![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
I've got a theory that perhaps about 2% of all articles in the encyclopedia have titles with bracketed disambiguators ("Basename (something)") but are not linked from their base name title (either by a hatnote, a dab page entry at "Basename", or a longer pathway) and are thus not as easy to find as they should be.
I've just taken 3 samples of 100 random entries using AWB, filtered out those not containing "(", and looked at the answers. 12 or 14 of each group of 100 had a bracket, and I needed to add a hatnote or dab page entry, or move a disambiguated entry to its unused basename, in 2 cases in each batch. There were also a few edge cases, one case where what was in brackets wasn't a disambiguator but a division (and was correctly linked from the base name), one case which went via a non-dab page at a different title (find Palacio de los Deportes (Heredia) from Palacio de los Deportes). But it looks as if about 2% of the articles need a link they haven't got: either as a hatnote at the basename article (or the article to which the basename redirects), or a dab page entry (at Basename, or "Basename (disambiguation)", or some other dab page to which "Basename" redirects). My notes are here.
I think it ought to be possible for a bot to do something on the lines of:
We then end up with several categories for maintenance work, and the potential for improving the findability of articles: to the benefit of readers, and also to help editors avoid creating duplicate articles by making the existing one easier to find.
Any thoughts?
I've spent far too much of today on Wikipedia, and need to get on with some Real Life, so perhaps won't be commenting on comments very soon. Seasons Greetings to all Disambiguators! Pam D 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
But I hope we can avoid getting bogged down in old discussions about constituencies and stations. The most important problem is articles like Red or Dead (novel). Until yesterday there was no link from Red or Dead. That's too common a situation. Pam D 05:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting though Theo's list is - and I can see a lot of useful dab pages which could be created by reading through it looking for duplicates like 104th Brigade, 168th Street, Bastasi, Battle of Bornos or Beica River, (as a few examples of the kinds of topics which seem to crop up a lot) - it omits the most important missing links. That's the articles at "Basename (foo)" where there is an article at "Basename" but no link from there to "Basename (foo)". eg, until the other day, you could find Red or Dead and have no indication of the existence of Red or Dead (novel). Sometimes "Basename" is a simple article needing a hatnote (as in that example); sometimes it's a dab page needing an entry; sometimes it has a hatnote directing to the dab page at "Basename (disambiguation)", which needs an entry. (And there are more complicated scenarios - eg the dab page being at "Base Name (disambiguation)").
If there's no article at "Basename" (as in all of Theo's list), then someone looking for that topic will end up on a search page and probably be offered the article on "Basename (foo)" within the options. But if they get straight to an article on a different topic, which doesn't have a hatnote pointing elsewhere, or if they get straight to a dab page none of whose entries are what they want, they won't find our article and will probably assume there is no such article. They'll go away from the encyclopedia with their question unanswered, or they might create a duplicate article at "Basename (foo2)".
Has anyone else got thoughts on this. (I wish I hadn't mentioned UK constituencies, as I see trouble brewing there now!) Pam D 17:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is halfway between being a disambiguation page and an I-don't-know-what. It has article-like text and references that should be merged into meet market, and there is a separate Meat Market page that I would propose should be merged here. bd2412 T 18:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm the creator of yet another automated tool for repairing incoming links to disambiguation pages, DisamAssist. Maybe it can be useful for someone. Qwertyytrewqqwerty ( talk) 14:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Burger King so important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is state legislature a disambiguation page or a list? I'm inclined to mark it as a disambiguation page, but I wanted a 2nd opinion :) Kaldari ( talk) 23:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to JHJ's link above to User:Theo's_Little_Bot/unnecessary_dab. Fascinating: presumably a straight search for "Basename (foo)" where there's no article "Basename". I commented earlier that this 10k only gets as far as "E", but "A" only starts at no. 2780. There's a huge number of numerical entries, a lot of which are military units: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history includes: In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).. So pre-emptive disambiguation is here explicitly allowed, but there should always be a link from the undisambiguated form - and these instances in Theo's list show the cases where it isn't present.
