![]() | 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Anybody fancy replacing the redirect with a disam page? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Boundary Road - Fayenatic (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ otheruses4}} has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Barely two links here, should the page just be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated on a requested move discussion: Talk:First_Amendment#Requested_move.2C_take_2 -- Cybercobra (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 174.3.123.220 ( talk · contribs) is systematically replacing {{ otheruses4}} with {{ about}} and disruptively informing people about not using "otheruses4" while the RfD on "otheruses4" seems to be trending to keep, and is deletion shopping it to TfD at the same time.
See the RfD for examples of where users complain about his "disruptive warnings".
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Should Prem Nagar default to the 1974 movie, or should it be the disambiguation page? See also Prem Nagar (disambiguation). -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to check out for the night. An IP 121.116.230.19 ( talk · contribs) has been making lots of questionable edits relating to surnames -- often adding multiple templates and inapplicable categories to disambiguation pages (as well as to surname pages). I don't recall the name right now, but it looks a lot like a reincarnation of a previously banned user. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just found that we have disambiguation pages Stephen White, Steve White and Steven White and on people's opinion on merging the three to one (replace with redirects), and then just cluster the three spellings on the page. Any thoughts on which should be the predominant spelling? billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK to move disambiguation pages via cut-and-paste? An editor has recently copied the contents of Marijuana (disambiguation) into Marijuana (formerly redirected to Cannabis (drug)) while also expanding the article listing, and while I know page moves aren't normally done this way, it has occurred to me there may not be a sufficient originality threshold for there to be a problem with the license. Thanks. -- Ibn ( talk) 10:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've created a dab page at Never stop, but all the items are proper nouns. Would it be better for the dab page to be at Never Stop with a redirect from Never stop or the other way around as I currently have it? -- JD554 ( talk) 07:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I listed this page on WP:RM, so that the disambiguation page would be at Salmon Creek. Currently Salmon Creek redirects to Salmon Creek, Washington, an unincorporated town that's not spectactularly notable as a "primary topic". Also, the only two links to "Salmon Creek" are not referring to a town in Washington.
I figured I'd mention it here so that people who know disambiguation could offer an opinion. – Kacie Jane ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a warning. Washington was moved to Washington (U.S. state) today based on a discussion at WP:RM. After that move, Washington was changed to redirect to Washington (disambiguation) by other editors. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Not sure how to do transclusion, but here's a place I think it would be desirable: this disambiguation page for Baumann references a second disambiguation page for Peter Baumann (disambiguation). Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Reflex camera really shouldn't be a disambig. It merely differentiates between two kinds of the same thing. bd2412 T 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at Talk:Full Metal Jacket. 70.29.210.155 ( talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if others experienced here could review some edits such as this one replacing a dab by a redirect, this second one replacing a dab by a redirect, this third one replacing a dab by a redirect, and this one removing multiple items (books and a ship) off of Commonwealth (disambiguation) page. They all look wrong to me. I have had previous disagreements with this editor relating to disambiguation of NRHP items. I opened a new discussion item at User talk:Station1, and I reverted the 2nd and 3rd ones that relate to NRHP-listed places. Could others consider commenting, and/or addressing the other items with this editor, and perhaps review more? -- doncram ( talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure exactly how to fix it, but Fifth Freedom seems pretty against the current DAB norms. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone point me to a page that discusses the thinking behind the creation of the Pseudoscholarship disambiguation page please? Anthony ( talk) 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but you've been reverted. Anthony ( talk) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I need a bit of clarification here. Is Pseudoscholarship a disambiguation page? Anthony ( talk) 19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Anthony ( talk) 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Can Someboday Add Some What Do Task. Noboday Know What |To Do. Thank You.
66.131.190.6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 ( talk) 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article List of Masonic buildings is currently tagged as being under this project... This is may be a problem.
I think the root of the problem is confusion as to whether the word "Masonic" is being used as a noun or an adjective. If the article title uses the word as a noun (ie buildings that include the word "Masonic" as as part of a proper name) then the list is a dab page... but one that is overly duplicative of Masonic temple (disambiguation). If the list uses the term as an adjective (ie buildings that are in some way "Masonic") then it is not a dab page (but needs a clearer statement as to what makes a building "Masonic").
