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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
In relation to the above named proposal (but hopefully with stand alone content) I propose that a Template:Navbox system (or similar) might be developed so as to present additional and relevant navigation content in a similar format as various Template:Infobox examples. Perhaps this might be done in a similar way as Template:Wikt with fixed width or perhaps it might be enabled to combine with content such as Template:TOC right with variable width.
In the previously mentioned thread I have again used the example of the navigation content presented in the namespace John Smith
In this case a code content such as "{{navbox|John (given name)|Smith (surname)}}
" could result in a page display (hopefully without the additional horisontal line and maybe to a different width/spacing) in a format such as:
See also: [hide | |
---|---|
John (given name) Smith (surname) |
Perhaps the width might correspond to the width such as the contents such as are produced by templates like Wiktionary which, has an output at John (given name), that presents:
In whatever way it might be made to work, I think that something like this can only increase the navigability of our pages.
Greg Kaye 10:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The "re-proposal" in the thread above is strong evidence in favor of this assessment. Proponent is not listening to the fact that we already have a solution for the alleged problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
adapted proposal" above was "
that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles ..." which could equally be achieved through the use of specifically adapted templates or preexisting templates. My personal view is that, in connection to the content of a navigation page such as John Smith that there is a clear association with the contents presented in both John (given name) in and Smith (surname).
Solution in search of a problem" to at least admitting "
alleged problem". Greg Kaye 13:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, lately I've noticed an inflation in the creation of disambiguation pages with only one blue-linked article. Usually about villages and cities, where one of them has an article, and the other ones are redlinked. Notwithstanding the fact that MOSDAB should be followed and blue links should be added to the redlinked entries, I have always been under the impression that, in this case, the disambiguation page should wear the (disambiguation) qualifier, so that the sole existing article can take the primary location. That would seem rather logical, as there is no other article to contest the primary location.
But others sometimes disagree. Can someone remind me if there is an official policy for this kind of situation? -- Midas02 ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Turner is a dab page. It has no primary (which may make sense, it's a common multinational name in several major sports and areas), but it is also not labeled as a dab page. Is this a case where no primary makes sense, and shouldn't it have dab in the title no matter what? MSJapan ( talk) 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't see how that has anything to do with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Red Slash 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As this is our primary page on the use of disambiguation on Wikipedia, should it not cover the routine (though not overwhelmingly frequent) article titling and requested move situation that some titles are naturally too ambiguous and confusing to use without clarification? Use of disambiguation to clarify inherently ambiguous names, not just to resolve multiple articles competing for the same title, seems to this proponent to be something that editors will obviously expect to be covered here, at least briefly.
Some sample wording:
Uncommonly, there are other scenarios for disambiguating an article title, even when this does not disambiguate between two articles, and there is no hatnote. For example Algerian Arab is naturally disambiguated as Algerian Arab sheep, because the shorter title is innately ambiguous (fails the WP:PRECISION criterion for article titles) and may confuse readers, liable to interpret it as referring to a human population.
This keeps being reverted (in whatever exact wording) by the same two editors, on a rationale that appears to be simply disbelief that this is disambiguation-related. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: There are many other examples. British White, Anglo-Nubian and many other animal breed articles were moved to, e.g., British White cattle, Anglo-Nubian goat because their names are likely to be interpreted as human ethnicities or populations. Another class of them, e.g. Flemish Giant (now Flemish Giant rabbit) were moved because they also sounded like they were probably something else (e.g. a figure from folklore). It doesn't much matter what exact example is given. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hatting two-editor back-and-forth
|
---|
|
Open to more than one interpretation;" or "
not having one obvious meaning:" and in the second provided definition it is indicated to express the meaning, "
Not clear or decided:"
Algerian Arab" is and she said she doesn't have a clue. I didn't have a clue either but why should I. This is not the kind of thing that is not common knowledge. I then phoned a nice lady whose number I found on the page http://www.sheepcentre.co.uk/contact_us.htm and, after a little explanation, asked the question, "
have you ever heard of an Algerian Arab?" and she said "
no". The thing is that a topic such as "
Algerian Arab" fails WP:CRITERIA: "sheep
Recognizability" that "
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The person at the "Seven Sisters Sheep Centre" that I phoned did not recognise the subject. What chance does anyone else have?
Example textIn August Francis has made multiple edits in objection to a single and ultimately successful move request. Please can you refrain from your ownership behaviour such as your pointless pedantic reversions and get on with some practical work. Greg Kaye 19:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic, two-editor, back-and-forth
|
---|
Greg Kaye 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I think what you just wrote at WT:AT:
... Queen (band) is sufficient until the day there's a notable zydeco or country or whatever band also named Queen. Unless that has become the case, an argument for "Queen (rock band)" just to include "rock" because you think it's important/defining/common in thinking about the band, is indistinguishable from an argument to name the article "Queen (English rock band)" or "Queen (English rock band with Freddie Mercury in it)". ...
also aplies to natural disambiguation:
... Peppin Merino is sufficient until the day there's a notable chicken or horse or whatever breed also named Peppin Merino. Unless that has become the case, an argument for " Peppin Merino sheep" just to include "sheep" because you think it's important/defining/common in thinking about the Peppin Merino, is indistinguishable from an argument to name the article "Peppin Merino sheep breed" or "Peppin Merino sheep but not an individual sheep". ...
In other words, I don't think the "exception" as formulated well enough written to avoid it would be called too easily for various exceptions to WP:CRITERIA (e.g. by giving the impression that WP:PRECISION as quoted can "override" other criteria), while all the RMs going on seem to result in page moves only when the new page name results in an improved over-all compliance to WP:CRITERIA. So there's no need for this "exception" while WP:CRITERIA suffises and covers the page moves (when considered an improvement!), and the explanation is confusing in seeming to suggest that a single criterion can override the others without consensus to do so.
Further, the presence of page names like Akita (dog) seems to indicate that it is far from a common fact that all breeds are disambiguated by natural disambiguation. So, I'd rather invite you to write Wikipedia:Naming conventions (breeds) (like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) was written for the field I'm more experienced in) and find consensus for it to sort this out, than to append this here where it is not in its place to begin with.
Also this comment/question didn't go unremarked: "I just hope this isn't another round of a bunch of these. Is this the only one? If so, I can support but only for the sake of being consistent with the others that are similarly situated, but I do hope this is over and there won't be more" [2] – so maybe reply to this question: "Is this the only one?" If yes, and this is the last one that needed to get sorted I see no need to write a guideline about it. If no, trying to get a guideline rewrite to operate multiple page moves the community doesn't really sees the need for would be somewhat questionable. If it's only about potential exceptional future cases (e.g. the Mechelen cuckoo I mentioned above): apply WP:CRITERIA and the thing will get sorted one way or another, or if you think it may apply for multiple future similar cases, write Wikipedia:Naming conventions (breeds) as suggested. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That's an awful lot of stuff to raise in objection to including a simple clarification and example, much of it off-topic and self-contradictory. In good faith, I'll attempt to address all of it in series, in a constructive way, and forked for easier resolution.
1. Peppin Merino was, out of that whole batch of articles (the breed ones you say you don't want to use as examples anyway), the lone case that was not moved. I suspected at the time that it would be the one least likely to move; its possible misinterpretation as maybe someone's personal name was the weakest argument in the lot, and I threw it in as an afterthought. It actually is true that " Peppin Merino is sufficient until the day there's a notable chicken or horse or whatever breed also named Peppin Merino" (though distinguishing between breeds was not the issue at that RM, but between the breed and the assumption of a non-breed). If you substitute in "Algerian Arab" your example does not work at all. So I'm not sure what your point was in bringing it up; did you think it was one of those that was moved? Regardless, it might have some utility as an example after all (see #3 below). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
2. "Exception": As already detailed above, the quite concise material I've proposed adding is not actually an exception (and thus it not should be moved to WT:AT); no new "rule" is being being proposed. It's an example of how existing rules have been applied, as you spell out yourself in some detail. Illustration of (not making up of a new rule about) "pre-emptive" natural disambiguation of inherently ambiguous names is important because we actually do it for good reason ( WP:POLICY pages exist mainly to codify existing best practices, not force new rules on people [except for external WP:OFFICE legal matters]). This kind of disambiguation is done for a big group of reasons: several of the WP:CRITERIA simultaneously, WP:COMMONSENSE and not being "user-hateful", usage in (general-audience, non- specialized) WP:RS, MOS:JARGON/ WP:TECHNICAL, and others. This did not come out of the blue, it's just not something you've chosen to focus on. We've been doing this for years, but many editors just disbelieve that we do it because they don't find it listed on this page, and some have tendentiously oppose RMs for months on end because, basically, it's not listed here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Crafting of narrowing examples: So, maybe this material needs "Here's an example of when it did go this way, because confusion with a real ethnicity was very likely" [or whatever, if we pick non-breed examples], in whatever wording, followed by "More often, this is not done, because the likelihood of confusion is lower; e.g. Peppin Merino is not at Peppin Merino (sheep), because while it could be someone's name, readers would not be especially likely to assume this." Or something along these lines, in more compressed wording. Simply saying that it's not common might be sufficient. I'm certainly not suggesting that cases of disambiguation of naturally ambiguous names are going on every day at RM, much less that we should be broadening the interpretation of what may qualify. I'd be in support of making it clear that it's only done in very obvious cases like Welsh Black (and now that I saw what you were getting at [apologies for not getting it the first time] "Mechelen cuckoo"). There was a short series of other RMs similar to "Mechelen cuckoo", but also animal breeds, where the names were of the form "Silver Marten" (now Silver Marten rabbit, etc.). These might be better examples, since most readers would assume this was a kind of marten). Because of years of namewarring over capitalization of species names (and the fact that real-world sources do not consistently capitalize or lower-case species' common names), even WP:DIFFPUNCT could not plausibly be applied (and it seems to only be applied in the case of actual article title collisions anyway). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Use what's in front of us: Breed names are convenient for this, because it's simply common that breeds are often named in a way that makes them inherently confusing if they're not disambiguated. It's a fad/jargon thing. Go to any cat show and you'll find that this cat "is an
Asian"; you're a rube, in those circles, if you refer to it as an "Asian cat", though of course RS written by non-cat breeders do so regularly because they know that "an Asian" means a person, to virtually everyone in virtually every context. (The same will hold true at a horse show, etc., and non-specialist sources about horses, e.g. with "Arabian [horse]".) See SmokeyJoe's comment at the ongoing
WP:SNOWBALL RM of
Algerian Arab to
Algerian Arab sheep (a snowball that indicates this sort of thing is not controversial when applied reasonably): "The title should describe the topic, and the most important thing about this topic is that it is a sheep, which the current title doesn't imply."