I might spend some time pottering down the list sorting out missing dab pages (starting at A as I'm particularly uninterested in the military units and sports info which dominate the numerical section).
Another common grouping seems to be capitalisation problems: APUS (computer) is included in Apus (disambiguation), linked from Apus, but APUS is a redlink.
Ship names are another large category, where WP:SHIPNAME says For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers (Royal Navy, and many European and Commonwealth navies), if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known. Here again I'd have thought it useful to include a link from the version without the hull number, but Theo's list shows it hasn't always been done.
Interesting stuff. Must go and get on with Real Life. Pam D 18:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Victor falk: @ R'n'B: Why English page is so special (on this particular page) than everyone else? Simply because Hadrada is more famous? And I checked " what links here" of it, there wasn't a significant talk about this; neither do I see any discussion on Talk:Harald_III.
I really want to restore the disambig nature of Harald III, but before I do it, let's talk on this. Thank you. :) SzMithrandir ( talk) 05:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, anyways, victor falk is not showing up, let's revert it. Done. SzMithrandir ( talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is barely recognizable as a disambiguation page. Any interest in converting to something else (such as a list article or a broad-concept)? older ≠ wiser 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't do anything drastic yet - First, I'd go through Tri-Cities and deleted every entry that can't be sources as using that name. Once you do that, a disambiguation might be all you need. Ego White Tray ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have begun a draft at Draft:End of history, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The original Lake Josephine was about a lake in Montana and was moved to Lake Josephine (Montana). I changed Lake Josephine into a disambiguation page after researching the ramifications of making this change. The reason was I created Lake Josephine (Florida) and found the 'Lake Josephine' designation refers to at least five entities in Wikipedia. The only problem so far that has puzzlied me is that the talk page for the old article now is somewhat in limbo, although I think I can fix this. If anyone finds unintentional broken links, etc., I caused, please tell me. I hope the talk page was the only problem I encountered. Bill Pollard ( talk) 07:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
A new user has created Brehal (surname). Besides the fact that the page says it's a French surname and it's in an English surname category, it actually includes a place name as well, Bréhal - which is also the correct spelling of the surname. I'm not sure how to word the first line given that it's a place name as well. The article title is wrong also if it's going to include a place name, right? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
has a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
crudo is Spanish for "raw",
crudos is plural
crudo is Italian for "raw", crudos is plural — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.120.175.135 (
talk)
21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request at Talk:Silesian language#Requested move2 to move the article from 'Silesian language' to 'Silesian dialect'. Disambiguation is relevant, since most of the participants in the discussion seem to agree on the 'Silesian' part of the name, but not on its status as a language or a dialect. There is a suggestion to move 'Silesian language' to Silesian, and to move the dab page to Silesian (disambiguation) (currently a redirect). Cnilep ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Orange County Sheriff's Department has incoming links through Template:California topic. In fact, a glance at Template:California topic/testcases indicates that this template will tend to generate disambiguation links to a number of topics, since it links ambiguously named cities and counties such as Lake County and Pasadena. Either the template needs to be fixed to avoid generating erroneous links, or it should be deleted, as we should not have templates that create errors. bd2412 T 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone like to have a look at Tentamen, where there is a minor edit war - see talk page. Pam D 12:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
if this (compare overturning) were a dab page, what would you put — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 21:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 12:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
I put this comment in on the 'talk page' for Ai (disambiguation), but maybe it needs more exposure than just that.