Please join the discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#"Masonic" is it a noun or an adjective? Blueboar ( talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I Am Not a coder but i can help if you want. You are welcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 ( talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have a slow boiling edit war happening at Masonic temple (disambiguation) over the correct format and style that should be used. For example, should the list be broken up into geographic areas or not. If an experienced editor or two from this project could swing by and help us form a consensus, it would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The primary topic of "Masonic temple" uses lower case. "Masonic temple" is not ambiguous. There is no primary topic of "Masonic Templte". "Masonic Temple" is ambiguous. The disambiguation page should be named Masonic Temple. I made some small tweaks to the page. I find the interspersed red and blue links to be an eyesore, but that is the current consensus approach for lengthy geo dabs. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
disambig|geo}}
. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).
I've been answering the questions so much here that apparently I've given the impression that the views above are mine alone. I think they're the way the disambiguation guidelines are written. Could some other dab members pipe up? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 03:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a suggestion on how to resolve this issue... suppose we slightly rewrote the current "Masonic temple" article, so that it focused on the usage of the term "Masonic Temple" as a common proper name for specific type of building (we could include the definition language that is currently the bulk of the article to explain why these buildings are named as such)... that would make the article mostly about the name "Masonic Temple", but satisfy the editors at the Freemsonry Project since it would explain what a Masonic temple is. This change of focus could be used as a justification for using a capital "T" in the second word of the title... and thus allowing us to move the resulting article to Masonic Temple. That new article would then clearly be the primary article for the dab page... which would mean that the dab page would be Masonic Temple (disambiguation)... The titles with the lower case t would all be redirected to the same title with a Capital T (ie Masonic temple would be redirected to Masonic Temple and Masonic temple (disambiguation) would redirect to Masonic Temple (disambiguation).) Thoughts? Blueboar ( talk) 02:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Editors with an interest in disambiguation may be interested in this discussion. Anthony ( talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't see where else to post this. I tagged List of oldest companies for checking by WildBot, and it found an incredible number of company name links that need fixing. -- Geniac ( talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The page Abuse of language was created as a translation of fr:Abus de langage. The French page is a list of commonly criticized "improper" language uses, such as loan words from English, or ambiguous phrases. The English version included two usages that, presumably, editors found similarly improper, but cited no sources.
I redirected the page to Linguistic purism, but noted that this was not a satisfactory solution, since the term is not mentioned there. Also, unknown to me, "abuse of language" has a special usage in mathematics related to abuse of notation.
Another user changed the page to a DAB with links to Linguistic purism, Abuse of notation, and Misnomer. This is better than my solution, but still feels a bit unsatisfactory. Any help members of this WikiProject could offer would be appreciated. Perhaps if the format of the current DAB were cleaned up it would feel more satisfactory to me? I really don't know. Cnilep ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to persistent nagging a polite request by
User:BD2412, :-) I have put together a proposal for a bot to edit links to disambiguation pages appearing in hatnote templates, with the goal of directing intentional disambiguation links to a
DABPAGE (disambiguation) redirect rather than directly to
DABPAGE where possible. The specific proposal is at
User:R'n'B/Hatnote bot spec. I request comments on (a) whether this bot would be desirable, (b) any specific aspect of the proposed operations, and (c) whether the bot should create (disambiguation) redirects where they do not already exist. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone examine the issue around adding a hatnote to Stade de France? I've tried to add one, and was reverted, so as to not go on without some outside opinion, I'm leaving a note here. I've left a discussion section at Talk:Stade de France. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been busy recently creating disambiguation pages that cover places listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The system of lists of NRHP places is exceptional in wikipedia because of its size (covering links to 84,517 individual article topics) and its redlinks (it has only about 27,000 articles). I've requested and received feedback here previously; thanks to editors who helped! Feedback is requested on the following two examples: Morey House (at least as of this current version) and Petty House (as of this current version). These ones might raise issues not specifically addressed in wp:MOSDAB:
I'll ask also at wt:NRHP for editors there to comment. An important factor for some NRHP editors is that setting up disambiguation pages should not necessitate creating minimal stub articles. In a 2008 request for feedback titled What is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? and/or other discussions, i accepted an obligation to create at least one bluelink if not two, to justify the dab to disambiguation-focussed editors who kept insisting that "disambiguation is for articles" (as opposed to valid article topics, which include red-links). However, my creating minimal stub NRHP articles to comply with that has really bothered some NRHP editors, who want higher standards for new NRHP articles. And i was told recently that the DE - German wikipedia allows dab pages of all redlinks. To me, it seems best now to allow pages of all red-links on the EN -English wikipedia too. Morey House is an example. Comments welcome. -- doncram ( talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) To go for a bit more: there have been disambiguation-focussed editors (meaning no disparagement by the term) who have been bothered by the geographic ordering of these dab pages, or by there being what I call "combo dabs". Please consider:
To me, it seems helpful to readers for the geographically-organized Smith House page to include all examples of
George W. Smith House,
James Smith House,
Jesse N. Smith House, etc., to serve readers who try looking up "Smith House" first. And there are smaller dab pages at
George W. Smith House, etc. serving readers who look up more precise terms. Having these pages organized geographically, with U.S. entries by state then town, puts like places together. For example in the Anthony House one it puts the two places in Swansea, Massachusetts together. And geographic order there happens not to separate the two New York places relating to Susan B. Anthony. It would help to have consensus clear, by revision of
wp:MOSDAB, that geographic ordering of places is good. Currently MOSDAB doesn't prohibit geographic ordering, it allows other sensible orders, but its section on ordering seems to promote a more complicated order. I think it needs to be stated explicitly that geographic order is okay, because editors do keep arriving and changing the order of these places dab pages, citing MOSDAB. And maybe MOSDAB needs to explicitly state that "combo dabs" are okay, too. --
doncram (
talk)
15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The
Smith House page does not currently comply with dab practice for supporting bluelinks. There's a bot request outstanding which may help fix up all of its supporting bluelinks. Also note, for the most part i have been putting "Name House", "Name Homestead", "Name Farm", "Name Farmstead", "Alfred Name House", "Bradford Name House", all together on one dab page at "Name House". Note that the focus of NRHP listing of a farm-related property is usually the house and/or the barns. All of those could easily be referred to as "Name House". Splitting the Smith ones between
Smith House vs.
Smith Farm without overlap of entries is an exception, because there are so many of the Smith farm ones, and the Smith House dab page is so long already that I just don't feel like inserting mentions of all the farm ones on it, too (though i wouldn't object if someone else wanted to). --
doncram (
talk)
16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't render pages unreadable as you did with this edit. Use a talk page or a sandbox if you want to work on code. One of our readers would not know what to make of the Sutton House page right now and that is not right. MRSC ( talk) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to sum up both sides of the debate, and I'd invite Doncram to correct me if I misstate or omit anything.
The
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) project has been creating disambiguation pages preemptively to head off conflicts that might arise in the future with those page targets. The discussion is regarding those pages that have no blue-links to a primary article (they do have blue-links to their respective NRHP list pages). These could be called "hanging" or "target-less" disambiguation pages. Some have objected to these creations, referring to some of the WP:D and
WP:MOSDAB guidelines. At its core is a question over what criteria is required to create a disambiguation page.
Points of agreement:
Reasons for supporting preemptive creation:
Reasons for opposing preemptive creation:
I've tried to be fair to both sides and will adjust it if I've missed things. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To update you all, i finished the "one concentrated effort to create the missing dab pages", which brought the total of NRHP dab pages up to 3,000. There will be a few additions to the count as new NRHP places get listed by the National Register, and as some already-existing dab pages get found. But this is basically it, ending discussion i trust on whether the disambiguation pages should be created or not. They have been. Also, I followed up by efforts to "solve" the resulting dablinks in the NRHP list-articles (using dab-solver tool) and other NRHP editors helped. Any remaining dablinks will get noticed and fixed in the regular course of updating the NRHP list-articles. So this issue, if it was one, is done.
It also seems to be consensus that dab pages having all entries being primary red-links is okay, as long as those items are legitimate wikipedia article topics and they include properly formatted supporting blue-links. There are now perhaps a few hundred such dab pages, and I think they are fine. Shadowjams was representing a possibly opposing view above, but seemed to relax, and from a comment or two elsewhere I believe Shadowjams fully accepted this. Please speak up, anyone, if you believe this is not the consensus!
An issue that remains open is that the MOSDAB section on ordering of entries currently outlaws the simple ordering by geography that is applied in most of the NRHP dab pages. A more complex ordering is given as the only acceptable ordering presented. The simple geographic ordering for many of the NRHP/places dab pages was accepted by consensus of editors in many previous discussions focussed on specific examples. No objection to geo ordering has been posed in this discussion section here. I think this means that MOSDAB is clearly wrong on this point, and does not actually reflect the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I have tried to update MOSDAB accordingly, but there is at least some opposition there. Attention by other editors to the discussion at wt:MOSDAB#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly would be appreciated. -- doncram ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Two articles Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 were combined into one by a long term editor into Carpenter Schools. The separate articles had different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers but are located in the same town. The reason given by the editor was that the link provided did not show the NRHP name or refence numbers.
