![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Field day deserves to be a dab page given the number of hatnotes and the content of the current page. See also the discussion on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There's been a complaint that my stating the style guidelines is just me against consensus. If any other project members would like to help explain the old consensus (or help define the new one if it has changed), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Broad Street Historic District. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
While watching recent changes I saw this edit. My initial inclination was to undo the edit as improper for a dab page. Then I noticed that the page had a bird-stub tag. I couldn't very well revert an addition of content when the addition was invited by the stub tag. Shoould the tag be removed? Does the tag refer to additional disambiguations? This set of circumstances may not ever happen again but I would like some feedback on how best to address the issue. If there even IS an issue. Thanks Tide rolls 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Possible category discussion of interest to members of the Project is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at and maybe improve Hitomi (disambiguation)? I've made a few changes from the previous version, but it's still in pretty poor shape - partially due to my relatively low level of expertise with dabs. Thanks. — Zach425 talk/ contribs 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My head's spinning - an editor had created a new dab at New world order (disambiguation), parallel to the existing dab at New World Order; there's an article at New world order which until a moment ago didn't have a link to the dab page. I've over-written the new dab page with a redirect to the old one, but I'm not sure how we treat matters like this where the capitalisation is critical. Anyone else like to have a look? PamD ( talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
New world order, New World Order, New world order (disambiguation)
There are still problems identifying and locating articles regarding this set! -- Ludvikus ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
End of copied section (let discussion continue):
As it stands at present New world order is the primary usage of that phrase, and has a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page for other uses (and which currently picks out one major use, conspiracy theory, as worthy of its own specific mention, which is non-standard but could be reasonable if it's a near-primary usage of the version with caps) (and which I've just updated to make it correctly link to the dab page via a redirect). There is no single primary use of New World Order, and that leads to the dab page. That seems OK. What problem do you think is still outstanding, Ludvikus? PamD ( talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone turn this into a proper dab? Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people created a hodge-podge for World domination page. Someone from experts in disambig pages, please assist in cleaning up; see its talk page, Talk:World domination#OR tag & Talk:World domination#Prove it - Altenmann >t 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many Azalea articles, but no dab page and my to-do list is full. Anyone else interested in taking that on? Ma t c hups 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Until Sept 2, 2009, Orange Bowl was the dab page and Orange Bowl (game) covered the game, and Miami Orange Bowl covered the stadium. On Sept. 2 the Orange Bowl (game) was moved (with a duplicate history) to Orange Bowl, the Orange Bowl (game) history is now attached to Orange Bowl (disambiguation), which is the dab page (without its prior history). I am not sure whether I discribed this correctly, but for example the current Orange Bowl talk page redirects to Talk:Orange Bowl (disambiguation). Did someone mishandle the execution of this? Would it make more sense to the Orange Bowl as the dab page because people may accidentally link to it, not understanding the two different senses of the term? In other words, would it be best if we just undid the Sept 2 change? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first read WP:INTDABLINK (always use a title with "(disambiguation)" when intentionally linking to a dab; create a redirect for this purpose when necessary) I assumed that it specifically applied to links from non-dab articles. Does this apply to links from the "See also" section of dab pages as well? -- ToE T 01:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(← Making room)
I am the editor PamD mentions above, who recently removed a bunch of these tags. (See
User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page.) Given the template's imprecise name, I was pleasantly surprised to find only 4% misuse. Many of the 4% did not even target dab pages anymore (and some never did), but most do, and I am having trouble deciding on replacement tags for a lot of them. The same tags that work for redirects to regular articles don't seem appropriate for redirects to dab pages that disambiguate several distinct terms. For instance, do {{
R from other capitalisation}}, {{
R from title with diacritics}}, and {{
R from plural}} (with their accompanying categorization as unprintable) really apply to
UPA,
Melián, and
Kids, given that they are all separate words that are emboldened and disambiguated (sometimes in a separate section) on their target pages? --
ToE
T
23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Those interested in this project but who aren't watching the style guidelines may still want to check out WT:MOSDAB#Straw poll on recently-discussed revisions. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That they all may be one isn't really disambiguating anything, it's just pointing out that a number of institutions have used the same Biblical phrase as a motto. What to do with it? bd2412 T 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a proto-article waiting to be born. bd2412 T 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
to all newbie here, if this troubles you (the added link and or this explaination of it remember this is "Just my humble opion JSo9-10(no fax can be found here)" seriously though this does create a cirular reference that I feel was missing / If you can help reduce the clutter in this section and see the point I am making here and can state it more clearly let me know at JSo9-10 (talk) I will be happy to cut the size and confusion by "edit")
In the spirit of: Turtles and tortoises in popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(disambiguation)
Technology
Turtle (robot)
, a class of educational robots used most prominently in the 1970s and 1980s
See also
Tortoise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation)
User talk:JSo9-10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Neural network (from user talk page)
Comparison of brains and computers
However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense for the many interesting aspects of computation. I added a sentence to point out that Turing only applies to static functions (aka off line) while new theories of neural computation have developed non-Turing computing models (see Maass and Markram ref). Another point I'd like to add to the same paragraph: computers now have lots of embedded auxillary processors further blurring the what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Newbie here but i think John said it perfectly...