Okay, I get it: Some high school in Delaware, Alexis I. duPont High School (whose initials should be AID anyway, it seems to me) – that qualifies as being listed in 'Ai (disambiguation)'; but the Appraisal Institute (to which I belong), the leading American organization in the field of real estate appraisal – which shows on their website that they have copyrighted "AI" (see http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ ) – they do not. The second time I added the organization, I pointed that out; and someone still took them out of the list. What is the deal anyway? It is bad enough that I have to fight for 'notability' on albums and rock bands and artists that I have written entire articles on; but now, we have to keep the disambiguation lists short? When I first started writing in Wikipedia, it was a lot of fun; and I really felt like I was contributing. I am no big deal, but I am closing in on 3,000 edits and have written over 100 original articles. Now almost every time I put something in, somebody reverts it immediately – and just to rub it in, I get a message saying that this has happened. If you people are trying to run me off, it is working. Shocking Blue ( talk) 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to establish a WP:DABCONCEPT taskforce within this WikiProject, to identify pages that are really broad concept article topics stuffed into a badly fitting disambiguation framework, and to create the articles that are missing for these topics. I would also like to have a place where drafts for this purpose are made available to be worked on and brought up to article quality, so they can be moved into article space and either replace or displace the disambiguation pages currently at those titles. So far, I have completed one transition through this process ( End of history), and I have begun five more articles in draft space:
Would anyone else be interested in joining such a taskforce? I don't mind doing this work, but frankly sometimes I feel like I'm all alone out here building DABCONCEPT articles (though, admittedly, without a central base of discussion for these, I can't really see what other editors are doing in this area). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Advertising the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) here, as specified in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines JHunterJ ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently Nevermind is a redirect to Nevermind (album). Shouldn't that be the other way 'round? I mean, if (as Nevermind (disambiguation) suggested, and I left it in cleaning up the page) the album is the main topic, then the article should be at the non-disambiguated title, right? If the album is not the main topic, then the DAB page should be at the bare title. Cnilep ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Editor2020 and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to add Category:Lists of people by nickname to Magician. See the prior discussion at User talk:Editor2020#Category goes poof from Magician. Could we get some other opinions please? Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How is this normally handled? There is a DAB page called William Say (disambiguation). There is also a section at DAB page Say#People that includes all four Williams. Should 'Say' just link to 'William Say (disambiguation)', or should all four be included on both pages? I can think of arguments in favor of either solution, so I'm happy to abide by consensus or tradition. I didn't see this mentioned at MOS:DAB. Cnilep ( talk) 05:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts about how to format Scramble? It's a dab page including both "Scramble" and "Scrambling", and while theres no primary topic for "Scramble" there is one for Scrambling. I can't just think how to format the preamble of the dab page to reflect this. Pam D 08:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Coil (disambiguation) and two affecting RM discussions at Talk:Coil#Requested move and Talk:Coil (electromagnetism). Imho the Coil (disambiguation) needs a cleanup/tweak. Looking forward for your expertise :) -- Trofobi ( talk) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone would like to take a whack at fixing the incoming links to the last two outstanding pages for the February disambiguation contest, Corpus separatum and Index, please have at it. bd2412 T 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Thor (film) sport a hatnote to indicate the satellite "Thor 1" located at Thor (satellite) ? Thor 1 redirects to the film article. I've been reverted when I tried to add that. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Currently Fish net redirects to Fishing net, while Fishnet treats the stockings. There is also at least one disambiguated title, Fishnet (song). I've added a hatnote at Fishing net. I wonder whether there should be a DAB page, and if so, would either 'Fish(ing) net' or 'Fishnet' be considered the main topic? It seems slightly arbitrary to choose one or the other of those, but problematic to choose both. Cnilep ( talk) 06:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
More opinions sought at Talk:Rotation group (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There is great confusion about the naming and disambiguation of a bunch of U.S. Navy aviation squadrons. (See the lengthy and wide-ranging discussion HERE.) We need someone who is very well-versed in disambiguation to work out a few test cases, so we can figure out how to take care of the rest. I have two test cases in mind — one fairly simple and one fairly complex — if a well-qualified volunteer steps forward, I will provide all the details. (I am a skilled editor myself, and knowledgeable about these squadrons and their articles, but a total newbie with disambiguation). Reply here if interested. Lou Sander ( talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a bulk RM discussion at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move which concerns disambiguation in various ways, including the erstwhile creation of two/three-item dab pages created invoking a passage in the language naming conventions authored in advance by the same editor who created those; that guideline ignored the "no small dab pages" in this project's guidelines and also bypasses PRIMARYTOPIC, as the people are invariably the primary topic; and also the changing of various "FOO" dab pages into "FOO" disambiguation so that the "FOO" title can be used for the eponymous indigenous group. Discussion is centralized at the Chipewyan talkpage but there are, for now, three other bulk RMs on the same premise, and will be more once I get to the rest of the US state categories. Lists of articles not on the Chipewyan talkpage are on Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move, Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move, and Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The article at Crowned Crane, which should be at "Crowned crane" or "Crowned crane (disambiguation)", has alternated between a Disambig and SIA. Help on the correct template (DAB or SIA) to use on the listing page and formatting the list will be helpful. Help with setting the WP banner on the talk page also needed. Snowman ( talk) 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Double florin (British coin)#Requested move. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
David Hernandez can move to
David Hernandez (singer).