PS: I'd actually forgotten that this article in particular had been omitted from the prior group RM; the ongoing RM is correcting that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
5. WP:NATDIS, and "WP:NCBREEDS": No case was made that natural disambiguation is always used for animal breed articles; they just usually are. The proposed wording doesn't say "always", it gives an example using NATDIS, because we usually use it for this, and AT policy says to prefer NATDIS. There's nothing odd or misleading about that. Remember that you yourself argue against associating this proposal with breeds, and it certainly isn't tied to them, they're provide ready examples. The fact that some animal breed articles have not yet had title cleanup, and the possibility that some should continue using WP:PARENDIS, are off-topic. Whether there should be a "WP:Naming conventions (breeds)" is off-topic (though it's been under discussion as something that could be forked from the draft WP:Notability (breeds) page. We may just not need "micro-guidance" of that level of verbiage for a topic so narrow; development has stalled. More importantly, perhaps, we're actually running out of notable breeds to write articles about, so it might be a waste to time to bother. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
5. "Is this the only one?": That was a comment (from someone who likes to needle me sometimes) about breed RMs of this sort specifically. If you read the RMs, you'll recognize her appearing to oppose in every single one of them up to that point; some people favor stability over consistency in the AT/RM sphere, as you know). It might well be the last inherently ambiguous animal breed article title that hasn't been disambiguated. But no, obviously, it won't be the last inherently ambiguous article name on WP. You can't simultaneously argue that we must not associate this DAB matter with breeds, yet that we must only associate it with breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Given this paragraph (Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use.), is this moving correct? -- Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 09:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I proposed merging List of things named Daedalus into Daedalus (disambiguation). Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Daedalus (disambiguation)#2015 merge proposal. — hike395 ( talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also need disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" (in Ireland) can refer to a townland (a small area of land) but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". Another user prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony).
This WikiProjects input here or at the original discussion would be more than appreciated. Mabuska (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Do WP:NCDAB and the related WP:Article titles#Disambiguation comprise a comprehensive listing of the allowed methods for disambiguating article titles? That is, are they intended to strictly prohibit methods not listed, such as dashes ("Foo – Barian and related types")? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There are discussions at Talk:Gouda#Primary topic and elsewhere in the rather lengthy RM discussion of which it is part that may be more appropriate here, as they seem to be questioning the current disambiguation guideline.
For example I'm a relative newcomer to 'move' discussions, but already see that many revolve around 'enduring educational value' vs 'everyday use'. 'Everyday use' being almost synonomous with 'hits', 'enduring educational value' being more synonomous with a more traditional, encyc. approach. Personally, I think it would be good if we could define 'enduring educational value' better, because at the moment it's a case-by-case, slug-out. Java is more primary than Java! Apple is more primary than Apple! One of my criteria is whether the 'dabber word' is painless and familiar, which, in the case of foods, I would say they usually are. [4]
Other views on these points either in the RM or here would be appreciated. Andrewa ( talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should disambiguation pages be moved to a new namespace called "Disambiguation"? If so, "(disambiguation)" redirects will be unnecessary, and existing pages starting with "Disambiguation:" or "Disambiguation talk:" will have to be checked and deleted. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion, which deals with redirects flowing to disambiguation pages, may be of related interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Should a dab be added to By Your Side (The Black Crowes album), By Your Side (Breakbot album) or By Your Side (Hillsong album) when there is a dab at By Your Side? The articles are naming in such a way that each has a unique title. Please ping me if you need my input as I am not watching this page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the major change revolves around the disambiguation of article titles.
The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.
Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Helpful comment was made in the above named discussion on the topic of hatnotes that might be placed at the top of biographical articles to provide links to the topics of "others" who have a shared or similar name to the article providing the links.
An issue that I perceive to be a problem became particularly apparent to me when I did a search (when using google.co.uk) on John Smith. The results immediately presented the Wikipedia article relating to John Smith (Labour Party leader) (which doesn't have a hatnote directing to the navigation page) but the google list then made mention of no other Wikipedia articles. The problem is that readers may have been looking for any one of a large number of people or other entities known by the names "John" and "Smith" and yet the reader is presented with a large content relating to one specific "John Smith".
One option would be to just leave the situation as it is and hope that, following potential readers having already written a term such as "John Smith" in a location such as a google search box, that they will quickly recognize notice the presence, of the Wikipedia search box and, again, enter the same search text.
The proposal here is that a template is developed as an adaptation of Template:For
The working of this template acts so as to convert a code, for example: {{for|the concept in behavioral ecology|Altruism (biology)}}
→
[5] into a footnote with corresponding content, for example:
An adaptation of this template could, I think, be developed with a designation such as: Template:For others
This template could then act so as to convert a code, for example: {{for others|John|Smith}} into a footnote with corresponding content, for example:
or
or
I personally would see most merit in the regular use of the second option to be used. Reasons for this include that the content (a hyperlink based list) is not about a single person called "John Smith"; that the designations of the people listed in these namespaces frequently (if not predominantly) need no disambiguation and that I do not know of anyone called "John Smith" who is known for his activity within the field of "disambiguation".
Alternatively a system might be adopted where a range of templates could be used so that a code based on: Template:For others could result in an output in the form of "example one" while either a code based on: Template:For others nav could result in an output in the form of "example two" or a code based on: Template:For others dis could result in an output in the form of "example three"
Greg Kaye 10:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
{{for|other persons with the same name|John Smith (disambiguation)}}
→
[6] I don't see a need for a separate single purpose variant.
older ≠
wiser 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC){{
Other uses}}
template on the page. Rather than say, "oh, okay", you've followed up with yet another off-topic and redundant proposal. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other uses}}
does not work. Similar templates are certainly unsuited to use to link to a page like the previously mentioned
Alfred Loomis.
Greg
Kaye 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Similar templates are certainly unsuited to use to link to a page like the previously mentioned Alfred LoomisWhat is unsuitable about the following?
{{For|other persons name Alfred Loomis|Alfred Loomis (disambiguation)}}
→
[7]{{
Other uses}}
and only that template ever", I obviously mean "{{Other uses}}
, generally, and variants of it, like {{
Other people}}
, etc., as needed for the specific article type and context in question." —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Propose that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles that have disambiguated titles so as to provide links to an associated navigation page presenting a list of both disambiguated and naturally unambiguous but associated titles.
(By "unambiguous but associated titles
" I am referring to titles such as
John Blair Smith etc. that require no disambiguation).
It is quite rightly pointed out that existing codes could resolve current issues. A code such as: {{
for others|John|Smith}}
would merely produce a shorthand and standardization of wording that might be otherwise generated. (Existing codes might present including and with similarity to:
{{
for|other persons with the same name|John Smith (disambiguation)}}
gives
{{
for|others with the names "John" and "Smith"|John Smith (navigation guide)}}
might give
( John Blair Smith does not have the same name, at least by used designation, as, for instance, John Smith (Labour Party leader)). At present the destination list of titles is at the ambiguously titled namespace John Smith).
In whatever form that the code may take, I propose that a hatnote be used from articles that have disambiguated titles and which have unambiguous titles that have commonality in form with genuinely ambiguous designation. In the second case such include John Blair Smith and John Smith's Brewery/ John Smith & Son which have direct reference to "John Smith" within their titles.
Greg Kaye 08:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other uses}}
template on the page. Rather than say, "oh, okay", you've followed up with yet another off-topic and redundant proposal. The "John Foo Smith" cases are already included at the
John Smith DAB page. The "See also" section will also cover cases like "John Smith's Foo", etc. There is no problem, other than some missing hatnotes (not new kinds of hatnotes, but existing ones). I have a similarly hard-core Web dev and usability background to FS, above, and I agree with him completely. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles that have disambiguated titles so as to provide links to an associated navigation page presenting a list of both disambiguated and naturally unambiguous but associated titles." I am not sure if you are disagreeing with this other than to point out that "
this is not a WP:DAB issue". It is still, as far as I can see, a valid issue being raised on a board that people actually read. Thank-you for pointing out the
{{
Other uses}}
template. This provides another option for fulfilling the mentioned and, I think, valid need presented. Where are we disagreeing?
Greg
Kaye 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC){{
Other uses}}
template to the
John Smith (Labour Party leader) with
this result which seems to me to be poorly worded in consideration of the surrounding context.
Greg
Kaye 14:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PamD for sharing an improved solution which presents a succinct hatnote as:
My argument remains that a more accurate and intuitive wording could read along the lines of:
Something like this could also be used with regards to navigation pages such as for people called Alfred Loomis. A google search on Alfred Loomis] leads to a link to Alfred Lee Loomis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and yet there is no hatnote on this page to link to the Alfred Loomis navigation page so as to readily supply access to the articles for Alfred Lebbeus Loomis or Alfred Loomis (sailor). In this case I propose that a suitable wording for a hatnote would be something along the lines of:
In the context of an article named Alfred Lee Loomis it would be inappropriate to write:
This would be inaccurate. Alfred Lee Loomis is not the same name as Alfred Loomis! Greg Kaye 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other people}}
would get at all cases that need to be gotten at. WT:DAB is for discussion of how to improve the
WP:Disambiguation guideline, not for how to add features to (or work around limitations of) templates that just happen to have something to do with disambiguation. That's what the "Template talk" pages are for. A side lesson here is that "Hmm, I can't seem to easily do what I think needs to be done" is rarely cause for "We need to make a sweeping policy change", but rather for "What gets closest to what I want to do, and what would it take to adapt it?" The latter approach is far more efficient and raises much less dramahz.WP has no "navigation guide" page system. If you want one, try proposing at WP:VPPRO. I guarantee that one which would result in "For others with the names "John" and "Smith", see John Smith (navigation guide)" will just WP:SNOWBALL straight to the bottom of Hell immediately, because there is no encyclopedic utility in a miles-long list of everyone notable in the history of the world named "John". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other people|Alfred Loomis|Alfred Loomis}}
, though even {{
Other people|Alfred Loomis}}
works, since
Alfred Loomis (disambiguation) redirects to the
Alfred Loomis DAB page.{{
Other people|John Smith|John Smith}}
or just {{
Other people|John Smith}}
if you prefer. A spot-check shows that many of the article listed at the
John Smith DAB page, to which
John Smith (disambiguation) of course redirects, do not yet have such a hatnote, so I guess you have a lot of work to do (assuming you're willing to do the constructive work to fix it instead of expend inordinately amounts of [mostly other people's] time and energy just argue about how important it is to fix it the way you want everyone to agree with you to fix it, with which no one is actually agreeing. Put your labo[u]r where your mouth is. :-){{
Hatnote|For other people named John Smith, see [[John Smith]].}}
Oddly, while there used to be a combined documentation page for all of these sorts of templates, showing them used in series and how they differ from one another, this seems to be missing now. Many of them have no documentation at all presently, while some are (as I just did at that one) being documented individually again, as at
Template:About/doc. I guess there's a lot of that kind of work to do now, too. I have no idea why the combo documentation has disappeared, but I don't watch TfD very closely.The first Wikipedia hit when I search "John Smith" on Google (UK) is the disambiguation page" and also for your check related to "David Miller". (Maybe my system is somehow affected by political bias ).