"However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense .... what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"
Also i have read edits and comments about +/ ( read "and or") requesting simpler, less technical/medical/scientific explanations, And received one in person from my son last night while not suggesting a child’s version of Wikipedia something akin to a "Bill Nye the Science Guy's" {
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_the_Science_Guy }/ everyman’s link on each disambiguation (Neural network)page would be helpful / welcome. JSo9-10 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) d
More Examples Below that add clearity (i hope)
i am going to attempt to add a link to
Turtles and tortoises in popular culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Turtle (robot) Walter Grey Walter's Machina Speculatrix a.k.a Turtle on the Beam Robotics Wiki Grey Walter: The Pioneer of Real Artificial Life, Holland, Owen E. *Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Artificial Life, Christoper Langton Editor, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997, ISBN# 0-262-62111-8, p34-44.
Elmer the Tortoise In 1949 Grey Wlter built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells
By Owen Holland
it all began several years ago ......... the famous neurologist Dr. Grey Walter built his robot tortoises.”
I can’t remember..., but his words somehow stuck in my mind. I knew ... how the brain worked. He did not think humans
were intelligent
{This line "He did not think..."is what hooked me. i believe that Dr. Grey Walter's work should be Linked on all the Following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation) because of the simplicity and elegant design of the Tortoises. These circuits are simple and easy to construct, study and understand. While he and many others may not see a link here i humbly submit "I see a very early and IMPORTANT LINK."JSo9-10}
humans were intelligent just because they had ten billion brain cells, but rather because their brain cells were connected up in many different ways. So he built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells, Elmer the Tortoise @ http://www.nzzfolio.ch/www/d80bd71b-b264-4db4-afd0-277884b93470/showarticle/a868cc7c-e399-48eb-8faf-1996a558e288.aspx
Just my humble opion (no fax can be found here) JSo9-10 ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes a primary topic for a term will be a redirect to a section of another article. If such a topic has a disambiguation page, where should the disambiguation hatnote go? At the top of the article, or at the top of the linked section? While it is tempting to say "at the top of the section", which would be more intuitive for regular browsers, I wonder if this would cause accessibility issues, and whether the hatnote should go at the top of the article? I can't find any specific guidance on this, however my impression is that current guidelines imply that it should go at the top of the article. Example topics are Roger Rabbit (dabhat at top of page) and Jessica Rabbit (dabhat at top of section). Note in this particular case, the dabhats could be combined if they were located at the top of the page. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 10:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Just two articles, basically addressing the law of right of way in different parts of the UK. One is stubby, maybe some kind of merge is in order? bd2412 T 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse me if this is superfluous, but no guidance on whether to list here is given one way or the other at WP:SPLIT. I've marked BEM for splitting and discuss why at its talk page.
I've also fixed {{
split dab}}
to get rid of the superfluous comma, and added
test cases and tidied up the
documentation a bit. I hope this is all OK.