The editotr was not aware of the recent changes and move to a new database at NRHP. Because of ongoing changes at NRHP the reference numbers may be in one or the other databases, but not both. Apparently they are moving small sections at a time because of compatibility issues.
Personally, I do not care if it is one or two articles. However the new combined article no longer shows different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers. And the NRHP info box does not allow showing on multiple entries. I have asked that editor how this can be fixed. He has already stated he does not like dealing with NRHP articles. And another editor changed the info box for another stress. See: discussion here.
Based on the discussions above, a DAB page should have been made for Carpenter School (disambiguation) but then I could see people adding partial named "Carpenter" named schools there. This would be similar to the problem with Carpenter (disambiguation) in which partial "Carpenter" names were removed. This created a duplication and resolving the issue with the editor by creating a list page called List of Carpenter related articles.
Would someone be so kind to review and fix if needed Carpenter Schools that Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 was combined? Jrcrin001 ( talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Carpenter School may refer to:
Carpenter School may refer to:
By a Requested Move proposal at what was, i think, "Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)", an editor indirectly proposed deletion of "Shelby House" disambiguation, with argument that all the other NRHP-listed Shelby Houses (including variants like "Firstname Shelby House" and "Shelby-Othername House") were not valid disambiguation page entries. The requested move was closed with the Botkins, Ohio one being moved to "Shelby House" as if it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term, and disambiguation was moved to "Shelby House (disambiguation)".
I reopened a new requested move to reverse that and restore the disambiguation page to "Shelby House". Please consider commenting at Talk:Shelby House#Requested move 2. -- doncram ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Anybody fancy replacing the redirect with a disam page? See Special:WhatLinksHere/Boundary Road - Fayenatic (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ otheruses4}} has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD
65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Barely two links here, should the page just be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated on a requested move discussion: Talk:First_Amendment#Requested_move.2C_take_2 -- Cybercobra (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
FYI, 174.3.123.220 ( talk · contribs) is systematically replacing {{ otheruses4}} with {{ about}} and disruptively informing people about not using "otheruses4" while the RfD on "otheruses4" seems to be trending to keep, and is deletion shopping it to TfD at the same time.
See the RfD for examples of where users complain about his "disruptive warnings".
70.29.208.247 ( talk) 05:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Should Prem Nagar default to the 1974 movie, or should it be the disambiguation page? See also Prem Nagar (disambiguation). -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm about to check out for the night. An IP 121.116.230.19 ( talk · contribs) has been making lots of questionable edits relating to surnames -- often adding multiple templates and inapplicable categories to disambiguation pages (as well as to surname pages). I don't recall the name right now, but it looks a lot like a reincarnation of a previously banned user. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just found that we have disambiguation pages Stephen White, Steve White and Steven White and on people's opinion on merging the three to one (replace with redirects), and then just cluster the three spellings on the page. Any thoughts on which should be the predominant spelling? billinghurst sDrewth 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK to move disambiguation pages via cut-and-paste? An editor has recently copied the contents of Marijuana (disambiguation) into Marijuana (formerly redirected to Cannabis (drug)) while also expanding the article listing, and while I know page moves aren't normally done this way, it has occurred to me there may not be a sufficient originality threshold for there to be a problem with the license. Thanks. -- Ibn ( talk) 10:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've created a dab page at Never stop, but all the items are proper nouns. Would it be better for the dab page to be at Never Stop with a redirect from Never stop or the other way around as I currently have it? -- JD554 ( talk) 07:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I listed this page on WP:RM, so that the disambiguation page would be at Salmon Creek. Currently Salmon Creek redirects to Salmon Creek, Washington, an unincorporated town that's not spectactularly notable as a "primary topic". Also, the only two links to "Salmon Creek" are not referring to a town in Washington.