A format of a hatnote that I've adapted and have started to use presents:
which is based on the code
:''For others similarly named, see the [[name (disambiguation)|name]] navigation page''
and
which is based on the code:
:''For others similarly named, see the [[Foo Bar (disambiguation)|Foo Bar]] and [[Foo Baz (disambiguation)|Foo Baz]] navigation pages''
Issues here include that:
I have started in use of these hatnotes fairly widely but their use was queried on my talk page by Frickeg here. The hatnotes did not require any alteration of policy or template adaption whilst having the advantages mentioned and are added with the intention of getting the navigation pages to be better represented on search engine listings.
Greg Kaye 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I can see there is no consensus to use this format:
As such I changed it to ( [8]):
I think GregKaye needs to be warned not to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
In Wikipedia these pages are named "disambiguation pages" and not "navigation pages". That is the convention, and there is no consensus wide or narrow to change that convention. So live with it. You have a WP:Right to fork, but when you're staying here follow the convention per the relevant guidance. I'll take this wherever needed to stop such disruption.
Please also remove all pseudo-disambiguation messages using the confusing "navigation" wording, where the correct conventional wording is "disambiguation". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
pseudo-disambiguation message"? All that we have are, in very many cases, pseudo-disambiguation pages. Many of our pages (that have titles such as in a <first name> <last name> format and which have content in formats including <first name> <middle name or initial> <last name>) contain contents with commonname titles that require no disambiguation. Some of these navigation pages have zero content that is in any way in need of disambiguation. Every name presented is different.
ambiguous article title" John Wilson;
ambiguous article title" James McCartney (disambiguation) and
ambiguous article title" Walter Willis?
When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring"? There is a dispute here between editors that I should be amicably resolved. Please consider the timings of your interventions. Greg Kaye 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." As per link provided, I had already stated that I was not adding further hatnotes. There were unresolved issues yet closure came in ten minutes of final comment. In context of your edit here please also consider guidance given at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments on the topic of Sectioning. Greg Kaye 06:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Xezbeth and Bkonrad: To that extent do you think that page references are given to:
for the purpose of wikt:disambiguation on the web navigation pages titled in Wikipedia as:
To that extent do you think that page references are given to:
for the purpose of wikt:disambiguation on the previously mentioned web navigation page titled in Wikipedia as:
Greg Kaye 06:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
disambiguation is required" please can you specify, in relation to any of the examples above, what needs to be disambiguated from what. Greg Kaye 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There may be an irony in that (add: the titles of) Wikipedia disambiguation (navigation) pages are often not disambiguated. This also leads to an issue with regard to WP:CRITERIA Consistency which presents the ideal that "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
". In actuality in which many of our navigation purposed disambiguation pages are titled "Foobar (disambiguation)" while other pages (all of which - according to
WP:Disambiguation#Page style presents "a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question)
") simply presents a title in the typically singular form "Foobar".
If I visit an article named "Foo" (a title presented in singular form) I may naturally assume that the article entitled "Foo" will be concerning a subject on a topic named "Foo" or "foo". I will not necessarily expect to find a list of Foos/foos. For some time not I have regarded that less ambiguous titles might go along the lines of "Foo (disambiguation)" or "List of F/foos" in a pluralised "List of .." type format.
Without a disambiguation of disambiguation lists these lists fundamentally fail WP:AT which presents the ideal that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.
" A title such as
John Smith presents a single name as of a single entity (person or organisation) who/that, in this case, would be called "John Smith". However, what we find in the article is a very long
List of John Smiths and yet, failing to follow the format provided by the many "Foo (disambigution)" articles, the navigation page is not disambiguated from anything from amongst its extensive content.
I also think that the fact that Wikipedia editors have developed such a vast body of collaborative work to the point that it requires navigation deserves, if anything, celebration and I think that editors can be rightly proud that we have developed multiple articles that may all be referenced by use of identical terminologies. To erroneously describe a "List of foos
" as "Foo
" helps neither the reader or Wikipedia.
On the topic of helping the reader I also think that it would be to the benefit of readers if we moved towards the use of "navigation" based terminologies and this is an issue that was previously raised in the thread Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 43#Disambiguation pages are navigation pages. In web searches:
That's a ratio of 1060:1 in relation to the raw data results.
My interpretation is that "disambiguation" is a necessary editor concern in relation to the differentiation and frequent dissection of terminologies so as to fit mainly technical article address requirements. Reader concern however is, arguably, navigation of content and, in effect and even though it has its advantages, a title such as "Foo (disambiguation)" fails WP:UCRN. The main thing that this format of title achieves is a non commonname disambiguation from "Foo"
My suggestion is that we develop a Wikipedia preference for disambiguation lists for a topic such as "Foo" be placed at titles which might be presented in a format such as:
Foo (disambiguation)
If a decision was taken to adopt something like a ".. (.. navigation ..)
" disambiguation option then, if I were to be given the tools, I would be happy to action any currently required changes. I believe there are only ~2000 "... (disambiguation)" articles so this type of change would not take long.
However, beyond a potential encouragement for editors to think more in accordance to reader navigational needs, the main issue presented here is the WP:Precise titling of disambiguation lists according to the ideal that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article
". This is something that our current titles fail to do.
Greg
Kaye 06:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) clarification "the titles of" added to the first sentence. I honestly don't see that such c clarification was needed as the second sentence presented the policy quote "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
" and the second paragraph began "If I visit an article named "Foo" (a title presented in singular form) I may naturally assume that the article entitled "Foo" will be concerning a subject on a topic named "Foo" or "foo". ...
" and the third paragraph began "Without a disambiguation of disambiguation lists these lists fundamentally fail WP:AT
"
Greg
Kaye 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
DexDor There are two issues and perhaps they would both be best discussed with reference to an example. The list content with the web address for the en Wikipedia namespace John Smith has large content including listings for 111 people who are presented in Wikipedia as being called "John Smith". Examples include:
As mentioned there are 111 subjects with the title "John Smith" and yet the title of the navigation list " John Smith" is not disambiguated from any one of them. The content at John Smith also presents 96 subjects with titles that may not have needed any disambiguation at all and these include titles such as:
Again for many such titles no disambiguation will have been IN ANY SENSE required and, in connection to these articles, a categorisation as "disambiguation" is incorrect.
Added to this is the fact that the common name terminology for navigational contents (such as those that are frequently used in Wikipedia) is "navigation". We use the relatively obscure terminology as related to the editorial concern of "disambiguation" and, in relation to the many articles that require no disambiguation, we use it inaccurately.
What we are doing is that we are providing a facility of navigation. This is a horse that seems to be alive and well in every other location that I have seen other than Wikipedia. Greg Kaye 12:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
... (disambiguation)" articles", what exactly do you mean by that? Category:Disambiguation pages has about 260,000 pages in it, and picking a few random pages from that group leaves me with the impression that at least 20% (over 50,000) have "(disambiguation)" in the title. By the way, I am not averse to the proposal, as I do agree that an undisambiguated disambiguation page title can sometimes be a shock to the reader. bd2412 T 13:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Again for many such titles no disambiguation will have been IN ANY SENSE required and, in connection to these articles, a categorisation as "disambiguation" is incorrect.The articles not categorized as disambiguation. The disambiguation page simply helps readers find articles with information about subjects that may be referred to as "John Smith". The examples you mention appear to use a form of natural disambiguation by including a middle name. It would be nearly impossible to establish that these are never known as simply "John Smith". As to your other point, so far you have been the only person to ever propose using "(navigation)" in place of "(disambiguation)" and your argument regarding any benefits are extremely unclear. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". I don't see that there is anything "ambiguous" about a title such as "John Blair Smith". In Wikipedia we go by WP:COMMONNAME and I would have thought that this would stretch to the use of user focussed terminologies such as "navigation".
we cannot eliminate likelihood that John Blair Smith might (on potentially rare occasion) be referred to as John Smith (or John B. Smith)". There is also, arguably, the likelihood that readers may search for him with searches such as "John Blare Smith", "John Blaire Smith", "John Blaine Smith" or, if she or he is having real trouble remembering the most generally recognisable name by which he was most commonly known, she or he might simply search on "John Smith" (which I think should redirect to something like "John Smith (.. navigation ..)" and then work through the navigation list in search of the bio for the, amongst other things, "president of Union College, New York" None of this changes the fact that the title " John Blair Smith" requires no disambiguation.
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." but, all the same, surely reader's needs should be prioritised over the perceived needs of editors. Greg Kaye 07:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
DexDor Please note the request that I have presented above: ".. please specify what WP:DISAMBIGUATION is required so as to differentiate an article title such as
John Blair Smith from an article title such as John Smith (professor).
" That was and is my simple request in regard to which I would be quite happy for you to tell me of your view. What disambiguation is needed? What? Please!
On the navigation page titled John Kennedy (disambiguation) the first person that gets mentioned is John F. Kennedy. What WP:DISAMBIGUATION has been required in this or the many parallel cases presented on the same navigation page.
Please consider the format of Wikipedia navigation pages. Many have titles in the format "Foo Bar (disambiguation)" and yet these pages frequently have content in formats such as "Foo Bar Baz"; "Foo Baz Bar", "Baz Foo Bar", "Foo Baz Bar Qux" and so on. In any of these cases in which commonname has been rightly used, ".. please specify what WP:DISAMBIGUATION (has been) required.
" Please.
What I understand is that other editors have not, truth be told, justified how the topic of "disambiguation" is of relevance in these cases. No one has explained, for that matter, how the Wikipedia content at John Smith is in any way disambiguated from any of the many topics in that navigation list that are actually called "John Smith". What should I have understood from the above?
I think that my personal preference would be for the titles of article navigation pages to be presented in a format such as:
Foobar, (article navigation guide)
or
Foobar, (article navigation page)
A title format such as those presented above would serve to disambiguate a navigation page entitled "Foobar" from any number of articles that are also entitled "Foobar" while simultaneously applying an accurate and commonname description to the navigation content. Greg Kaye 12:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has explained, for that matter, how the Wikipedia content at John Smith is in any way disambiguated from any of the many topics in that navigation list that are actually called "John Smith".Now you are simply being obtuse and not hearing what others have said. Whether there may be any benefit to calling disambiguation pages something else is another matter, though I agree with DexDor. The current convention works just fine. You have not clearly explained any actual deficiency. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:DISAMBIGUATION in Wikipedia "is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous"". As you will have read I have contended that this does not apply to John Blair Smith and John F. Kennedy in situations in which the articles are listed in locations such as the navigation pages John Smith and John Kennedy (disambiguation).
fundamentally fail WP:AT which presents the ideal that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles."" That is what I "
have said".