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is nearly Remembrance Day in the United Kingdom, I can imagine other editors may think I got to this DAB by searching for the British Empire Medal, but actually I got here after editing at József Bem. Si Trew ( talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This dab page needs some work. Viriditas ( talk) 06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no discription on the mayority of the names - after I added all this details to Lurie i feel that it is useless. Seems to be at a very low priority at EN:WP. -- Eingangskontrolle ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor insists that Palladio must be a disambiguation page, even though it disambiguates only two articles. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, but perhaps some other editors could look at the page with a fresh set of eyes. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Crosslisting this from WP:DPL - I have finished paring down the initial run of redirects to disambiguation pages to a list of about 5,000 questionable redirects, about a third of which (so far) are divided into subpages based on the type of problem presented. This is going to take a while to get through, so please have at it! bd2412 T 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) with regards to a proposed move of Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) to Canoe Lake, Ontario (which is presently a disambiguation with only one bluelink, to Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario)). - M.Nelson ( talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The Prudence page contains a section called "Feminine Name" which includes a list of people named prudence. Would it make sense to make a disambiguated page out of this section? Pollinosisss ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am having trouble with an anonymous user who keeps adding an external link/reference in the disambiguation page Neko, which is against WP:EL, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:DDD. Can someone give me a hand so that it's not just me reverting? Thanks. swa q 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A deletion discussion that may be of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Template:All pages. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a number of issues with Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. I'm reluctant to edit it, as there appears to be an ongoing NPOV dispute between two editors. Suggestions? PaulHammond2 ( talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Not at all ... mosdab is clear that the description should be kept to a minimum ... therefore where there is only one film (eg) there is no need for a description. There are many examples of this throughout dab pages where films, books, places etc are listed without description when this is clear from the target article. In addition, on this page in particular, having no descriptions avoids arguments over what the descriptions should be ... which is where we came in. I won't fight you over it though. Abtract ( talk) 12:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This got created a few days back, I cleaned it up, but nothing links there and all the options are redlinks. Any admin out there want to delete it? Josh Parris 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects for a Cfd discussion related to this WikiProject. Believe this, along with the notification below may be helpful to this project. - MornMore ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Template:This_is_a_redirect for a Tfd discussion related to this WikiProject. (related to the above notification)
Not positive I have the terminology correct, but believe this is whats called a 'meta-template', a template used to create other templates. The template: Template:This is a redirect was created by User:Lenoxus, a member of the Wiki_Redirect project. The template allows easily creating a specific template used to put TYPE redirects into a specific redirect category - "redirect of TYPE", e.g. "schools" and "hospitals", or "from alternative spelling" and "from alternative name". Categorizing redirects may also serve to facilitate disambiguation. - MornMore ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone here interested in undertaking the following task?:
I initially asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests, but nobody there was interested and they suggested I try over here. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would invite everyone on the disambiguation project to please join the discussion at Talk:Avatar#Requested moves. Due to selection bias, I think the issue needs more input than from the few people who have watched the page describing the root meaning of the word. I feel that in the 17 years since "Snow Crash" borrowed it, the ancient definition is no longer the definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose the following reorganisation. The current disambiguation page for Stifford would become an article and would incorporate the text from the current articles on North Stifford and South Stifford. The North and South Stifford pages would become redirects to the new article. I will hold for a while to allow time for comments. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a deletion discussion here. Neelix ( talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a need for a disambiguation page for Roch and St. Roch (in fact I can't believe there wasn't one - maybe it got lost in the history somewhere). I've started such a page at Roch (disambiguation), but don't have time to complete it now, so if anyone feels like assisting... -- Kotniski ( talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. doncram ( talk) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice Gothic was recently changed from a dab page to a wide ranging article. Obviously none of the disambiguation tools now work on 'Gothic'. William Avery ( talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Skating and discovered that a large number of the links require expert knowledge from the article author to disambiguate. I've placed {{ dn}} templates in the past, but it's always hard to tell by looking at a list which articles have been {{ dn}} tagged and which are potentially fixable by someone without expert knowledge. I'm suggesting, without having thought this all the way through, that tagged links get changed to [[example (dn)|]]{{dn}}, which redirects to [[example]].
In advance, I'd like to say I don't like the form of {{dn|linkname}}, because links in templates make it really hard to find them, and templates are too "advanced" for casual editors to understand (and thus fix the broken dab link).
Now, on the downside, there'd be a bunch of pages pointing at [[example (dn)|]], and once they're all gone you've got this crazy redirect - but redirects are cheap. A problem I can see is that if one disambiguator can't figure out what [[example]] is meant to dab to, it doesn't mean another will. You could go crazy nuts, and dump it in a link to [[example (dn biology)|]] meaning that someone who knows a bit about biology would be able to dab this particular link, but where do you stop?