I figured I'd mention it here so that people who know disambiguation could offer an opinion. – Kacie Jane ( talk) 18:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a warning. Washington was moved to Washington (U.S. state) today based on a discussion at WP:RM. After that move, Washington was changed to redirect to Washington (disambiguation) by other editors. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Not sure how to do transclusion, but here's a place I think it would be desirable: this disambiguation page for Baumann references a second disambiguation page for Peter Baumann (disambiguation). Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Reflex camera really shouldn't be a disambig. It merely differentiates between two kinds of the same thing. bd2412 T 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
FYI, there's a discussion on the need for hatnoting at Talk:Full Metal Jacket. 70.29.210.155 ( talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if others experienced here could review some edits such as this one replacing a dab by a redirect, this second one replacing a dab by a redirect, this third one replacing a dab by a redirect, and this one removing multiple items (books and a ship) off of Commonwealth (disambiguation) page. They all look wrong to me. I have had previous disagreements with this editor relating to disambiguation of NRHP items. I opened a new discussion item at User talk:Station1, and I reverted the 2nd and 3rd ones that relate to NRHP-listed places. Could others consider commenting, and/or addressing the other items with this editor, and perhaps review more? -- doncram ( talk) 01:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure exactly how to fix it, but Fifth Freedom seems pretty against the current DAB norms. OrangeDog ( τ • ε) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone point me to a page that discusses the thinking behind the creation of the Pseudoscholarship disambiguation page please? Anthony ( talk) 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but you've been reverted. Anthony ( talk) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I need a bit of clarification here. Is Pseudoscholarship a disambiguation page? Anthony ( talk) 19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Anthony ( talk) 20:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Can Someboday Add Some What Do Task. Noboday Know What |To Do. Thank You.
66.131.190.6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 ( talk) 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The article List of Masonic buildings is currently tagged as being under this project... This is may be a problem.
I think the root of the problem is confusion as to whether the word "Masonic" is being used as a noun or an adjective. If the article title uses the word as a noun (ie buildings that include the word "Masonic" as as part of a proper name) then the list is a dab page... but one that is overly duplicative of Masonic temple (disambiguation). If the list uses the term as an adjective (ie buildings that are in some way "Masonic") then it is not a dab page (but needs a clearer statement as to what makes a building "Masonic").
Please join the discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings#"Masonic" is it a noun or an adjective? Blueboar ( talk) 14:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I Am Not a coder but i can help if you want. You are welcom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.190.6 ( talk) 14:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have a slow boiling edit war happening at Masonic temple (disambiguation) over the correct format and style that should be used. For example, should the list be broken up into geographic areas or not. If an experienced editor or two from this project could swing by and help us form a consensus, it would be appreciated. Blueboar ( talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The primary topic of "Masonic temple" uses lower case. "Masonic temple" is not ambiguous. There is no primary topic of "Masonic Templte". "Masonic Temple" is ambiguous. The disambiguation page should be named Masonic Temple. I made some small tweaks to the page. I find the interspersed red and blue links to be an eyesore, but that is the current consensus approach for lengthy geo dabs. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
disambig|geo}}
. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
10:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).
I've been answering the questions so much here that apparently I've given the impression that the views above are mine alone. I think they're the way the disambiguation guidelines are written. Could some other dab members pipe up? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 03:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a suggestion on how to resolve this issue... suppose we slightly rewrote the current "Masonic temple" article, so that it focused on the usage of the term "Masonic Temple" as a common proper name for specific type of building (we could include the definition language that is currently the bulk of the article to explain why these buildings are named as such)... that would make the article mostly about the name "Masonic Temple", but satisfy the editors at the Freemsonry Project since it would explain what a Masonic temple is. This change of focus could be used as a justification for using a capital "T" in the second word of the title... and thus allowing us to move the resulting article to Masonic Temple. That new article would then clearly be the primary article for the dab page... which would mean that the dab page would be Masonic Temple (disambiguation)... The titles with the lower case t would all be redirected to the same title with a Capital T (ie Masonic temple would be redirected to Masonic Temple and Masonic temple (disambiguation) would redirect to Masonic Temple (disambiguation).) Thoughts? Blueboar ( talk) 02:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Editors with an interest in disambiguation may be interested in this discussion. Anthony ( talk) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't see where else to post this. I tagged List of oldest companies for checking by WildBot, and it found an incredible number of company name links that need fixing. -- Geniac ( talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The page Abuse of language was created as a translation of fr:Abus de langage. The French page is a list of commonly criticized "improper" language uses, such as loan words from English, or ambiguous phrases. The English version included two usages that, presumably, editors found similarly improper, but cited no sources.