The last sentense of your first paragraph shows that you still don't understand what other editors are telling you" and similarly without justification you label me "
obtuse". Please, either present a definitions based argument and justification for your position, (and/)or desist from your personal attacks. Your argument is that, even in the case of someone whose commonly recognisable name is "Foo Baz Bar" and even if they may only have been very rarely known as "Foo Bar", then this is adequate justification for the application of a "... (disambiguation)" label. You see this as sufficient justification in regard to the current practice of our encyclopedia. I do not.
ignoring" range of related issues that can be considered to get this issue in perspective. Most (I consider) fundamentally or perhaps I should say centrally is the issue that, in web based contexts, when a content that presents a sequence of hypertext links is presented, the COMMONNAME given to that form of content is "navigation". Please also consider that our policy is present titling that, "
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" and that, when adding in the concept of naturalness, that "
such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." In many cases in which, for instance, a fuller form of personal name is used by a person and, in many cases, it would be a misrepresentation of that person merely to present them according to an abridged form of their name.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, in a nutshell, what GregKaye is saying is that if you go to look up an architect named "John Smith", you would expect to find the article at "John Smith (architect)", and if you go to look up a navigational page listing a collection of people named "John Smith" you would expect to find the page at a title like "John Smith (navigation)". bd2412 T 23:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
James Paul McCartney or Paul McCartney (born 1942), British singer", "
Bing Crosby (Harry Lillis Crosby, 1903–1977), American actor and singer" and "
[[Bill Clinton|William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton]] (born 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001)". In the first case we have someone who is regularly known as Paul McCartney sometimes as Sir Paul McCartney. I think, that inclusion into the listing on the "James McCartney" page is certainly justified but I think that this may mainly be for the sake of potential reader interest and for the provision of potentially helpful options of navigation. A reader whose name was James McCartney may, for instance, find it of interest to note that the great musician, at least on some legal documents, shared their name.
ascribing a single concise occupation to every biography opens a different can or worms, possibly leading to worse incongruities." While Wikipedia policy does not require occupational or other information to be applied to bios that are simply titled by an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME designation such as for John Blair Smith, I think that it is also fair to point out that there is nothing in policy that necessarily restricts disambiguations to the presentation of a single occupation similar description. Again policy presents that WP:Disambiguation "
.. in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous." Nothing is mentioned to state that the disambiguation must be restricted to a single occupation. Again, reference can be made to content at, Wikipedia:List of Johns whose Britannica article titles contain broad description. This list contains examples such as:
that sometimes we do things in a certain way and get so much used to that, that we tend to believe it is the best way, even the only correct way of doing it." There are many situations in which instruction creep can take effect and I think that this has been an example that has resulted in a clear contradiction in policy. We insist on disambiguation and then we insist that we don't disambiguate the disambiguation pages. We then apply WP:ASSERT within a Wikiproject essay so as to state that a disambiguated disambiguation page is WP:MALPLACED. This, as far as I can see it, is nonsensical and entirely unjustified. Greg Kaye 05:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow long thread, skimmed it, but getting back to the original poster's point, I think what he's saying is: if you type "Foobar" and it takes you to a disambiguation page, then:
He's correct IMO on both points. However, I don't know if this a big deal. The current system is not really broken. Changing "Foobar" to "Foobar (article navigation guide)" is a tiny improvement if any. I mean, the first sentence does tell what the page is about. And -- you are never ever going to get a consensus of people to agree to it. And if you somehow did, you would never ever get a consensus on what term(s) should be used -- "menu" or "navigation" or "guide" or whatever. And it would be a huge time sink. And since it's not really broken, my advice would be to let it go. The current naming system was decided a long time ago and is not going to ever change, so I'd recommend moving on. Herostratus ( talk) 01:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC) In addition to which, it is forbidden to use redirects on disambig pages. I think that that's a foolish rule for a number of reasons I won't detail here, and I ignore it myself, at least to the extent of using the pipe trick or setting up a redirect sometimes.
But none of that matters. It's the rule, and (I gather) it's the rule because its the (pretty idiosyncratic IMO) consensus of the people interested in disambiguation that piping/redirecting is bad and confusing and the the text of a link and the name of the page it devolves to should always be identical. (Regular articles use piping and redirects all the time, of course.) So now you're talking about "Foo" redirecting to "Foo ([something])" and I can't' see that as something that will fly with the disambig folks in particular. Herostratus ( talk) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which of the following gives clearest indication of the nature of the relevant page contents re: "John Smith".
John Smith (navigation page) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith_(navigation_page)
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
or even:
John Smith (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith_(disambiguation)
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
or the clearly ambiguously titled:
John Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
How is a clear indication given to the nature of the content in the last and currently used format?
Greg Kaye 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The title of the namespace is written in singular form and yet the content attached to the namespace presents a significant plurality of topics. Greg Kaye 06:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just cleaned up Palestinian to conform with MOS:DAB (removing external links, references, and multiple blue links per line) and protected the page because it seems that similar cleanup efforts have been reverted in the past. In case any objection is raised to this cleanup effort, I would appreciation any assistance that is needed to explain these policies to objecting editors and prevent any backsliding. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
See Template talk:Disambiguation#Retarget "internal link" away from WhatLinksHere. — Dispenser 02:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If someone has time can they have a look at Moria, there is a slow burning revert war with some people moving "real" topics to the top of the disambiguation and others (myself including) restoring the most common usage to the top. If someone could pop over and clarify where we stand that would be great. GimliDotNet ( talk) 06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
See discussion currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#"attributed to" vs. "attrib." -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Disambiguation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change your title Wikipedia:Disambiguation to Wikipedia: Disambiguation because I've got obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) Thank you so much for reading this 86.149.149.212 ( talk) 06:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Could someone who knows all the ins and outs of disambiguation give some help at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#JJ HELP? It's about the disambiguation of Integral yoga; there is an objection, but we don't know how to proceed. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
How about a reader's survey for non-logged in users who are redirected to a disambiguation page asking what page they were actually looking for, which could then help determine the primary topic? Is that even a possibility? Or could there be a way to track page views originating from the dab page? Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Involves primary topic and recentism, if interested: [9]
Disclaimer: I'm the nom.
-- В²C ☎ 02:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fingering#Requested move 30 October 2015. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Palestine#Synonyms relating to this policy. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention if but Assurance, which used to be a disambiguation page has been taken over by "an independent insurance brokerage".
I have been trying to improve the Assurance Services page but I'm not well versed enough in editing Wikipedia to change the Assurance page back to disambiguation. Can someone help, or tell me where I should raise this issue? Struman ( talk) 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are disambiguation pages supposed to be referenced? Someone has just tagged the blue goose page as needing references. MeegsC ( talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Trade center redirects to World Trade Center. There are 3 links from trade centre, i have no idea where to dab them to as they aren't about The World Trade Centre or about World Trade Centre's in general. Anyone have any ideas. Blethering Scot 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone has been turning an article going back to 2006 on Case analysis into a dab page which isn't really one. This needs additional guidance. -- Midas02 ( talk) 01:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Here, methink, is the right place where I should have written Template talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms an possibly also User talk:Ex nihil#Disambiguation of TLAs (RPF=Receiver Policy Framework).
It would be a tremendous aid to readers to solve this issue. (For a risible attempt see RFC 5513).
Opinions? ale ( talk) 18:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
About a year ago, a new paragraph was boldly added to the head of this section:
I think it's a worthy goal to start this section with an explanation of why adding overly verbose entries is actually unhelpful, but I also think the paragraph as written may miss the mark. I actually read this as encouraging editors to include enough information to "make reference to the full article unnecessary", and am concerned others will read it that way, too.
Here's my attempt to make this clearer. Among other things, I replaced the example entry with a link to a more thorough discussion of entry construction.
-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. So I would suggest we scrap the whole paragraph which was boldly added, and add a bullet point in "Page style" on the lines of " * The description added to each link, if any, should be brief; its sole purpose is to help the reader identify the article they seek." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2015
I think that disambiguation is needed as the two words share the same root, and it would be equally appropriate to refer to either with any name. 92.16.237.72 ( talk) 12:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I was working on disambiguation of Posthumous. The dab page has two primary links - Posthumous promotion and Posthumous diagnosis. All the articles that linked to posthumous just meant the generic after death meaning and I changed these links to wikt:posthumous. So far so good. Then I found there is also a Posthumous recognition which is a redirect to the Posthumous section of the article List of prizes, medals and awards. This makes no sense and I can't imagine why this was done. There are dozens of links to posthumous recognition and this redirect does not aid in the understanding of these articles. I propose changing the redirect of posthumous recognition to wikt:posthumous. Any comments before I do this? MB ( talk) 07:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please replace the link in the article. Xx236 ( talk) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#TWODABS's "with '(disambiguation)' in the title". -- BDD ( talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Baksan is a disambiguation page with only four entries. One is Baksan (town), and another is Baksan (inhabited locality) which itself is a disambiguation page containing Baksan (town). This is circular and I don't see any reason for Baksan (inhabited locality) to exist. The only other entry in Baksan (inhabited locality) is a red-link and the only article that references it is Baksan (town). I think I should merge Baksan (inhabited locality) into Baksan and propose Baksan (inhabited locality) be deleted. MB ( talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Freedom of Information Act regarding whether to turn the redirect Freedom of Information Act into a disambiguation page. Mz7 ( talk) 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Marc García#WP:Primary topic?. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was working on Cowboys and Indians and am not sure of the best way to handle the last two links. The first is in Sweet Betsy from Pike - this is a reference to the 1965 album. The second is in Eric Frein - this is a reference to the "make believe game". Neither has a BLUE link nor even a RED link, so how do I fix these two articles? I don't think it makes sense to add red links in the dab page because I doubt the articles would ever be written. MB ( talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Disambiguation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.245.16.219 ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2016 (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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | → | Archive 50 |
In relation to the above named proposal (but hopefully with stand alone content) I propose that a Template:Navbox system (or similar) might be developed so as to present additional and relevant navigation content in a similar format as various Template:Infobox examples. Perhaps this might be done in a similar way as Template:Wikt with fixed width or perhaps it might be enabled to combine with content such as Template:TOC right with variable width.
In the previously mentioned thread I have again used the example of the navigation content presented in the namespace John Smith
In this case a code content such as "{{navbox|John (given name)|Smith (surname)}}
" could result in a page display (hopefully without the additional horisontal line and maybe to a different width/spacing) in a format such as:
See also: [hide | |
---|---|
John (given name) Smith (surname) |
Perhaps the width might correspond to the width such as the contents such as are produced by templates like Wiktionary which, has an output at John (given name), that presents:
In whatever way it might be made to work, I think that something like this can only increase the navigability of our pages.