What say you? Josh Parris 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Propossl to move of DEA to DEA (disambiguation) and changing DEA into redirect to Drug Enforcement Administration shifted to Talk:DEA#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The first of these was a redirect, which I have replaced by a MOS:DAB-compliant dab page. I have nominated the second for deletion. These pages have a long history of POV-pushing and edit-warring (which I hope my changes will put a stop to), so some input from project members will be welcome. -- NSH001 ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
When looking for 'Wittan', I was redirectd to the unrelated term 'Witta'
Weekend is now a half-article, half-disambig. Two ways to go here - keep it as a disambig and move the article material to something like Weekend (time period), or keep the article material at Weekend and move the rest to Weekend (disambiguation). I support the latter. bd2412 T 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This dab page currently starts: "The horse is hoofed animal." It has been changed several times to replace "animal" with "ungulate". I have reinstated animal each time, with an edit summary to the effect that it's clearest to use a simple and familiar term on a dab page, but it gets reverted without comment. Those with views either way may with to be aware, and possibly to contribute to a discussion if one starts on the article's talk page. PL290 ( talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Other interested editors welcome at Calbuco (disambiguation) and Dwarf (disambiguation). I have attempted to clean each of them and been reverted. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted to your version on Calbuco (dab), but this was instantly rv and the editor left a warning on my page. The editor also removed the clean-up tag. I've done my 2nd rv now, but based on the responses so far of this editor, I'm not confident that this will be over quickly. Boleyn2 ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone else's turn now on Calbuco (disambiguation) - I'm losing patience with it. PamD ( talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
See also the 3RR block -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation now has grown to 2880 articles, all listed there due to having {{ dn}} tags on dablinks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the victor of Waterloo the primary topic for "Duke of Wellington"? Please discuss at Talk:Duke of Wellington#Requested move.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
When writing a DAB page for "Positive action", should I list all the more notable topics involving something I can confirm is a positive action of some sort or, should I list only the topic I think will be the most commonly searched term and any group or incident entitled Positive Action? ~ R. T. G 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
All of these - Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 70, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, and Channel 83 - are highly problematic, with multiple linked terms per line, copious external links and footnotes, and some other indicia of being articles rather than disambig pages. bd2412 T 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the need to block talk pages on a disambiguation reason, but this band is officially titled Zilch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxReikoxX ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to let the appropriate WikiProject know there is currently a requested move discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move to move Lincoln to Lincoln (disambiguation), comments from all are welcome. Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm forming a proposal for a bot. The intention of this bot is to immediately bring to the page author's attention that the article is linking somewhere other than they thought it would be linking.
The bot would inspect all new main-space articles except for redirects and dab-pages. Redirects are valid to point at dab pages, as are other dab pages. Any new page that has any links to disambiguation pages will have {{dn}} added after each link.
Is this a bad idea? Why? Josh Parris 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds useful to me. Boleyn2 ( talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
One outcome of discussions about this proposed WildBot is a makeover of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links. Now, however, it appears we really need two pages: one for how to fix dablinks in general, and another for how to fix dablinks that have been tagged {{ dn}} (ie, dablinks that are hard to fix). -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
After an extensive discussion, the proposal now reads:
(the namespaces are: 0 (mainspace), 6 (file), 10 (template) and 14 (category)).
Current proposed message template:
![]() | Links from this article which need disambiguation (
check |
fix): Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, Channel 83, Gothic, Hebron massacre, Hebron massacres, Skating, Term, Witta, Wittan
For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |
![]() |
If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is nearing completion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 08:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is generally only tagged with WPDisamb, right? Are there some guidelines or policy regarding whether or not it should be tagged for multiple projects anywhere? Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce WP:NAMB by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Currently (and in my opinion correctly), Abe Lincoln is a redirect to Abraham Lincoln. There is however a musician commonly known by the same name, at Abe Lincoln (musician). My interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in such cases, a hatnote should be placed at the redirect's target to point users at the alternate use. It is also my opinion that in this case the hatnote referring readers to Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is insufficient because:
Clearly at least one editor disagrees and has removed the hatnote. Am I out of line here or am I making a reasonable interpretation of consensus? -- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[G]iven there are arguably 3 articles competing for the title "Abe Lincoln" and in order to satisfy others' concerns and reduce the impact of hatnotes to this article, how about making Abram Lincoln a DAB page and adding a link to that (via Abram Lincoln (disambiguation)) by rewording the current hatnote? This avoids giving undue prominence to specific individuals and minimises hatnotes while appropriately disambiguating the term.
