format, I'm personally interested in getting feedback on possible refinements. I'd welcome thoughtful comments on any articles in the category. I hope you will please, however, bear with me on any ones tagged {{ NRHP dab needing cleanup}}; I am actively working on cleaning those up, but more are being created and tagged with that by other wp:NRHP editors (a good thing) so it is taking me longer to get through them all than i hoped.
Three examples that vary somewhat are:
It happens i just received some rather critical comments at Talk:Phillips House, stirring me now to ask for general feedback here sooner rather than later. doncram ( talk) 07:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Came across Himno Nacional, anthem for Dominican Republic, however, the links seem to indicate that the page should be considered to be a disambiguation, especially when looking at intitle:himno+nacional. -- billinghurst ( talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The template {{ Church disambig}} has been proposed for deletion here. Apart from the conclusion there: I think in general all these 'Xxx disamb'-templates (gathering on the parent cat Category:Disambiguation pages) are constructed and used unhelpful. I take this to be within the scope of this project.
There is a list-article Temple Israel which was labelled as a disambiguation page but is clearly much more. I just reclassified it as a Set Index Article and created Temple Israel (disambiguation) which is needed, too, I believe. Could anyone take a look at the two of them and advise, particularly the latter. I haven't created matched SIAs and disambiguation pages before. In particular I am not sure how a disambig page's entries should be set up to link to article sections, rather than to articles; how i did it for now doesn't look right. doncram ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)