Greg Kaye 10:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The "re-proposal" in the thread above is strong evidence in favor of this assessment. Proponent is not listening to the fact that we already have a solution for the alleged problem. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
adapted proposal" above was "
that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles ..." which could equally be achieved through the use of specifically adapted templates or preexisting templates. My personal view is that, in connection to the content of a navigation page such as John Smith that there is a clear association with the contents presented in both John (given name) in and Smith (surname).
Solution in search of a problem" to at least admitting "
alleged problem". Greg Kaye 13:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, lately I've noticed an inflation in the creation of disambiguation pages with only one blue-linked article. Usually about villages and cities, where one of them has an article, and the other ones are redlinked. Notwithstanding the fact that MOSDAB should be followed and blue links should be added to the redlinked entries, I have always been under the impression that, in this case, the disambiguation page should wear the (disambiguation) qualifier, so that the sole existing article can take the primary location. That would seem rather logical, as there is no other article to contest the primary location.
But others sometimes disagree. Can someone remind me if there is an official policy for this kind of situation? -- Midas02 ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Michael Turner is a dab page. It has no primary (which may make sense, it's a common multinational name in several major sports and areas), but it is also not labeled as a dab page. Is this a case where no primary makes sense, and shouldn't it have dab in the title no matter what? MSJapan ( talk) 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't see how that has anything to do with WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Red Slash 05:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
As this is our primary page on the use of disambiguation on Wikipedia, should it not cover the routine (though not overwhelmingly frequent) article titling and requested move situation that some titles are naturally too ambiguous and confusing to use without clarification? Use of disambiguation to clarify inherently ambiguous names, not just to resolve multiple articles competing for the same title, seems to this proponent to be something that editors will obviously expect to be covered here, at least briefly.
Some sample wording:
Uncommonly, there are other scenarios for disambiguating an article title, even when this does not disambiguate between two articles, and there is no hatnote. For example Algerian Arab is naturally disambiguated as Algerian Arab sheep, because the shorter title is innately ambiguous (fails the WP:PRECISION criterion for article titles) and may confuse readers, liable to interpret it as referring to a human population.
This keeps being reverted (in whatever exact wording) by the same two editors, on a rationale that appears to be simply disbelief that this is disambiguation-related. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: There are many other examples. British White, Anglo-Nubian and many other animal breed articles were moved to, e.g., British White cattle, Anglo-Nubian goat because their names are likely to be interpreted as human ethnicities or populations. Another class of them, e.g. Flemish Giant (now Flemish Giant rabbit) were moved because they also sounded like they were probably something else (e.g. a figure from folklore). It doesn't much matter what exact example is given. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 12:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hatting two-editor back-and-forth
|
---|
|
Open to more than one interpretation;" or "
not having one obvious meaning:" and in the second provided definition it is indicated to express the meaning, "
Not clear or decided:"
Algerian Arab" is and she said she doesn't have a clue. I didn't have a clue either but why should I. This is not the kind of thing that is not common knowledge. I then phoned a nice lady whose number I found on the page http://www.sheepcentre.co.uk/contact_us.htm and, after a little explanation, asked the question, "
have you ever heard of an Algerian Arab?" and she said "
no". The thing is that a topic such as "
Algerian Arab" fails WP:CRITERIA: "sheep
Recognizability" that "
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The person at the "Seven Sisters Sheep Centre" that I phoned did not recognise the subject. What chance does anyone else have?
Example textIn August Francis has made multiple edits in objection to a single and ultimately successful move request. Please can you refrain from your ownership behaviour such as your pointless pedantic reversions and get on with some practical work. Greg Kaye 19:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic, two-editor, back-and-forth
|
---|
Greg Kaye 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
|
I think what you just wrote at WT:AT:
... Queen (band) is sufficient until the day there's a notable zydeco or country or whatever band also named Queen. Unless that has become the case, an argument for "Queen (rock band)" just to include "rock" because you think it's important/defining/common in thinking about the band, is indistinguishable from an argument to name the article "Queen (English rock band)" or "Queen (English rock band with Freddie Mercury in it)". ...
also aplies to natural disambiguation:
... Peppin Merino is sufficient until the day there's a notable chicken or horse or whatever breed also named Peppin Merino. Unless that has become the case, an argument for " Peppin Merino sheep" just to include "sheep" because you think it's important/defining/common in thinking about the Peppin Merino, is indistinguishable from an argument to name the article "Peppin Merino sheep breed" or "Peppin Merino sheep but not an individual sheep". ...
In other words, I don't think the "exception" as formulated well enough written to avoid it would be called too easily for various exceptions to WP:CRITERIA (e.g. by giving the impression that WP:PRECISION as quoted can "override" other criteria), while all the RMs going on seem to result in page moves only when the new page name results in an improved over-all compliance to WP:CRITERIA. So there's no need for this "exception" while WP:CRITERIA suffises and covers the page moves (when considered an improvement!), and the explanation is confusing in seeming to suggest that a single criterion can override the others without consensus to do so.
Further, the presence of page names like Akita (dog) seems to indicate that it is far from a common fact that all breeds are disambiguated by natural disambiguation. So, I'd rather invite you to write Wikipedia:Naming conventions (breeds) (like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) was written for the field I'm more experienced in) and find consensus for it to sort this out, than to append this here where it is not in its place to begin with.
Also this comment/question didn't go unremarked: "I just hope this isn't another round of a bunch of these. Is this the only one? If so, I can support but only for the sake of being consistent with the others that are similarly situated, but I do hope this is over and there won't be more" [2] – so maybe reply to this question: "Is this the only one?" If yes, and this is the last one that needed to get sorted I see no need to write a guideline about it. If no, trying to get a guideline rewrite to operate multiple page moves the community doesn't really sees the need for would be somewhat questionable. If it's only about potential exceptional future cases (e.g. the Mechelen cuckoo I mentioned above): apply WP:CRITERIA and the thing will get sorted one way or another, or if you think it may apply for multiple future similar cases, write Wikipedia:Naming conventions (breeds) as suggested. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That's an awful lot of stuff to raise in objection to including a simple clarification and example, much of it off-topic and self-contradictory. In good faith, I'll attempt to address all of it in series, in a constructive way, and forked for easier resolution.
1. Peppin Merino was, out of that whole batch of articles (the breed ones you say you don't want to use as examples anyway), the lone case that was not moved. I suspected at the time that it would be the one least likely to move; its possible misinterpretation as maybe someone's personal name was the weakest argument in the lot, and I threw it in as an afterthought. It actually is true that " Peppin Merino is sufficient until the day there's a notable chicken or horse or whatever breed also named Peppin Merino" (though distinguishing between breeds was not the issue at that RM, but between the breed and the assumption of a non-breed). If you substitute in "Algerian Arab" your example does not work at all. So I'm not sure what your point was in bringing it up; did you think it was one of those that was moved? Regardless, it might have some utility as an example after all (see #3 below). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
2. "Exception": As already detailed above, the quite concise material I've proposed adding is not actually an exception (and thus it not should be moved to WT:AT); no new "rule" is being being proposed. It's an example of how existing rules have been applied, as you spell out yourself in some detail. Illustration of (not making up of a new rule about) "pre-emptive" natural disambiguation of inherently ambiguous names is important because we actually do it for good reason ( WP:POLICY pages exist mainly to codify existing best practices, not force new rules on people [except for external WP:OFFICE legal matters]). This kind of disambiguation is done for a big group of reasons: several of the WP:CRITERIA simultaneously, WP:COMMONSENSE and not being "user-hateful", usage in (general-audience, non- specialized) WP:RS, MOS:JARGON/ WP:TECHNICAL, and others. This did not come out of the blue, it's just not something you've chosen to focus on. We've been doing this for years, but many editors just disbelieve that we do it because they don't find it listed on this page, and some have tendentiously oppose RMs for months on end because, basically, it's not listed here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Crafting of narrowing examples: So, maybe this material needs "Here's an example of when it did go this way, because confusion with a real ethnicity was very likely" [or whatever, if we pick non-breed examples], in whatever wording, followed by "More often, this is not done, because the likelihood of confusion is lower; e.g. Peppin Merino is not at Peppin Merino (sheep), because while it could be someone's name, readers would not be especially likely to assume this." Or something along these lines, in more compressed wording. Simply saying that it's not common might be sufficient. I'm certainly not suggesting that cases of disambiguation of naturally ambiguous names are going on every day at RM, much less that we should be broadening the interpretation of what may qualify. I'd be in support of making it clear that it's only done in very obvious cases like Welsh Black (and now that I saw what you were getting at [apologies for not getting it the first time] "Mechelen cuckoo"). There was a short series of other RMs similar to "Mechelen cuckoo", but also animal breeds, where the names were of the form "Silver Marten" (now Silver Marten rabbit, etc.). These might be better examples, since most readers would assume this was a kind of marten). Because of years of namewarring over capitalization of species names (and the fact that real-world sources do not consistently capitalize or lower-case species' common names), even WP:DIFFPUNCT could not plausibly be applied (and it seems to only be applied in the case of actual article title collisions anyway). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Use what's in front of us: Breed names are convenient for this, because it's simply common that breeds are often named in a way that makes them inherently confusing if they're not disambiguated. It's a fad/jargon thing. Go to any cat show and you'll find that this cat "is an
Asian"; you're a rube, in those circles, if you refer to it as an "Asian cat", though of course RS written by non-cat breeders do so regularly because they know that "an Asian" means a person, to virtually everyone in virtually every context. (The same will hold true at a horse show, etc., and non-specialist sources about horses, e.g. with "Arabian [horse]".) See SmokeyJoe's comment at the ongoing
WP:SNOWBALL RM of
Algerian Arab to
Algerian Arab sheep (a snowball that indicates this sort of thing is not controversial when applied reasonably): "The title should describe the topic, and the most important thing about this topic is that it is a sheep, which the current title doesn't imply."