Since we are discussion the hatnotes on that page, I posted my reasons for restoring the hatnote to Talk:Abraham Lincoln. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Field day deserves to be a dab page given the number of hatnotes and the content of the current page. See also the discussion on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There's been a complaint that my stating the style guidelines is just me against consensus. If any other project members would like to help explain the old consensus (or help define the new one if it has changed), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Broad Street Historic District. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
While watching recent changes I saw this edit. My initial inclination was to undo the edit as improper for a dab page. Then I noticed that the page had a bird-stub tag. I couldn't very well revert an addition of content when the addition was invited by the stub tag. Shoould the tag be removed? Does the tag refer to additional disambiguations? This set of circumstances may not ever happen again but I would like some feedback on how best to address the issue. If there even IS an issue. Thanks Tide rolls 00:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Possible category discussion of interest to members of the Project is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at and maybe improve Hitomi (disambiguation)? I've made a few changes from the previous version, but it's still in pretty poor shape - partially due to my relatively low level of expertise with dabs. Thanks. — Zach425 talk/ contribs 06:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
My head's spinning - an editor had created a new dab at New world order (disambiguation), parallel to the existing dab at New World Order; there's an article at New world order which until a moment ago didn't have a link to the dab page. I've over-written the new dab page with a redirect to the old one, but I'm not sure how we treat matters like this where the capitalisation is critical. Anyone else like to have a look? PamD ( talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
New world order, New World Order, New world order (disambiguation)
There are still problems identifying and locating articles regarding this set! -- Ludvikus ( talk) 12:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
End of copied section (let discussion continue):
As it stands at present New world order is the primary usage of that phrase, and has a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page for other uses (and which currently picks out one major use, conspiracy theory, as worthy of its own specific mention, which is non-standard but could be reasonable if it's a near-primary usage of the version with caps) (and which I've just updated to make it correctly link to the dab page via a redirect). There is no single primary use of New World Order, and that leads to the dab page. That seems OK. What problem do you think is still outstanding, Ludvikus? PamD ( talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Could someone turn this into a proper dab? Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people created a hodge-podge for World domination page. Someone from experts in disambig pages, please assist in cleaning up; see its talk page, Talk:World domination#OR tag & Talk:World domination#Prove it - Altenmann >t 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There are many Azalea articles, but no dab page and my to-do list is full. Anyone else interested in taking that on? Ma t c hups 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Until Sept 2, 2009, Orange Bowl was the dab page and Orange Bowl (game) covered the game, and Miami Orange Bowl covered the stadium. On Sept. 2 the Orange Bowl (game) was moved (with a duplicate history) to Orange Bowl, the Orange Bowl (game) history is now attached to Orange Bowl (disambiguation), which is the dab page (without its prior history). I am not sure whether I discribed this correctly, but for example the current Orange Bowl talk page redirects to Talk:Orange Bowl (disambiguation). Did someone mishandle the execution of this? Would it make more sense to the Orange Bowl as the dab page because people may accidentally link to it, not understanding the two different senses of the term? In other words, would it be best if we just undid the Sept 2 change? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first read WP:INTDABLINK (always use a title with "(disambiguation)" when intentionally linking to a dab; create a redirect for this purpose when necessary) I assumed that it specifically applied to links from non-dab articles. Does this apply to links from the "See also" section of dab pages as well? -- ToE T 01:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(← Making room)
I am the editor PamD mentions above, who recently removed a bunch of these tags. (See
User talk:Thinking of England#R to disambiguation page.) Given the template's imprecise name, I was pleasantly surprised to find only 4% misuse. Many of the 4% did not even target dab pages anymore (and some never did), but most do, and I am having trouble deciding on replacement tags for a lot of them. The same tags that work for redirects to regular articles don't seem appropriate for redirects to dab pages that disambiguate several distinct terms. For instance, do {{
R from other capitalisation}}, {{
R from title with diacritics}}, and {{
R from plural}} (with their accompanying categorization as unprintable) really apply to
UPA,
Melián, and
Kids, given that they are all separate words that are emboldened and disambiguated (sometimes in a separate section) on their target pages? --
ToE
T
23:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Those interested in this project but who aren't watching the style guidelines may still want to check out WT:MOSDAB#Straw poll on recently-discussed revisions. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That they all may be one isn't really disambiguating anything, it's just pointing out that a number of institutions have used the same Biblical phrase as a motto. What to do with it? bd2412 T 00:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a proto-article waiting to be born. bd2412 T 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
to all newbie here, if this troubles you (the added link and or this explaination of it remember this is "Just my humble opion JSo9-10(no fax can be found here)" seriously though this does create a cirular reference that I feel was missing / If you can help reduce the clutter in this section and see the point I am making here and can state it more clearly let me know at JSo9-10 (talk) I will be happy to cut the size and confusion by "edit")
In the spirit of: Turtles and tortoises in popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_(disambiguation)
Technology
Turtle (robot)
, a class of educational robots used most prominently in the 1970s and 1980s
See also
Tortoise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation)
User talk:JSo9-10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Neural network (from user talk page)
Comparison of brains and computers
However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense for the many interesting aspects of computation. I added a sentence to point out that Turing only applies to static functions (aka off line) while new theories of neural computation have developed non-Turing computing models (see Maass and Markram ref). Another point I'd like to add to the same paragraph: computers now have lots of embedded auxillary processors further blurring the what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Newbie here but i think John said it perfectly...