I redirected the page to Linguistic purism, but noted that this was not a satisfactory solution, since the term is not mentioned there. Also, unknown to me, "abuse of language" has a special usage in mathematics related to abuse of notation.
Another user changed the page to a DAB with links to Linguistic purism, Abuse of notation, and Misnomer. This is better than my solution, but still feels a bit unsatisfactory. Any help members of this WikiProject could offer would be appreciated. Perhaps if the format of the current DAB were cleaned up it would feel more satisfactory to me? I really don't know. Cnilep ( talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to persistent nagging a polite request by
User:BD2412, :-) I have put together a proposal for a bot to edit links to disambiguation pages appearing in hatnote templates, with the goal of directing intentional disambiguation links to a
DABPAGE (disambiguation) redirect rather than directly to
DABPAGE where possible. The specific proposal is at
User:R'n'B/Hatnote bot spec. I request comments on (a) whether this bot would be desirable, (b) any specific aspect of the proposed operations, and (c) whether the bot should create (disambiguation) redirects where they do not already exist. --
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
15:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Can someone examine the issue around adding a hatnote to Stade de France? I've tried to add one, and was reverted, so as to not go on without some outside opinion, I'm leaving a note here. I've left a discussion section at Talk:Stade de France. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been busy recently creating disambiguation pages that cover places listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The system of lists of NRHP places is exceptional in wikipedia because of its size (covering links to 84,517 individual article topics) and its redlinks (it has only about 27,000 articles). I've requested and received feedback here previously; thanks to editors who helped! Feedback is requested on the following two examples: Morey House (at least as of this current version) and Petty House (as of this current version). These ones might raise issues not specifically addressed in wp:MOSDAB:
I'll ask also at wt:NRHP for editors there to comment. An important factor for some NRHP editors is that setting up disambiguation pages should not necessitate creating minimal stub articles. In a 2008 request for feedback titled What is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? and/or other discussions, i accepted an obligation to create at least one bluelink if not two, to justify the dab to disambiguation-focussed editors who kept insisting that "disambiguation is for articles" (as opposed to valid article topics, which include red-links). However, my creating minimal stub NRHP articles to comply with that has really bothered some NRHP editors, who want higher standards for new NRHP articles. And i was told recently that the DE - German wikipedia allows dab pages of all redlinks. To me, it seems best now to allow pages of all red-links on the EN -English wikipedia too. Morey House is an example. Comments welcome. -- doncram ( talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) To go for a bit more: there have been disambiguation-focussed editors (meaning no disparagement by the term) who have been bothered by the geographic ordering of these dab pages, or by there being what I call "combo dabs". Please consider:
To me, it seems helpful to readers for the geographically-organized Smith House page to include all examples of
George W. Smith House,
James Smith House,
Jesse N. Smith House, etc., to serve readers who try looking up "Smith House" first. And there are smaller dab pages at
George W. Smith House, etc. serving readers who look up more precise terms. Having these pages organized geographically, with U.S. entries by state then town, puts like places together. For example in the Anthony House one it puts the two places in Swansea, Massachusetts together. And geographic order there happens not to separate the two New York places relating to Susan B. Anthony. It would help to have consensus clear, by revision of
wp:MOSDAB, that geographic ordering of places is good. Currently MOSDAB doesn't prohibit geographic ordering, it allows other sensible orders, but its section on ordering seems to promote a more complicated order. I think it needs to be stated explicitly that geographic order is okay, because editors do keep arriving and changing the order of these places dab pages, citing MOSDAB. And maybe MOSDAB needs to explicitly state that "combo dabs" are okay, too. --
doncram (
talk)
15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. The
Smith House page does not currently comply with dab practice for supporting bluelinks. There's a bot request outstanding which may help fix up all of its supporting bluelinks. Also note, for the most part i have been putting "Name House", "Name Homestead", "Name Farm", "Name Farmstead", "Alfred Name House", "Bradford Name House", all together on one dab page at "Name House". Note that the focus of NRHP listing of a farm-related property is usually the house and/or the barns. All of those could easily be referred to as "Name House". Splitting the Smith ones between
Smith House vs.
Smith Farm without overlap of entries is an exception, because there are so many of the Smith farm ones, and the Smith House dab page is so long already that I just don't feel like inserting mentions of all the farm ones on it, too (though i wouldn't object if someone else wanted to). --
doncram (
talk)
16:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't render pages unreadable as you did with this edit. Use a talk page or a sandbox if you want to work on code. One of our readers would not know what to make of the Sutton House page right now and that is not right. MRSC ( talk) 16:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to sum up both sides of the debate, and I'd invite Doncram to correct me if I misstate or omit anything.