PS: I'd actually forgotten that this article in particular had been omitted from the prior group RM; the ongoing RM is correcting that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
5. WP:NATDIS, and "WP:NCBREEDS": No case was made that natural disambiguation is always used for animal breed articles; they just usually are. The proposed wording doesn't say "always", it gives an example using NATDIS, because we usually use it for this, and AT policy says to prefer NATDIS. There's nothing odd or misleading about that. Remember that you yourself argue against associating this proposal with breeds, and it certainly isn't tied to them, they're provide ready examples. The fact that some animal breed articles have not yet had title cleanup, and the possibility that some should continue using WP:PARENDIS, are off-topic. Whether there should be a "WP:Naming conventions (breeds)" is off-topic (though it's been under discussion as something that could be forked from the draft WP:Notability (breeds) page. We may just not need "micro-guidance" of that level of verbiage for a topic so narrow; development has stalled. More importantly, perhaps, we're actually running out of notable breeds to write articles about, so it might be a waste to time to bother. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
5. "Is this the only one?": That was a comment (from someone who likes to needle me sometimes) about breed RMs of this sort specifically. If you read the RMs, you'll recognize her appearing to oppose in every single one of them up to that point; some people favor stability over consistency in the AT/RM sphere, as you know). It might well be the last inherently ambiguous animal breed article title that hasn't been disambiguated. But no, obviously, it won't be the last inherently ambiguous article name on WP. You can't simultaneously argue that we must not associate this DAB matter with breeds, yet that we must only associate it with breeds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Given this paragraph (Natural disambiguation. When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use.), is this moving correct? -- Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 09:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I proposed merging List of things named Daedalus into Daedalus (disambiguation). Please feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Daedalus (disambiguation)#2015 merge proposal. — hike395 ( talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. How do you disambiguate two different types of entity that are both in the same place that also need disambiguated from the same thing in a different place? For example "Castlereagh, County Down" (in Ireland) can refer to a townland (a small area of land) but also to a barony, however there are other baronies and townlands in Ireland called Castlereagh. My personal opinion is to use "Castlereagh, County Down (townland)" and "Castlereagh, County Down (barony)". Another user prefers "Castlereagh (County Down townland)" and "Castlereagh (County Down barony)", which they have also used for "Castlereagh (County Roscommon barony).
This WikiProjects input here or at the original discussion would be more than appreciated. Mabuska (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Do WP:NCDAB and the related WP:Article titles#Disambiguation comprise a comprehensive listing of the allowed methods for disambiguating article titles? That is, are they intended to strictly prohibit methods not listed, such as dashes ("Foo – Barian and related types")? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
There are discussions at Talk:Gouda#Primary topic and elsewhere in the rather lengthy RM discussion of which it is part that may be more appropriate here, as they seem to be questioning the current disambiguation guideline.
For example I'm a relative newcomer to 'move' discussions, but already see that many revolve around 'enduring educational value' vs 'everyday use'. 'Everyday use' being almost synonomous with 'hits', 'enduring educational value' being more synonomous with a more traditional, encyc. approach. Personally, I think it would be good if we could define 'enduring educational value' better, because at the moment it's a case-by-case, slug-out. Java is more primary than Java! Apple is more primary than Apple! One of my criteria is whether the 'dabber word' is painless and familiar, which, in the case of foods, I would say they usually are. [4]
Other views on these points either in the RM or here would be appreciated. Andrewa ( talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should disambiguation pages be moved to a new namespace called "Disambiguation"? If so, "(disambiguation)" redirects will be unnecessary, and existing pages starting with "Disambiguation:" or "Disambiguation talk:" will have to be checked and deleted. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 22:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion, which deals with redirects flowing to disambiguation pages, may be of related interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Should a dab be added to By Your Side (The Black Crowes album), By Your Side (Breakbot album) or By Your Side (Hillsong album) when there is a dab at By Your Side? The articles are naming in such a way that each has a unique title. Please ping me if you need my input as I am not watching this page. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Following a Request for Comment on the matter of ship article disambiguation, I have drafted an updated version of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The proposed text can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. Your project is being notified because the major change revolves around the disambiguation of article titles.
The most significant change to the guideline is that the only form of disambiguation for articles on ships is the year of launch, expressed in the format "(yyyy)". All other forms of disambiguation are depreciated, such as pennant/hull number, ship prefix, or ship type. Using ship prefixes in article titles for civilian/merchant ships is also depreciated, unless part of the ship's "common name". Examples have been updated as a result of the RFC and other recent discussions, and in some cases, elaborated on. A list of other changes can be found at User:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update#Summary of changes for proposal.
Discussion and comments are welcomed at User talk:Saberwyn/Proposed ship naming and disambiguation conventions update. -- saberwyn 03:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Helpful comment was made in the above named discussion on the topic of hatnotes that might be placed at the top of biographical articles to provide links to the topics of "others" who have a shared or similar name to the article providing the links.
An issue that I perceive to be a problem became particularly apparent to me when I did a search (when using google.co.uk) on John Smith. The results immediately presented the Wikipedia article relating to John Smith (Labour Party leader) (which doesn't have a hatnote directing to the navigation page) but the google list then made mention of no other Wikipedia articles. The problem is that readers may have been looking for any one of a large number of people or other entities known by the names "John" and "Smith" and yet the reader is presented with a large content relating to one specific "John Smith".
One option would be to just leave the situation as it is and hope that, following potential readers having already written a term such as "John Smith" in a location such as a google search box, that they will quickly recognize notice the presence, of the Wikipedia search box and, again, enter the same search text.
The proposal here is that a template is developed as an adaptation of Template:For
The working of this template acts so as to convert a code, for example: {{for|the concept in behavioral ecology|Altruism (biology)}}
→
[5] into a footnote with corresponding content, for example:
An adaptation of this template could, I think, be developed with a designation such as: Template:For others
This template could then act so as to convert a code, for example: {{for others|John|Smith}} into a footnote with corresponding content, for example:
or
or
I personally would see most merit in the regular use of the second option to be used. Reasons for this include that the content (a hyperlink based list) is not about a single person called "John Smith"; that the designations of the people listed in these namespaces frequently (if not predominantly) need no disambiguation and that I do not know of anyone called "John Smith" who is known for his activity within the field of "disambiguation".
Alternatively a system might be adopted where a range of templates could be used so that a code based on: Template:For others could result in an output in the form of "example one" while either a code based on: Template:For others nav could result in an output in the form of "example two" or a code based on: Template:For others dis could result in an output in the form of "example three"
Greg Kaye 10:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
{{for|other persons with the same name|John Smith (disambiguation)}}
→
[6] I don't see a need for a separate single purpose variant.
older ≠
wiser 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC){{
Other uses}}
template on the page. Rather than say, "oh, okay", you've followed up with yet another off-topic and redundant proposal. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other uses}}
does not work. Similar templates are certainly unsuited to use to link to a page like the previously mentioned
Alfred Loomis.
Greg
Kaye 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Similar templates are certainly unsuited to use to link to a page like the previously mentioned Alfred LoomisWhat is unsuitable about the following?
{{For|other persons name Alfred Loomis|Alfred Loomis (disambiguation)}}
→
[7]{{
Other uses}}
and only that template ever", I obviously mean "{{Other uses}}
, generally, and variants of it, like {{
Other people}}
, etc., as needed for the specific article type and context in question." —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Propose that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles that have disambiguated titles so as to provide links to an associated navigation page presenting a list of both disambiguated and naturally unambiguous but associated titles.
(By "unambiguous but associated titles
" I am referring to titles such as
John Blair Smith etc. that require no disambiguation).
It is quite rightly pointed out that existing codes could resolve current issues. A code such as: {{
for others|John|Smith}}
would merely produce a shorthand and standardization of wording that might be otherwise generated. (Existing codes might present including and with similarity to:
{{
for|other persons with the same name|John Smith (disambiguation)}}
gives
{{
for|others with the names "John" and "Smith"|John Smith (navigation guide)}}
might give
( John Blair Smith does not have the same name, at least by used designation, as, for instance, John Smith (Labour Party leader)). At present the destination list of titles is at the ambiguously titled namespace John Smith).
In whatever form that the code may take, I propose that a hatnote be used from articles that have disambiguated titles and which have unambiguous titles that have commonality in form with genuinely ambiguous designation. In the second case such include John Blair Smith and John Smith's Brewery/ John Smith & Son which have direct reference to "John Smith" within their titles.
Greg Kaye 08:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other uses}}
template on the page. Rather than say, "oh, okay", you've followed up with yet another off-topic and redundant proposal. The "John Foo Smith" cases are already included at the
John Smith DAB page. The "See also" section will also cover cases like "John Smith's Foo", etc. There is no problem, other than some missing hatnotes (not new kinds of hatnotes, but existing ones). I have a similarly hard-core Web dev and usability background to FS, above, and I agree with him completely. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)that policy makes mention in some way of a practice of adding hatnotes to articles that have disambiguated titles so as to provide links to an associated navigation page presenting a list of both disambiguated and naturally unambiguous but associated titles." I am not sure if you are disagreeing with this other than to point out that "
this is not a WP:DAB issue". It is still, as far as I can see, a valid issue being raised on a board that people actually read. Thank-you for pointing out the
{{
Other uses}}
template. This provides another option for fulfilling the mentioned and, I think, valid need presented. Where are we disagreeing?
Greg
Kaye 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC){{
Other uses}}
template to the
John Smith (Labour Party leader) with
this result which seems to me to be poorly worded in consideration of the surrounding context.
Greg
Kaye 14:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks PamD for sharing an improved solution which presents a succinct hatnote as:
My argument remains that a more accurate and intuitive wording could read along the lines of:
Something like this could also be used with regards to navigation pages such as for people called Alfred Loomis. A google search on Alfred Loomis] leads to a link to Alfred Lee Loomis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and yet there is no hatnote on this page to link to the Alfred Loomis navigation page so as to readily supply access to the articles for Alfred Lebbeus Loomis or Alfred Loomis (sailor). In this case I propose that a suitable wording for a hatnote would be something along the lines of:
In the context of an article named Alfred Lee Loomis it would be inappropriate to write:
This would be inaccurate. Alfred Lee Loomis is not the same name as Alfred Loomis! Greg Kaye 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other people}}
would get at all cases that need to be gotten at. WT:DAB is for discussion of how to improve the
WP:Disambiguation guideline, not for how to add features to (or work around limitations of) templates that just happen to have something to do with disambiguation. That's what the "Template talk" pages are for. A side lesson here is that "Hmm, I can't seem to easily do what I think needs to be done" is rarely cause for "We need to make a sweeping policy change", but rather for "What gets closest to what I want to do, and what would it take to adapt it?" The latter approach is far more efficient and raises much less dramahz.WP has no "navigation guide" page system. If you want one, try proposing at WP:VPPRO. I guarantee that one which would result in "For others with the names "John" and "Smith", see John Smith (navigation guide)" will just WP:SNOWBALL straight to the bottom of Hell immediately, because there is no encyclopedic utility in a miles-long list of everyone notable in the history of the world named "John". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
Other people|Alfred Loomis|Alfred Loomis}}
, though even {{
Other people|Alfred Loomis}}
works, since
Alfred Loomis (disambiguation) redirects to the
Alfred Loomis DAB page.{{
Other people|John Smith|John Smith}}
or just {{
Other people|John Smith}}
if you prefer. A spot-check shows that many of the article listed at the
John Smith DAB page, to which
John Smith (disambiguation) of course redirects, do not yet have such a hatnote, so I guess you have a lot of work to do (assuming you're willing to do the constructive work to fix it instead of expend inordinately amounts of [mostly other people's] time and energy just argue about how important it is to fix it the way you want everyone to agree with you to fix it, with which no one is actually agreeing. Put your labo[u]r where your mouth is. :-){{
Hatnote|For other people named John Smith, see [[John Smith]].}}
Oddly, while there used to be a combined documentation page for all of these sorts of templates, showing them used in series and how they differ from one another, this seems to be missing now. Many of them have no documentation at all presently, while some are (as I just did at that one) being documented individually again, as at
Template:About/doc. I guess there's a lot of that kind of work to do now, too. I have no idea why the combo documentation has disappeared, but I don't watch TfD very closely.The first Wikipedia hit when I search "John Smith" on Google (UK) is the disambiguation page" and also for your check related to "David Miller". (Maybe my system is somehow affected by political bias ).