"However problematic, brain-computer comparisons are fun and help readers get a sense .... what we mean by "computer" JohnJBarton 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)"
Also i have read edits and comments about +/ ( read "and or") requesting simpler, less technical/medical/scientific explanations, And received one in person from my son last night while not suggesting a child’s version of Wikipedia something akin to a "Bill Nye the Science Guy's" {
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_the_Science_Guy }/ everyman’s link on each disambiguation (Neural network)page would be helpful / welcome. JSo9-10 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC) d
More Examples Below that add clearity (i hope)
i am going to attempt to add a link to
Turtles and tortoises in popular culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara contrib. talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Turtle (robot) Walter Grey Walter's Machina Speculatrix a.k.a Turtle on the Beam Robotics Wiki Grey Walter: The Pioneer of Real Artificial Life, Holland, Owen E. *Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Artificial Life, Christoper Langton Editor, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997, ISBN# 0-262-62111-8, p34-44.
Elmer the Tortoise In 1949 Grey Wlter built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells
By Owen Holland
it all began several years ago ......... the famous neurologist Dr. Grey Walter built his robot tortoises.”
I can’t remember..., but his words somehow stuck in my mind. I knew ... how the brain worked. He did not think humans
were intelligent
{This line "He did not think..."is what hooked me. i believe that Dr. Grey Walter's work should be Linked on all the Following pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_(disambiguation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_(disambiguation) because of the simplicity and elegant design of the Tortoises. These circuits are simple and easy to construct, study and understand. While he and many others may not see a link here i humbly submit "I see a very early and IMPORTANT LINK."JSo9-10}
humans were intelligent just because they had ten billion brain cells, but rather because their brain cells were connected up in many different ways. So he built his first ‘model animal’ – Elmer the tortoise - using only two electronic brain cells, Elmer the Tortoise @ http://www.nzzfolio.ch/www/d80bd71b-b264-4db4-afd0-277884b93470/showarticle/a868cc7c-e399-48eb-8faf-1996a558e288.aspx
Just my humble opion (no fax can be found here) JSo9-10 ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes a primary topic for a term will be a redirect to a section of another article. If such a topic has a disambiguation page, where should the disambiguation hatnote go? At the top of the article, or at the top of the linked section? While it is tempting to say "at the top of the section", which would be more intuitive for regular browsers, I wonder if this would cause accessibility issues, and whether the hatnote should go at the top of the article? I can't find any specific guidance on this, however my impression is that current guidelines imply that it should go at the top of the article. Example topics are Roger Rabbit (dabhat at top of page) and Jessica Rabbit (dabhat at top of section). Note in this particular case, the dabhats could be combined if they were located at the top of the page. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 10:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Just two articles, basically addressing the law of right of way in different parts of the UK. One is stubby, maybe some kind of merge is in order? bd2412 T 23:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Please excuse me if this is superfluous, but no guidance on whether to list here is given one way or the other at WP:SPLIT. I've marked BEM for splitting and discuss why at its talk page.
I've also fixed {{
split dab}}
to get rid of the superfluous comma, and added
test cases and tidied up the
documentation a bit. I hope this is all OK.