Sportfan5000 (
talk)
00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
In the lede of Chosen, the second main bullet point
had no links at all.
I linked Joseon, which is about the history of the kingdom. Then I looked at Korea, but that article is mostly about the geography, history, and politics, not about the people. There is an entry Korean people, which redirects to Koreans, quite a sizeable page; but the guidelines, as quoted on the "Editing…" page, say
ISTM that the connection of "Chosen/Joseon people" with "Koreans" is not very obvious here and is too important to be left implicit. Accordingly, I am boldly linking "Korean people" on the dab page to Koreans, shortcutting the redirect. -- Thnidu ( talk) 07:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
should try to fix or not worth it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I edited the disambiguation page for 'Space Cadet' ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Space_Cadet_%28disambiguation%29). I was the first to do so, so do I need to do anything else to draw attention to it? I am asking from pure motives - wondering whether there is a specific thing I'm supposed to do - rather than just trying to draw attention to it by asking if I need to draw attention to it! Bluest Teddy ( talk) 11:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting dab page, my cleanup has just been reverted. Anyone like to have a look? Pam D 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
What do we do when there's just 1 article + 1 wiktionary definition on a disamb page for an acronym? The Wiktionary box prescribed by the MOS seems confusing to me in this case. Possibly somebody could improve YGM. The list of internet slang it used to link to is now at wiktionary, so all I could figure to do was this edit Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 13:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
Presently, at Depression (mood) we have:
"Despair" redirects here. For other uses of despair, see Despair (disambiguation). For the mood disorder, see Major depressive disorder.
I'd like to propose on the article's talk page that we change that to:
For the mood disorders sometimes called simply "depression", see Major depressive disorder and Dysthymic disorder. "Despair" redirects here; for other uses of "despair" see Despair (disambiguation).
What template/fields do I use to create that? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There are categories and templates for {{ Letter-Number Combination Disambiguation}} and {{ numberdis}} but no category for DAB pages that contain abbreviations consisting of letters only. There are some DAB pages, such as AAA or LAPD (disambiguation) that consist primarily of initialisms, and other pages like Cats or Goa that include a section of acronyms or abbreviations. It seems like it would be possible to create a category similar to Category:Genus disambiguation pages as a parameter of the {{ disambiguation}} template. I see in the archives this suggestion from 2005 that the scope of this WikiProject should "avoid abbreviations", but I didn't find anything else. Is it simply unneeded, or is there some reason in principle to avoid such a category? Cnilep ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Connaught Park & Talk:Connaught Park#Clarify: Do we really mean Connaught, Calgary? Peter Horn User talk 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Washington Convention has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
--
LukasMatt (
talk)
01:27, 21 April 2014 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
I've got a theory that perhaps about 2% of all articles in the encyclopedia have titles with bracketed disambiguators ("Basename (something)") but are not linked from their base name title (either by a hatnote, a dab page entry at "Basename", or a longer pathway) and are thus not as easy to find as they should be.