A format of a hatnote that I've adapted and have started to use presents:
which is based on the code
:''For others similarly named, see the [[name (disambiguation)|name]] navigation page''
and
which is based on the code:
:''For others similarly named, see the [[Foo Bar (disambiguation)|Foo Bar]] and [[Foo Baz (disambiguation)|Foo Baz]] navigation pages''
Issues here include that:
I have started in use of these hatnotes fairly widely but their use was queried on my talk page by Frickeg here. The hatnotes did not require any alteration of policy or template adaption whilst having the advantages mentioned and are added with the intention of getting the navigation pages to be better represented on search engine listings.
Greg Kaye 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I can see there is no consensus to use this format:
As such I changed it to ( [8]):
I think GregKaye needs to be warned not to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.
In Wikipedia these pages are named "disambiguation pages" and not "navigation pages". That is the convention, and there is no consensus wide or narrow to change that convention. So live with it. You have a WP:Right to fork, but when you're staying here follow the convention per the relevant guidance. I'll take this wherever needed to stop such disruption.
Please also remove all pseudo-disambiguation messages using the confusing "navigation" wording, where the correct conventional wording is "disambiguation". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 03:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
pseudo-disambiguation message"? All that we have are, in very many cases, pseudo-disambiguation pages. Many of our pages (that have titles such as in a <first name> <last name> format and which have content in formats including <first name> <middle name or initial> <last name>) contain contents with commonname titles that require no disambiguation. Some of these navigation pages have zero content that is in any way in need of disambiguation. Every name presented is different.
ambiguous article title" John Wilson;
ambiguous article title" James McCartney (disambiguation) and
ambiguous article title" Walter Willis?
When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring"? There is a dispute here between editors that I should be amicably resolved. Please consider the timings of your interventions. Greg Kaye 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early." As per link provided, I had already stated that I was not adding further hatnotes. There were unresolved issues yet closure came in ten minutes of final comment. In context of your edit here please also consider guidance given at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments on the topic of Sectioning. Greg Kaye 06:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Xezbeth and Bkonrad: To that extent do you think that page references are given to:
for the purpose of wikt:disambiguation on the web navigation pages titled in Wikipedia as:
To that extent do you think that page references are given to:
for the purpose of wikt:disambiguation on the previously mentioned web navigation page titled in Wikipedia as:
Greg Kaye 06:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
disambiguation is required" please can you specify, in relation to any of the examples above, what needs to be disambiguated from what. Greg Kaye 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There may be an irony in that (add: the titles of) Wikipedia disambiguation (navigation) pages are often not disambiguated. This also leads to an issue with regard to WP:CRITERIA Consistency which presents the ideal that "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
". In actuality in which many of our navigation purposed disambiguation pages are titled "Foobar (disambiguation)" while other pages (all of which - according to
WP:Disambiguation#Page style presents "a list (or multiple lists, for multiple senses of the term in question)
") simply presents a title in the typically singular form "Foobar".
If I visit an article named "Foo" (a title presented in singular form) I may naturally assume that the article entitled "Foo" will be concerning a subject on a topic named "Foo" or "foo". I will not necessarily expect to find a list of Foos/foos. For some time not I have regarded that less ambiguous titles might go along the lines of "Foo (disambiguation)" or "List of F/foos" in a pluralised "List of .." type format.
Without a disambiguation of disambiguation lists these lists fundamentally fail WP:AT which presents the ideal that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.
" A title such as
John Smith presents a single name as of a single entity (person or organisation) who/that, in this case, would be called "John Smith". However, what we find in the article is a very long
List of John Smiths and yet, failing to follow the format provided by the many "Foo (disambigution)" articles, the navigation page is not disambiguated from anything from amongst its extensive content.
I also think that the fact that Wikipedia editors have developed such a vast body of collaborative work to the point that it requires navigation deserves, if anything, celebration and I think that editors can be rightly proud that we have developed multiple articles that may all be referenced by use of identical terminologies. To erroneously describe a "List of foos
" as "Foo
" helps neither the reader or Wikipedia.
On the topic of helping the reader I also think that it would be to the benefit of readers if we moved towards the use of "navigation" based terminologies and this is an issue that was previously raised in the thread Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 43#Disambiguation pages are navigation pages. In web searches:
That's a ratio of 1060:1 in relation to the raw data results.
My interpretation is that "disambiguation" is a necessary editor concern in relation to the differentiation and frequent dissection of terminologies so as to fit mainly technical article address requirements. Reader concern however is, arguably, navigation of content and, in effect and even though it has its advantages, a title such as "Foo (disambiguation)" fails WP:UCRN. The main thing that this format of title achieves is a non commonname disambiguation from "Foo"
My suggestion is that we develop a Wikipedia preference for disambiguation lists for a topic such as "Foo" be placed at titles which might be presented in a format such as:
Foo (disambiguation)
If a decision was taken to adopt something like a ".. (.. navigation ..)
" disambiguation option then, if I were to be given the tools, I would be happy to action any currently required changes. I believe there are only ~2000 "... (disambiguation)" articles so this type of change would not take long.
However, beyond a potential encouragement for editors to think more in accordance to reader navigational needs, the main issue presented here is the WP:Precise titling of disambiguation lists according to the ideal that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article
". This is something that our current titles fail to do.
Greg
Kaye 06:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) clarification "the titles of" added to the first sentence. I honestly don't see that such c clarification was needed as the second sentence presented the policy quote "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.
" and the second paragraph began "If I visit an article named "Foo" (a title presented in singular form) I may naturally assume that the article entitled "Foo" will be concerning a subject on a topic named "Foo" or "foo". ...
" and the third paragraph began "Without a disambiguation of disambiguation lists these lists fundamentally fail WP:AT
"
Greg
Kaye 04:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
DexDor There are two issues and perhaps they would both be best discussed with reference to an example. The list content with the web address for the en Wikipedia namespace John Smith has large content including listings for 111 people who are presented in Wikipedia as being called "John Smith". Examples include:
As mentioned there are 111 subjects with the title "John Smith" and yet the title of the navigation list " John Smith" is not disambiguated from any one of them. The content at John Smith also presents 96 subjects with titles that may not have needed any disambiguation at all and these include titles such as:
Again for many such titles no disambiguation will have been IN ANY SENSE required and, in connection to these articles, a categorisation as "disambiguation" is incorrect.
Added to this is the fact that the common name terminology for navigational contents (such as those that are frequently used in Wikipedia) is "navigation". We use the relatively obscure terminology as related to the editorial concern of "disambiguation" and, in relation to the many articles that require no disambiguation, we use it inaccurately.
What we are doing is that we are providing a facility of navigation. This is a horse that seems to be alive and well in every other location that I have seen other than Wikipedia. Greg Kaye 12:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
... (disambiguation)" articles", what exactly do you mean by that? Category:Disambiguation pages has about 260,000 pages in it, and picking a few random pages from that group leaves me with the impression that at least 20% (over 50,000) have "(disambiguation)" in the title. By the way, I am not averse to the proposal, as I do agree that an undisambiguated disambiguation page title can sometimes be a shock to the reader. bd2412 T 13:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Again for many such titles no disambiguation will have been IN ANY SENSE required and, in connection to these articles, a categorisation as "disambiguation" is incorrect.The articles not categorized as disambiguation. The disambiguation page simply helps readers find articles with information about subjects that may be referred to as "John Smith". The examples you mention appear to use a form of natural disambiguation by including a middle name. It would be nearly impossible to establish that these are never known as simply "John Smith". As to your other point, so far you have been the only person to ever propose using "(navigation)" in place of "(disambiguation)" and your argument regarding any benefits are extremely unclear. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous". I don't see that there is anything "ambiguous" about a title such as "John Blair Smith". In Wikipedia we go by WP:COMMONNAME and I would have thought that this would stretch to the use of user focussed terminologies such as "navigation".
we cannot eliminate likelihood that John Blair Smith might (on potentially rare occasion) be referred to as John Smith (or John B. Smith)". There is also, arguably, the likelihood that readers may search for him with searches such as "John Blare Smith", "John Blaire Smith", "John Blaine Smith" or, if she or he is having real trouble remembering the most generally recognisable name by which he was most commonly known, she or he might simply search on "John Smith" (which I think should redirect to something like "John Smith (.. navigation ..)" and then work through the navigation list in search of the bio for the, amongst other things, "president of Union College, New York" None of this changes the fact that the title " John Blair Smith" requires no disambiguation.
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." but, all the same, surely reader's needs should be prioritised over the perceived needs of editors. Greg Kaye 07:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
DexDor Please note the request that I have presented above: ".. please specify what WP:DISAMBIGUATION is required so as to differentiate an article title such as
John Blair Smith from an article title such as John Smith (professor).
" That was and is my simple request in regard to which I would be quite happy for you to tell me of your view. What disambiguation is needed? What? Please!
On the navigation page titled John Kennedy (disambiguation) the first person that gets mentioned is John F. Kennedy. What WP:DISAMBIGUATION has been required in this or the many parallel cases presented on the same navigation page.
Please consider the format of Wikipedia navigation pages. Many have titles in the format "Foo Bar (disambiguation)" and yet these pages frequently have content in formats such as "Foo Bar Baz"; "Foo Baz Bar", "Baz Foo Bar", "Foo Baz Bar Qux" and so on. In any of these cases in which commonname has been rightly used, ".. please specify what WP:DISAMBIGUATION (has been) required.
" Please.
What I understand is that other editors have not, truth be told, justified how the topic of "disambiguation" is of relevance in these cases. No one has explained, for that matter, how the Wikipedia content at John Smith is in any way disambiguated from any of the many topics in that navigation list that are actually called "John Smith". What should I have understood from the above?
