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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 40#Species abbreviations I was going to suggest adding something like this in WP:PARTIAL:
However,
So is there a standard?
jnestorius( talk) 16:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert:. Drat. There's some stuff I'd forgotten about that I wish I had remembered before this test case. A template for adding links to species abbreviations (A. tristis...Z. tristis) to epithet disambiguation pages (Tristis) was deleted. The consequences of that deletion and the value of species epithet disambiguations were discussed. Some "disambiguation" pages no longer disambiguate anything following deletion of the template (e.g. Arenarius), and have fallen off the rader. Other epithet disambiguation pages were converted to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names following this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria (notes on changes following that discussion documented at User:Oiyarbepsy/Species_abbreviation). Plantdrew ( talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Vita concerning Josephus' "Vita" (book) and whether or not Vita (Josephus Flavius) would qualify for an entry on the "Vita" Disambiguation page. Those who are interested in voicing an opinion about this entry may do so there, in order to help build a consensus, one way or the other. Davidbena ( talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? -- В²C ☎ 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert: User:Narky Blert and I disagree as to which should be used for Seba. The discussion started in User talk:Narky Blert#Seba, wandered over to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 March 4#Right forum and now here.
IMO, the latter is correct for obvious given names, such as Seba, Jean-Claude, and hndis for anything longer, for example John I, Thomas Thompson. This appears to be the consensus, as Category:Human name disambiguation pages is overwhelmingly populated as I would expect. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:Crouch, Swale#Weston, Somerset is it possible to link to a part of a section without a section header? I tried adding {{ anchor}} to the redirect but that didn't work. The problem is that there are a number of Westons in the UK but not enough in each county to create a separate section for each so someone searching gets the top of the large list for the UK rather than the part only for Somerset. @ Mhockey: who pointed out the problems with the redirect. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of redirects. Many of those words need a disambiguation page. For example Whitter redirects to John Greenleaf Whittier but it should be a disambiguation page since there are three persons with this name. Same for Wixey. Starting from this list, I've already did such work at Abey (name), Acres (disambiguation), Adamthwaite, Aakash (disambiguation), Addicott (disambiguation). — Ark25 ( talk) 09:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Here the list is reduced to the elements that need disambiguation pages (or name pages) for sure (only the letter "A" at the moment but I will add more). — Ark25 ( talk) 21:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles about various places. Many of them need a disambiguation page, like for example Arthurton and Wookey. (Later edit: and Here is a list of the items that need a disambiguation page for sure) — Ark25 ( talk) 09:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
After a while I've found out that actually it's not that hard to find those that are missing a hatnote. So I reduced the list to those words that for sure need a disambiguation page or at least a hat note. The list is here - User:Ark25/To-do/Disambiguations-EN3a. — Ark25 ( talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
A lot of given names and surnames need disambiguation pages for.
In case anyone is interested to create such pages, I got a list of names here The list was created by processing the names of English footballers and therefore many of those words are actually English-language surnames or English-language given names. — Ark25 ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Name list vs dab Subtle point per MOS:DABNAME: a namelist (or anthroponymy page) is not a disambiguation page.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is possible to create some intelligent scripts on the server side, or even for the client side, for automatic generation of surname and given name pages. Say for example you want to create a surname page for Byas (surname), and then such a script will generate the following text:
Also for checking if there are new entries that could be added to a surname page. For example, such a script would suggest adding Mo Agoro and Ismaïl Ouro-Agoro to the Agoro (surname) page.
Is there any chance for developing such scripts to be considered? Was such an idea ever discussed? — Ark25 ( talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we reach a broad consensus as to what circumstances justify creating which type of page? In particular, are there cases when we should not create a page, perhaps because search does the job better? Perhaps we can create a guide like this, where X is the surname, ⇒ is a redirect and → is a wikilink.