I've just taken 3 samples of 100 random entries using AWB, filtered out those not containing "(", and looked at the answers. 12 or 14 of each group of 100 had a bracket, and I needed to add a hatnote or dab page entry, or move a disambiguated entry to its unused basename, in 2 cases in each batch. There were also a few edge cases, one case where what was in brackets wasn't a disambiguator but a division (and was correctly linked from the base name), one case which went via a non-dab page at a different title (find Palacio de los Deportes (Heredia) from Palacio de los Deportes). But it looks as if about 2% of the articles need a link they haven't got: either as a hatnote at the basename article (or the article to which the basename redirects), or a dab page entry (at Basename, or "Basename (disambiguation)", or some other dab page to which "Basename" redirects). My notes are here.
I think it ought to be possible for a bot to do something on the lines of:
We then end up with several categories for maintenance work, and the potential for improving the findability of articles: to the benefit of readers, and also to help editors avoid creating duplicate articles by making the existing one easier to find.
Any thoughts?
I've spent far too much of today on Wikipedia, and need to get on with some Real Life, so perhaps won't be commenting on comments very soon. Seasons Greetings to all Disambiguators! Pam D 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
But I hope we can avoid getting bogged down in old discussions about constituencies and stations. The most important problem is articles like Red or Dead (novel). Until yesterday there was no link from Red or Dead. That's too common a situation. Pam D 05:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting though Theo's list is - and I can see a lot of useful dab pages which could be created by reading through it looking for duplicates like 104th Brigade, 168th Street, Bastasi, Battle of Bornos or Beica River, (as a few examples of the kinds of topics which seem to crop up a lot) - it omits the most important missing links. That's the articles at "Basename (foo)" where there is an article at "Basename" but no link from there to "Basename (foo)". eg, until the other day, you could find Red or Dead and have no indication of the existence of Red or Dead (novel). Sometimes "Basename" is a simple article needing a hatnote (as in that example); sometimes it's a dab page needing an entry; sometimes it has a hatnote directing to the dab page at "Basename (disambiguation)", which needs an entry. (And there are more complicated scenarios - eg the dab page being at "Base Name (disambiguation)").
If there's no article at "Basename" (as in all of Theo's list), then someone looking for that topic will end up on a search page and probably be offered the article on "Basename (foo)" within the options. But if they get straight to an article on a different topic, which doesn't have a hatnote pointing elsewhere, or if they get straight to a dab page none of whose entries are what they want, they won't find our article and will probably assume there is no such article. They'll go away from the encyclopedia with their question unanswered, or they might create a duplicate article at "Basename (foo2)".
Has anyone else got thoughts on this. (I wish I hadn't mentioned UK constituencies, as I see trouble brewing there now!) Pam D 17:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is halfway between being a disambiguation page and an I-don't-know-what. It has article-like text and references that should be merged into meet market, and there is a separate Meat Market page that I would propose should be merged here. bd2412 T 18:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm the creator of yet another automated tool for repairing incoming links to disambiguation pages, DisamAssist. Maybe it can be useful for someone. Qwertyytrewqqwerty ( talk) 14:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Burger King so important? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 17:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Is state legislature a disambiguation page or a list? I'm inclined to mark it as a disambiguation page, but I wanted a 2nd opinion :) Kaldari ( talk) 23:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to JHJ's link above to User:Theo's_Little_Bot/unnecessary_dab. Fascinating: presumably a straight search for "Basename (foo)" where there's no article "Basename". I commented earlier that this 10k only gets as far as "E", but "A" only starts at no. 2780. There's a huge number of numerical entries, a lot of which are military units: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history includes: In cases where a unit's name can reasonably be expected to be used by multiple armed forces—particularly in the case of numerical unit designations—the units should generally be preemptively disambiguated when the article is created, without waiting for the appearance of a second article on an identically-named unit. If this is done, the non-disambiguated version of the unit name should be created as a disambiguation page (or a redirect to the disambiguated version).. So pre-emptive disambiguation is here explicitly allowed, but there should always be a link from the undisambiguated form - and these instances in Theo's list show the cases where it isn't present.
I might spend some time pottering down the list sorting out missing dab pages (starting at A as I'm particularly uninterested in the military units and sports info which dominate the numerical section).