Best wishes Si Trew ( talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is nearly Remembrance Day in the United Kingdom, I can imagine other editors may think I got to this DAB by searching for the British Empire Medal, but actually I got here after editing at József Bem. Si Trew ( talk) 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This dab page needs some work. Viriditas ( talk) 06:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no discription on the mayority of the names - after I added all this details to Lurie i feel that it is useless. Seems to be at a very low priority at EN:WP. -- Eingangskontrolle ( talk) 18:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor insists that Palladio must be a disambiguation page, even though it disambiguates only two articles. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, but perhaps some other editors could look at the page with a fresh set of eyes. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Crosslisting this from WP:DPL - I have finished paring down the initial run of redirects to disambiguation pages to a list of about 5,000 questionable redirects, about a third of which (so far) are divided into subpages based on the type of problem presented. This is going to take a while to get through, so please have at it! bd2412 T 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated at Talk:Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) with regards to a proposed move of Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario) to Canoe Lake, Ontario (which is presently a disambiguation with only one bluelink, to Canoe Lake (Nipissing District, Ontario)). - M.Nelson ( talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The Prudence page contains a section called "Feminine Name" which includes a list of people named prudence. Would it make sense to make a disambiguated page out of this section? Pollinosisss ( talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am having trouble with an anonymous user who keeps adding an external link/reference in the disambiguation page Neko, which is against WP:EL, WP:MOSDAB, and WP:DDD. Can someone give me a hand so that it's not just me reverting? Thanks. swa q 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
A deletion discussion that may be of interest: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 12#Template:All pages. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a number of issues with Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. I'm reluctant to edit it, as there appears to be an ongoing NPOV dispute between two editors. Suggestions? PaulHammond2 ( talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Not at all ... mosdab is clear that the description should be kept to a minimum ... therefore where there is only one film (eg) there is no need for a description. There are many examples of this throughout dab pages where films, books, places etc are listed without description when this is clear from the target article. In addition, on this page in particular, having no descriptions avoids arguments over what the descriptions should be ... which is where we came in. I won't fight you over it though. Abtract ( talk) 12:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This got created a few days back, I cleaned it up, but nothing links there and all the options are redlinks. Any admin out there want to delete it? Josh Parris 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects for a Cfd discussion related to this WikiProject. Believe this, along with the notification below may be helpful to this project. - MornMore ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Template:This_is_a_redirect for a Tfd discussion related to this WikiProject. (related to the above notification)
Not positive I have the terminology correct, but believe this is whats called a 'meta-template', a template used to create other templates. The template: Template:This is a redirect was created by User:Lenoxus, a member of the Wiki_Redirect project. The template allows easily creating a specific template used to put TYPE redirects into a specific redirect category - "redirect of TYPE", e.g. "schools" and "hospitals", or "from alternative spelling" and "from alternative name". Categorizing redirects may also serve to facilitate disambiguation. - MornMore ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone here interested in undertaking the following task?:
I initially asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests, but nobody there was interested and they suggested I try over here. Thanks. DH85868993 ( talk) 14:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I would invite everyone on the disambiguation project to please join the discussion at Talk:Avatar#Requested moves. Due to selection bias, I think the issue needs more input than from the few people who have watched the page describing the root meaning of the word. I feel that in the 17 years since "Snow Crash" borrowed it, the ancient definition is no longer the definitive WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose the following reorganisation. The current disambiguation page for Stifford would become an article and would incorporate the text from the current articles on North Stifford and South Stifford. The North and South Stifford pages would become redirects to the new article. I will hold for a while to allow time for comments. Rjm at sleepers ( talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Your input is requested at a deletion discussion here. Neelix ( talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a need for a disambiguation page for Roch and St. Roch (in fact I can't believe there wasn't one - maybe it got lost in the history somewhere). I've started such a page at Roch (disambiguation), but don't have time to complete it now, so if anyone feels like assisting... -- Kotniski ( talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown Norwich. doncram ( talk) 10:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I notice Gothic was recently changed from a dab page to a wide ranging article. Obviously none of the disambiguation tools now work on 'Gothic'. William Avery ( talk) 11:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on Skating and discovered that a large number of the links require expert knowledge from the article author to disambiguate. I've placed {{ dn}} templates in the past, but it's always hard to tell by looking at a list which articles have been {{ dn}} tagged and which are potentially fixable by someone without expert knowledge. I'm suggesting, without having thought this all the way through, that tagged links get changed to [[example (dn)|]]{{dn}}, which redirects to [[example]].
In advance, I'd like to say I don't like the form of {{dn|linkname}}, because links in templates make it really hard to find them, and templates are too "advanced" for casual editors to understand (and thus fix the broken dab link).
Now, on the downside, there'd be a bunch of pages pointing at [[example (dn)|]], and once they're all gone you've got this crazy redirect - but redirects are cheap. A problem I can see is that if one disambiguator can't figure out what [[example]] is meant to dab to, it doesn't mean another will. You could go crazy nuts, and dump it in a link to [[example (dn biology)|]] meaning that someone who knows a bit about biology would be able to dab this particular link, but where do you stop?