All of those suggestions are up are for discussion and should be modified at the editor's discretion in individual cases. In particular, we should decide when it is better not to create a page. Certes ( talk) 15:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
What order should entries be on a disambiguation page? (Or within a section, if multiple sections.) It seems that alphabetical, or historical (earlier ones first) or some such might be used? Or just the order that they were added? Gah4 ( talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, name lists can contain infobox templates like {{ infobox surname}} like for example this page: Valen (surname). But some disambiguation pages can contain name lists too and they are part of categories named Category:Human name disambiguation pages or Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists or Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, so they are a mix between disambiguation and name lists pages. And then, my question is the following: is it ok to use {{ infobox surname}} and {{ infobox given name}} into such pages? For example at Valentini or Valentinian. — Ark25 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
We need some sort of explanatory supplement on the use of pageviews in evaluating primary topics. At the moment the relevant section simply links to the tools and says the views are relevant, but there are many pitfalls in interpreting them, and they are not always obvious. I think we're being a bid bald in letting new editors find out about the limitations the way we have all done – by learning from our mistakes over countless RM discussions.
We need to provide some sort of guidance, but that would be too fine-grained for this page, so a separate explanatory supplement might be the way to go. I've got a first draft at Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics. This could definitely do with expansion, or at least more eyes on it. Please join in! – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to clarify our stance on titles which form part of a numbered series whose meaning is not inherently apparent, and whether we should disambiguate for the purpose of clarity even when not strictly necessary. An example would be Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) (as there is no other notable "Symphony No. 104"), which is already covered by WP:MUSICSERIES, but this RfC would explore the application of this principle to other domains, such as sequentially numbered legislation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a small example of a larger problem. I just searched for the name Tiphaine, an historical character referenced in a book I am reading. There are lots and lots of real people named Tiphaine out there, as I found in my searches. Wikipedia, however, redefines the name, without any explanation, and opens a Tiffany disambiguation page. Users should at least be told why this is happening. Merry medievalist ( talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have created Mahmud I (disambiguation) and Mahmud II (disambiguation), and tagged them for the moment with {{disambiguation}}. What is the more appropriate tag here - {{disambiguation|hndis}} or {{disambiguation|tndis}}? And how should the {{DEFAULTSORT}} be structured? Henry II uses {{human name disambiguation|Henry 02}} but most similar articles don't give any clue as to sorting. Leschnei ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I notice there are now three different women in WP with the same name ( Michelle King). The articles have hatnotes on them but maybe there should be a DAB page listing all three? MurielMary ( talk) 04:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Why is National Trust listed as an example in WP:DABCONCEPT? That article is about a specific organisation in the UK. National trust, on the other hand, is closer to being a broad-concept article, but is actually just a list. I suggest we delete that specific example, as the other two will do. ― Hebsen ( talk) 14:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I and User:Vmavanti are in conflict over the latter's edit of Mach and my reversion thereof. I have copied over the argument from my talk page here for others' comments since we are obviously deadlocked:
What should be done with cases like Newton/ List of places called Newton in the United Kingdom, Kingston/ List of places called Kingston, Fairview/ List of places called Fairview in the United States, Bristol (disambiguation)/ List of places called Bristol and Tarbert (disambiguation)/ Tarbert? In the 1st 3 cases the SIA doesn't contain any other information other than what a DAB would have so I'd suggest merging them and the problem is that the places aren't included on the main DAB meaning readers need to make 2 clicks to find a full match (though a few of the largest are included on the main Kingston DAB page) and I don't see the need to split the DAB pages even if they're long. We split of names (eg Newton (surname) since most people there are not likely to be called that in a generic content but we include 1 (Isaac Newton) who is on the main DAB which makes sense since readers who only know part of the name aren't going to be too surprised if it takes them 2 clicks to find the person. In the case of Bristol the DAB page does include several non place topics and as noted does include some content so I'm fine with that being separate. In the case of Tarbert the only uses are place names so it might be better to just merge the DAB into the SIA. If a DAB page only relates to place names