The
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) project has been creating disambiguation pages preemptively to head off conflicts that might arise in the future with those page targets. The discussion is regarding those pages that have no blue-links to a primary article (they do have blue-links to their respective NRHP list pages). These could be called "hanging" or "target-less" disambiguation pages. Some have objected to these creations, referring to some of the WP:D and
WP:MOSDAB guidelines. At its core is a question over what criteria is required to create a disambiguation page.
Points of agreement:
Reasons for supporting preemptive creation:
Reasons for opposing preemptive creation:
I've tried to be fair to both sides and will adjust it if I've missed things. Shadowjams ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
To update you all, i finished the "one concentrated effort to create the missing dab pages", which brought the total of NRHP dab pages up to 3,000. There will be a few additions to the count as new NRHP places get listed by the National Register, and as some already-existing dab pages get found. But this is basically it, ending discussion i trust on whether the disambiguation pages should be created or not. They have been. Also, I followed up by efforts to "solve" the resulting dablinks in the NRHP list-articles (using dab-solver tool) and other NRHP editors helped. Any remaining dablinks will get noticed and fixed in the regular course of updating the NRHP list-articles. So this issue, if it was one, is done.
It also seems to be consensus that dab pages having all entries being primary red-links is okay, as long as those items are legitimate wikipedia article topics and they include properly formatted supporting blue-links. There are now perhaps a few hundred such dab pages, and I think they are fine. Shadowjams was representing a possibly opposing view above, but seemed to relax, and from a comment or two elsewhere I believe Shadowjams fully accepted this. Please speak up, anyone, if you believe this is not the consensus!
An issue that remains open is that the MOSDAB section on ordering of entries currently outlaws the simple ordering by geography that is applied in most of the NRHP dab pages. A more complex ordering is given as the only acceptable ordering presented. The simple geographic ordering for many of the NRHP/places dab pages was accepted by consensus of editors in many previous discussions focussed on specific examples. No objection to geo ordering has been posed in this discussion section here. I think this means that MOSDAB is clearly wrong on this point, and does not actually reflect the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I have tried to update MOSDAB accordingly, but there is at least some opposition there. Attention by other editors to the discussion at wt:MOSDAB#Order of entries allowing geographic order explicitly would be appreciated. -- doncram ( talk) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Two articles Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 were combined into one by a long term editor into Carpenter Schools. The separate articles had different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers but are located in the same town. The reason given by the editor was that the link provided did not show the NRHP name or refence numbers.
The editotr was not aware of the recent changes and move to a new database at NRHP. Because of ongoing changes at NRHP the reference numbers may be in one or the other databases, but not both. Apparently they are moving small sections at a time because of compatibility issues.
Personally, I do not care if it is one or two articles. However the new combined article no longer shows different NRHP reference numbers and location cor-ord numbers. And the NRHP info box does not allow showing on multiple entries. I have asked that editor how this can be fixed. He has already stated he does not like dealing with NRHP articles. And another editor changed the info box for another stress. See: discussion here.
Based on the discussions above, a DAB page should have been made for Carpenter School (disambiguation) but then I could see people adding partial named "Carpenter" named schools there. This would be similar to the problem with Carpenter (disambiguation) in which partial "Carpenter" names were removed. This created a duplication and resolving the issue with the editor by creating a list page called List of Carpenter related articles.
Would someone be so kind to review and fix if needed Carpenter Schools that Carpenter School No. 1 and Carpenter School No. 2 was combined? Jrcrin001 ( talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Carpenter School may refer to:
Carpenter School may refer to:
By a Requested Move proposal at what was, i think, "Talk:Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)", an editor indirectly proposed deletion of "Shelby House" disambiguation, with argument that all the other NRHP-listed Shelby Houses (including variants like "Firstname Shelby House" and "Shelby-Othername House") were not valid disambiguation page entries. The requested move was closed with the Botkins, Ohio one being moved to "Shelby House" as if it is wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term, and disambiguation was moved to "Shelby House (disambiguation)".
I reopened a new requested move to reverse that and restore the disambiguation page to "Shelby House". Please consider commenting at Talk:Shelby House#Requested move 2. -- doncram ( talk) 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)