I think that my personal preference would be for the titles of article navigation pages to be presented in a format such as:
Foobar, (article navigation guide)
or
Foobar, (article navigation page)
A title format such as those presented above would serve to disambiguate a navigation page entitled "Foobar" from any number of articles that are also entitled "Foobar" while simultaneously applying an accurate and commonname description to the navigation content. Greg Kaye 12:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No one has explained, for that matter, how the Wikipedia content at John Smith is in any way disambiguated from any of the many topics in that navigation list that are actually called "John Smith".Now you are simply being obtuse and not hearing what others have said. Whether there may be any benefit to calling disambiguation pages something else is another matter, though I agree with DexDor. The current convention works just fine. You have not clearly explained any actual deficiency. older ≠ wiser 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:DISAMBIGUATION in Wikipedia "is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous"". As you will have read I have contended that this does not apply to John Blair Smith and John F. Kennedy in situations in which the articles are listed in locations such as the navigation pages John Smith and John Kennedy (disambiguation).
fundamentally fail WP:AT which presents the ideal that "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles."" That is what I "
have said".
The last sentense of your first paragraph shows that you still don't understand what other editors are telling you" and similarly without justification you label me "
obtuse". Please, either present a definitions based argument and justification for your position, (and/)or desist from your personal attacks. Your argument is that, even in the case of someone whose commonly recognisable name is "Foo Baz Bar" and even if they may only have been very rarely known as "Foo Bar", then this is adequate justification for the application of a "... (disambiguation)" label. You see this as sufficient justification in regard to the current practice of our encyclopedia. I do not.
ignoring" range of related issues that can be considered to get this issue in perspective. Most (I consider) fundamentally or perhaps I should say centrally is the issue that, in web based contexts, when a content that presents a sequence of hypertext links is presented, the COMMONNAME given to that form of content is "navigation". Please also consider that our policy is present titling that, "
someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" and that, when adding in the concept of naturalness, that "
such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." In many cases in which, for instance, a fuller form of personal name is used by a person and, in many cases, it would be a misrepresentation of that person merely to present them according to an abridged form of their name.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, in a nutshell, what GregKaye is saying is that if you go to look up an architect named "John Smith", you would expect to find the article at "John Smith (architect)", and if you go to look up a navigational page listing a collection of people named "John Smith" you would expect to find the page at a title like "John Smith (navigation)". bd2412 T 23:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
James Paul McCartney or Paul McCartney (born 1942), British singer", "
Bing Crosby (Harry Lillis Crosby, 1903–1977), American actor and singer" and "
[[Bill Clinton|William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton]] (born 1946) was the 42nd President of the United States (1993–2001)". In the first case we have someone who is regularly known as Paul McCartney sometimes as Sir Paul McCartney. I think, that inclusion into the listing on the "James McCartney" page is certainly justified but I think that this may mainly be for the sake of potential reader interest and for the provision of potentially helpful options of navigation. A reader whose name was James McCartney may, for instance, find it of interest to note that the great musician, at least on some legal documents, shared their name.
ascribing a single concise occupation to every biography opens a different can or worms, possibly leading to worse incongruities." While Wikipedia policy does not require occupational or other information to be applied to bios that are simply titled by an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME designation such as for John Blair Smith, I think that it is also fair to point out that there is nothing in policy that necessarily restricts disambiguations to the presentation of a single occupation similar description. Again policy presents that WP:Disambiguation "
.. in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous." Nothing is mentioned to state that the disambiguation must be restricted to a single occupation. Again, reference can be made to content at, Wikipedia:List of Johns whose Britannica article titles contain broad description. This list contains examples such as:
that sometimes we do things in a certain way and get so much used to that, that we tend to believe it is the best way, even the only correct way of doing it." There are many situations in which instruction creep can take effect and I think that this has been an example that has resulted in a clear contradiction in policy. We insist on disambiguation and then we insist that we don't disambiguate the disambiguation pages. We then apply WP:ASSERT within a Wikiproject essay so as to state that a disambiguated disambiguation page is WP:MALPLACED. This, as far as I can see it, is nonsensical and entirely unjustified. Greg Kaye 05:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow long thread, skimmed it, but getting back to the original poster's point, I think what he's saying is: if you type "Foobar" and it takes you to a disambiguation page, then:
He's correct IMO on both points. However, I don't know if this a big deal. The current system is not really broken. Changing "Foobar" to "Foobar (article navigation guide)" is a tiny improvement if any. I mean, the first sentence does tell what the page is about. And -- you are never ever going to get a consensus of people to agree to it. And if you somehow did, you would never ever get a consensus on what term(s) should be used -- "menu" or "navigation" or "guide" or whatever. And it would be a huge time sink. And since it's not really broken, my advice would be to let it go. The current naming system was decided a long time ago and is not going to ever change, so I'd recommend moving on. Herostratus ( talk) 01:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC) In addition to which, it is forbidden to use redirects on disambig pages. I think that that's a foolish rule for a number of reasons I won't detail here, and I ignore it myself, at least to the extent of using the pipe trick or setting up a redirect sometimes.
But none of that matters. It's the rule, and (I gather) it's the rule because its the (pretty idiosyncratic IMO) consensus of the people interested in disambiguation that piping/redirecting is bad and confusing and the the text of a link and the name of the page it devolves to should always be identical. (Regular articles use piping and redirects all the time, of course.) So now you're talking about "Foo" redirecting to "Foo ([something])" and I can't' see that as something that will fly with the disambig folks in particular. Herostratus ( talk) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which of the following gives clearest indication of the nature of the relevant page contents re: "John Smith".
John Smith (navigation page) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith_(navigation_page)
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
or even:
John Smith (disambiguation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith_(disambiguation)
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
or the clearly ambiguously titled:
John Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
/info/en/?search=John_Smith
John David Smith (1786–1849), businessman and political figure in Upper Canada; John
Smith, 1800s Cree Chief and Treaty Six signatory; founder of the ...
How is a clear indication given to the nature of the content in the last and currently used format?
Greg Kaye 21:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The title of the namespace is written in singular form and yet the content attached to the namespace presents a significant plurality of topics. Greg Kaye 06:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just cleaned up Palestinian to conform with MOS:DAB (removing external links, references, and multiple blue links per line) and protected the page because it seems that similar cleanup efforts have been reverted in the past. In case any objection is raised to this cleanup effort, I would appreciation any assistance that is needed to explain these policies to objecting editors and prevent any backsliding. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
See Template talk:Disambiguation#Retarget "internal link" away from WhatLinksHere. — Dispenser 02:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I started a WP:RfC that is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
If someone has time can they have a look at Moria, there is a slow burning revert war with some people moving "real" topics to the top of the disambiguation and others (myself including) restoring the most common usage to the top. If someone could pop over and clarify where we stand that would be great. GimliDotNet ( talk) 06:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
See discussion currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#"attributed to" vs. "attrib." -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Disambiguation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change your title Wikipedia:Disambiguation to Wikipedia: Disambiguation because I've got obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) Thank you so much for reading this 86.149.149.212 ( talk) 06:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. Could someone who knows all the ins and outs of disambiguation give some help at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#JJ HELP? It's about the disambiguation of Integral yoga; there is an objection, but we don't know how to proceed. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
How about a reader's survey for non-logged in users who are redirected to a disambiguation page asking what page they were actually looking for, which could then help determine the primary topic? Is that even a possibility? Or could there be a way to track page views originating from the dab page? Raykyogrou0 ( Talk) 10:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Involves primary topic and recentism, if interested: [9]
Disclaimer: I'm the nom.
-- В²C ☎ 02:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Fingering#Requested move 30 October 2015. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Talk:Palestine#Synonyms relating to this policy. Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention if but Assurance, which used to be a disambiguation page has been taken over by "an independent insurance brokerage".
I have been trying to improve the Assurance Services page but I'm not well versed enough in editing Wikipedia to change the Assurance page back to disambiguation. Can someone help, or tell me where I should raise this issue? Struman ( talk) 10:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Are disambiguation pages supposed to be referenced? Someone has just tagged the blue goose page as needing references. MeegsC ( talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Trade center redirects to World Trade Center. There are 3 links from trade centre, i have no idea where to dab them to as they aren't about The World Trade Centre or about World Trade Centre's in general. Anyone have any ideas. Blethering Scot 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone has been turning an article going back to 2006 on Case analysis into a dab page which isn't really one. This needs additional guidance. -- Midas02 ( talk) 01:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Here, methink, is the right place where I should have written Template talk:Disambiguation#Acronyms an possibly also User talk:Ex nihil#Disambiguation of TLAs (RPF=Receiver Policy Framework).
It would be a tremendous aid to readers to solve this issue. (For a risible attempt see RFC 5513).
Opinions? ale ( talk) 18:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
About a year ago, a new paragraph was boldly added to the head of this section:
I think it's a worthy goal to start this section with an explanation of why adding overly verbose entries is actually unhelpful, but I also think the paragraph as written may miss the mark. I actually read this as encouraging editors to include enough information to "make reference to the full article unnecessary", and am concerned others will read it that way, too.
Here's my attempt to make this clearer. Among other things, I replaced the example entry with a link to a more thorough discussion of entry construction.
-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. So I would suggest we scrap the whole paragraph which was boldly added, and add a bullet point in "Page style" on the lines of " * The description added to each link, if any, should be brief; its sole purpose is to help the reader identify the article they seek." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2015
I think that disambiguation is needed as the two words share the same root, and it would be equally appropriate to refer to either with any name. 92.16.237.72 ( talk) 12:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I was working on disambiguation of Posthumous. The dab page has two primary links - Posthumous promotion and Posthumous diagnosis. All the articles that linked to posthumous just meant the generic after death meaning and I changed these links to wikt:posthumous. So far so good. Then I found there is also a Posthumous recognition which is a redirect to the Posthumous section of the article List of prizes, medals and awards. This makes no sense and I can't imagine why this was done. There are dozens of links to posthumous recognition and this redirect does not aid in the understanding of these articles. I propose changing the redirect of posthumous recognition to wikt:posthumous. Any comments before I do this? MB ( talk) 07:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please replace the link in the article. Xx236 ( talk) 09:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#TWODABS's "with '(disambiguation)' in the title". -- BDD ( talk) 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Baksan is a disambiguation page with only four entries. One is Baksan (town), and another is Baksan (inhabited locality) which itself is a disambiguation page containing Baksan (town). This is circular and I don't see any reason for Baksan (inhabited locality) to exist. The only other entry in Baksan (inhabited locality) is a red-link and the only article that references it is Baksan (town). I think I should merge Baksan (inhabited locality) into Baksan and propose Baksan (inhabited locality) be deleted. MB ( talk) 05:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Freedom of Information Act regarding whether to turn the redirect Freedom of Information Act into a disambiguation page. Mz7 ( talk) 02:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Marc García#WP:Primary topic?. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I was working on Cowboys and Indians and am not sure of the best way to handle the last two links. The first is in Sweet Betsy from Pike - this is a reference to the 1965 album. The second is in Eric Frein - this is a reference to the "make believe game". Neither has a BLUE link nor even a RED link, so how do I fix these two articles? I don't think it makes sense to add red links in the dab page because I doubt the articles would ever be written. MB ( talk) 05:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Disambiguation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
71.245.16.219 ( talk) 20:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)