Another common grouping seems to be capitalisation problems: APUS (computer) is included in Apus (disambiguation), linked from Apus, but APUS is a redlink.
Ship names are another large category, where WP:SHIPNAME says For an article about a modern-day ship, include the ship's hull number (US Navy hull classification symbol) or pennant numbers (Royal Navy, and many European and Commonwealth navies), if it is available, sufficiently unique, and well known. Here again I'd have thought it useful to include a link from the version without the hull number, but Theo's list shows it hasn't always been done.
Interesting stuff. Must go and get on with Real Life. Pam D 18:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Victor falk: @ R'n'B: Why English page is so special (on this particular page) than everyone else? Simply because Hadrada is more famous? And I checked " what links here" of it, there wasn't a significant talk about this; neither do I see any discussion on Talk:Harald_III.
I really want to restore the disambig nature of Harald III, but before I do it, let's talk on this. Thank you. :) SzMithrandir ( talk) 05:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, anyways, victor falk is not showing up, let's revert it. Done. SzMithrandir ( talk) 06:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is barely recognizable as a disambiguation page. Any interest in converting to something else (such as a list article or a broad-concept)? older ≠ wiser 13:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't do anything drastic yet - First, I'd go through Tri-Cities and deleted every entry that can't be sources as using that name. Once you do that, a disambiguation might be all you need. Ego White Tray ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have begun a draft at Draft:End of history, as a primary topic article to replace the current disambiguation page. Any help would be welcome. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The original Lake Josephine was about a lake in Montana and was moved to Lake Josephine (Montana). I changed Lake Josephine into a disambiguation page after researching the ramifications of making this change. The reason was I created Lake Josephine (Florida) and found the 'Lake Josephine' designation refers to at least five entities in Wikipedia. The only problem so far that has puzzlied me is that the talk page for the old article now is somewhat in limbo, although I think I can fix this. If anyone finds unintentional broken links, etc., I caused, please tell me. I hope the talk page was the only problem I encountered. Bill Pollard ( talk) 07:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
A new user has created Brehal (surname). Besides the fact that the page says it's a French surname and it's in an English surname category, it actually includes a place name as well, Bréhal - which is also the correct spelling of the surname. I'm not sure how to word the first line given that it's a place name as well. The article title is wrong also if it's going to include a place name, right? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
has a reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
crudo is Spanish for "raw",
crudos is plural
crudo is Italian for "raw", crudos is plural — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.120.175.135 (
talk)
21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a request at Talk:Silesian language#Requested move2 to move the article from 'Silesian language' to 'Silesian dialect'. Disambiguation is relevant, since most of the participants in the discussion seem to agree on the 'Silesian' part of the name, but not on its status as a language or a dialect. There is a suggestion to move 'Silesian language' to Silesian, and to move the dab page to Silesian (disambiguation) (currently a redirect). Cnilep ( talk) 00:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Orange County Sheriff's Department has incoming links through Template:California topic. In fact, a glance at Template:California topic/testcases indicates that this template will tend to generate disambiguation links to a number of topics, since it links ambiguously named cities and counties such as Lake County and Pasadena. Either the template needs to be fixed to avoid generating erroneous links, or it should be deleted, as we should not have templates that create errors. bd2412 T 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Would someone like to have a look at Tentamen, where there is a minor edit war - see talk page. Pam D 12:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
if this (compare overturning) were a dab page, what would you put — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 21:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 12:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
I put this comment in on the 'talk page' for Ai (disambiguation), but maybe it needs more exposure than just that.