What say you? Josh Parris 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Propossl to move of DEA to DEA (disambiguation) and changing DEA into redirect to Drug Enforcement Administration shifted to Talk:DEA#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The first of these was a redirect, which I have replaced by a MOS:DAB-compliant dab page. I have nominated the second for deletion. These pages have a long history of POV-pushing and edit-warring (which I hope my changes will put a stop to), so some input from project members will be welcome. -- NSH001 ( talk) 13:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
When looking for 'Wittan', I was redirectd to the unrelated term 'Witta'
Weekend is now a half-article, half-disambig. Two ways to go here - keep it as a disambig and move the article material to something like Weekend (time period), or keep the article material at Weekend and move the rest to Weekend (disambiguation). I support the latter. bd2412 T 01:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This dab page currently starts: "The horse is hoofed animal." It has been changed several times to replace "animal" with "ungulate". I have reinstated animal each time, with an edit summary to the effect that it's clearest to use a simple and familiar term on a dab page, but it gets reverted without comment. Those with views either way may with to be aware, and possibly to contribute to a discussion if one starts on the article's talk page. PL290 ( talk) 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Other interested editors welcome at Calbuco (disambiguation) and Dwarf (disambiguation). I have attempted to clean each of them and been reverted. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted to your version on Calbuco (dab), but this was instantly rv and the editor left a warning on my page. The editor also removed the clean-up tag. I've done my 2nd rv now, but based on the responses so far of this editor, I'm not confident that this will be over quickly. Boleyn2 ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone else's turn now on Calbuco (disambiguation) - I'm losing patience with it. PamD ( talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
See also the 3RR block -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation now has grown to 2880 articles, all listed there due to having {{ dn}} tags on dablinks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the victor of Waterloo the primary topic for "Duke of Wellington"? Please discuss at Talk:Duke of Wellington#Requested move.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
When writing a DAB page for "Positive action", should I list all the more notable topics involving something I can confirm is a positive action of some sort or, should I list only the topic I think will be the most commonly searched term and any group or incident entitled Positive Action? ~ R. T. G 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
All of these - Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 70, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, and Channel 83 - are highly problematic, with multiple linked terms per line, copious external links and footnotes, and some other indicia of being articles rather than disambig pages. bd2412 T 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the need to block talk pages on a disambiguation reason, but this band is officially titled Zilch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxReikoxX ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to let the appropriate WikiProject know there is currently a requested move discussion at Talk:Lincoln#Requested move to move Lincoln to Lincoln (disambiguation), comments from all are welcome. Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 21:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm forming a proposal for a bot. The intention of this bot is to immediately bring to the page author's attention that the article is linking somewhere other than they thought it would be linking.
The bot would inspect all new main-space articles except for redirects and dab-pages. Redirects are valid to point at dab pages, as are other dab pages. Any new page that has any links to disambiguation pages will have {{dn}} added after each link.
Is this a bad idea? Why? Josh Parris 06:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sounds useful to me. Boleyn2 ( talk) 08:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
One outcome of discussions about this proposed WildBot is a makeover of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links. Now, however, it appears we really need two pages: one for how to fix dablinks in general, and another for how to fix dablinks that have been tagged {{ dn}} (ie, dablinks that are hard to fix). -- Una Smith ( talk) 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
After an extensive discussion, the proposal now reads:
(the namespaces are: 0 (mainspace), 6 (file), 10 (template) and 14 (category)).
Current proposed message template:
![]() | Links from this article which need disambiguation (
check |
fix): Channel 70, Channel 71, Channel 72, Channel 73, Channel 74, Channel 75, Channel 76, Channel 77, Channel 78, Channel 79, Channel 80, Channel 81, Channel 82, Channel 83, Gothic, Hebron massacre, Hebron massacres, Skating, Term, Witta, Wittan
For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |
![]() |
If you have any opinion to voice, the discussion is nearing completion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 08:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is generally only tagged with WPDisamb, right? Are there some guidelines or policy regarding whether or not it should be tagged for multiple projects anywhere? Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm requesting approval for bot-assisted editing to help enforce WP:NAMB by removing article name disambiguation templates on articles with names that are not ambiguous. The relevant request is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CobraBot 3. Any comments, etc. would be appreciated at the request page. -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Currently (and in my opinion correctly), Abe Lincoln is a redirect to Abraham Lincoln. There is however a musician commonly known by the same name, at Abe Lincoln (musician). My interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is that in such cases, a hatnote should be placed at the redirect's target to point users at the alternate use. It is also my opinion that in this case the hatnote referring readers to Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation) is insufficient because:
Clearly at least one editor disagrees and has removed the hatnote. Am I out of line here or am I making a reasonable interpretation of consensus? -- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[G]iven there are arguably 3 articles competing for the title "Abe Lincoln" and in order to satisfy others' concerns and reduce the impact of hatnotes to this article, how about making Abram Lincoln a DAB page and adding a link to that (via Abram Lincoln (disambiguation)) by rewording the current hatnote? This avoids giving undue prominence to specific individuals and minimises hatnotes while appropriately disambiguating the term.
Since we are discussion the hatnotes on that page, I posted my reasons for restoring the hatnote to Talk:Abraham Lincoln. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)