Okay, I get it: Some high school in Delaware, Alexis I. duPont High School (whose initials should be AID anyway, it seems to me) – that qualifies as being listed in 'Ai (disambiguation)'; but the Appraisal Institute (to which I belong), the leading American organization in the field of real estate appraisal – which shows on their website that they have copyrighted "AI" (see http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ ) – they do not. The second time I added the organization, I pointed that out; and someone still took them out of the list. What is the deal anyway? It is bad enough that I have to fight for 'notability' on albums and rock bands and artists that I have written entire articles on; but now, we have to keep the disambiguation lists short? When I first started writing in Wikipedia, it was a lot of fun; and I really felt like I was contributing. I am no big deal, but I am closing in on 3,000 edits and have written over 100 original articles. Now almost every time I put something in, somebody reverts it immediately – and just to rub it in, I get a message saying that this has happened. If you people are trying to run me off, it is working. Shocking Blue ( talk) 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like to establish a WP:DABCONCEPT taskforce within this WikiProject, to identify pages that are really broad concept article topics stuffed into a badly fitting disambiguation framework, and to create the articles that are missing for these topics. I would also like to have a place where drafts for this purpose are made available to be worked on and brought up to article quality, so they can be moved into article space and either replace or displace the disambiguation pages currently at those titles. So far, I have completed one transition through this process ( End of history), and I have begun five more articles in draft space:
Would anyone else be interested in joining such a taskforce? I don't mind doing this work, but frankly sometimes I feel like I'm all alone out here building DABCONCEPT articles (though, admittedly, without a central base of discussion for these, I can't really see what other editors are doing in this area). Cheers! bd2412 T 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Advertising the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies) here, as specified in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Proposed_naming_conventions_and_guidelines JHunterJ ( talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently Nevermind is a redirect to Nevermind (album). Shouldn't that be the other way 'round? I mean, if (as Nevermind (disambiguation) suggested, and I left it in cleaning up the page) the album is the main topic, then the article should be at the non-disambiguated title, right? If the album is not the main topic, then the DAB page should be at the bare title. Cnilep ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Editor2020 and I have a disagreement on whether it is appropriate to add Category:Lists of people by nickname to Magician. See the prior discussion at User talk:Editor2020#Category goes poof from Magician. Could we get some other opinions please? Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How is this normally handled? There is a DAB page called William Say (disambiguation). There is also a section at DAB page Say#People that includes all four Williams. Should 'Say' just link to 'William Say (disambiguation)', or should all four be included on both pages? I can think of arguments in favor of either solution, so I'm happy to abide by consensus or tradition. I didn't see this mentioned at MOS:DAB. Cnilep ( talk) 05:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts about how to format Scramble? It's a dab page including both "Scramble" and "Scrambling", and while theres no primary topic for "Scramble" there is one for Scrambling. I can't just think how to format the preamble of the dab page to reflect this. Pam D 08:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a current discussion at Talk:Coil (disambiguation) and two affecting RM discussions at Talk:Coil#Requested move and Talk:Coil (electromagnetism). Imho the Coil (disambiguation) needs a cleanup/tweak. Looking forward for your expertise :) -- Trofobi ( talk) 16:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If anyone would like to take a whack at fixing the incoming links to the last two outstanding pages for the February disambiguation contest, Corpus separatum and Index, please have at it. bd2412 T 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Should Thor (film) sport a hatnote to indicate the satellite "Thor 1" located at Thor (satellite) ? Thor 1 redirects to the film article. I've been reverted when I tried to add that. -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 21:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Currently Fish net redirects to Fishing net, while Fishnet treats the stockings. There is also at least one disambiguated title, Fishnet (song). I've added a hatnote at Fishing net. I wonder whether there should be a DAB page, and if so, would either 'Fish(ing) net' or 'Fishnet' be considered the main topic? It seems slightly arbitrary to choose one or the other of those, but problematic to choose both. Cnilep ( talk) 06:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
More opinions sought at Talk:Rotation group (disambiguation). Widefox; talk 10:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
There is great confusion about the naming and disambiguation of a bunch of U.S. Navy aviation squadrons. (See the lengthy and wide-ranging discussion HERE.) We need someone who is very well-versed in disambiguation to work out a few test cases, so we can figure out how to take care of the rest. I have two test cases in mind — one fairly simple and one fairly complex — if a well-qualified volunteer steps forward, I will provide all the details. (I am a skilled editor myself, and knowledgeable about these squadrons and their articles, but a total newbie with disambiguation). Reply here if interested. Lou Sander ( talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a bulk RM discussion at Talk:Chipewyan people#Requested move which concerns disambiguation in various ways, including the erstwhile creation of two/three-item dab pages created invoking a passage in the language naming conventions authored in advance by the same editor who created those; that guideline ignored the "no small dab pages" in this project's guidelines and also bypasses PRIMARYTOPIC, as the people are invariably the primary topic; and also the changing of various "FOO" dab pages into "FOO" disambiguation so that the "FOO" title can be used for the eponymous indigenous group. Discussion is centralized at the Chipewyan talkpage but there are, for now, three other bulk RMs on the same premise, and will be more once I get to the rest of the US state categories. Lists of articles not on the Chipewyan talkpage are on Talk:Yupik peoples#Requested move, Talk:Yaquina people#Requested move, and Talk:Cayuga people#Requested move. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The article at Crowned Crane, which should be at "Crowned crane" or "Crowned crane (disambiguation)", has alternated between a Disambig and SIA. Help on the correct template (DAB or SIA) to use on the listing page and formatting the list will be helpful. Help with setting the WP banner on the talk page also needed. Snowman ( talk) 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Double florin (British coin)#Requested move. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
David Hernandez can move to
David Hernandez (singer).
Sportfan5000 (
talk)
00:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
In the lede of Chosen, the second main bullet point
had no links at all.
I linked Joseon, which is about the history of the kingdom. Then I looked at Korea, but that article is mostly about the geography, history, and politics, not about the people. There is an entry Korean people, which redirects to Koreans, quite a sizeable page; but the guidelines, as quoted on the "Editing…" page, say
ISTM that the connection of "Chosen/Joseon people" with "Koreans" is not very obvious here and is too important to be left implicit. Accordingly, I am boldly linking "Korean people" on the dab page to Koreans, shortcutting the redirect. -- Thnidu ( talk) 07:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
should try to fix or not worth it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 ( talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I edited the disambiguation page for 'Space Cadet' ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Space_Cadet_%28disambiguation%29). I was the first to do so, so do I need to do anything else to draw attention to it? I am asking from pure motives - wondering whether there is a specific thing I'm supposed to do - rather than just trying to draw attention to it by asking if I need to draw attention to it! Bluest Teddy ( talk) 11:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting dab page, my cleanup has just been reverted. Anyone like to have a look? Pam D 12:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
What do we do when there's just 1 article + 1 wiktionary definition on a disamb page for an acronym? The Wiktionary box prescribed by the MOS seems confusing to me in this case. Possibly somebody could improve YGM. The list of internet slang it used to link to is now at wiktionary, so all I could figure to do was this edit Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 13:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC).
Presently, at Depression (mood) we have:
"Despair" redirects here. For other uses of despair, see Despair (disambiguation). For the mood disorder, see Major depressive disorder.
I'd like to propose on the article's talk page that we change that to:
For the mood disorders sometimes called simply "depression", see Major depressive disorder and Dysthymic disorder. "Despair" redirects here; for other uses of "despair" see Despair (disambiguation).
What template/fields do I use to create that? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There are categories and templates for {{ Letter-Number Combination Disambiguation}} and {{ numberdis}} but no category for DAB pages that contain abbreviations consisting of letters only. There are some DAB pages, such as AAA or LAPD (disambiguation) that consist primarily of initialisms, and other pages like Cats or Goa that include a section of acronyms or abbreviations. It seems like it would be possible to create a category similar to Category:Genus disambiguation pages as a parameter of the {{ disambiguation}} template. I see in the archives this suggestion from 2005 that the scope of this WikiProject should "avoid abbreviations", but I didn't find anything else. Is it simply unneeded, or is there some reason in principle to avoid such a category? Cnilep ( talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Connaught Park & Talk:Connaught Park#Clarify: Do we really mean Connaught, Calgary? Peter Horn User talk 23:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The article Washington Convention has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
--
LukasMatt (
talk)
01:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)