and content can be added about the name in general then it seems reasonable to include such content even though DAB pages otherwise generally aren't supposed to contain such content. There was discussion in 2008 at Talk:Tarbert @ Ben MacDui:. I added the Gigha one though maybe it should just be a redirect since although it has an entry in the Gazetteer for Scotland and GeoNames it seems to just be a farm. Interestingly like with User:Certes/misdirected links#Surnames @ Certes: I fixed 54 links that were intended for a specific Tarbert rather than the name in general. There are 13 mainspace links (ignoring the one on the DAB) left for the name its self. Obviously WP is not a dictionary so we usually assume readers are looking for a specific place rather than the name in general especially since the name origin should be included in the specific article. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
We should do nothing (except improve the current articles). I specifically created the first three examples in order to remove a very large number of entries from cluttered hard-to-navigate disambiguation pages, and to allow freedom to include redlinks which would otherwise be deleted. Reversing my creations and incorporating these long lists into the disambiguation pages would not improve those pages. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with Block voting? Perhaps abandon the disambiguation page classification and categorise it as an article? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
While reading Template:Commons category, I ran across the sentence "On disambiguation pages, this template is usually placed at the top of the page.". I've always assumed that this is a sister project that shouldn't be included on DAB pages ( WP:DABSISTER). Am I correct? And if so, should this sentence be removed from the template instructions? Leschnei ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that a Wikipedia search for "The dawning of the day" leads to an entry for a song. I was looking for the novel of the same name, which has an entry. There is no link on the song entry page to the novel, so it would be difficult to find. This seems like a candidate for disambiguation. I haven't been able to figure out how to actually disambiguate an entry, though -- too new, and haven't come across any easy explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucida sidera ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in Talk:Apple (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 September 2020, which discusses an article mentioned on this page. Certes ( talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I enhanced the disambiguation template to allow
{{Disambiguation|given name|surname|hn=Lisa, Mona}}
in addition to the old method:
{{Disambiguation|given name|surname}}
[[Category:Human name disambiguation pages|Lisa, Mona]]
I didn't make it work with the other synonyms for hn, just hn itself. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Kyiv (disambiguation) about whether to include a song that is often known, in Ukranian, as "Kyiv Song" or "My Kyiv". The full title is "Yak tebe ne lyubyty, Kyieve miy!" (How can I not love you, my Kyiv?). My inclination is to remove the song because the page is not disambiguating "Kyieve miy" but I would appreciate other opinions on the talk page. Thanks, Leschnei ( talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a WP:PTM issue on Migration (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Lafontaine to split the people out of La Fontaine and Lafontaine and create a surname page. Please add comments there. Leschnei ( talk) 18:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The page Coronary is not labeled as a disambig page, though it looks like one to me. It's currently listed as WP:SIA, but that doesn't seem to cover it completely. Would like some feedback whether this page is correctly listed or not. Mathglot ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Where are we on this? Is this a consensus for redirecting Coronary to Myocardial infarction, or are we still discussing? Mathglot ( talk) 01:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a new merge proposal at Talk:The Runner. Please comment there. Thanks, Leschnei ( talk) 12:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Typhoon Haishen#SIA or dab? which may also apply to similar pages. Certes ( talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics (shortcuts WP:FIXDABLINKS) has remained virtually unchanged since 2006. I think it's high time for a rewrite. The current version of this text consists of five paragraphs:
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them.
Ambiguous links are periodically checked and repaired, but even if some ambiguous links remain, one of the primary reasons for making a disambiguation page is so that following such links will still be useful to the reader.
There is a tool to facilitate ambiguous link repair in the Python Wikipedia Robot. The bot offers to update links to choices listed on the disambiguation page. Do not forget to seek approval on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page if doing extensive or fast runs.
When repairing a link, use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. For example, when renaming Topic Name to Topic Name (qualifier),
[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]
will render as Topic Name just like the original.
A shorter alternative is to use empty pipe syntax, also known as the pipe trick. This allows editors to leave out the piped alternative when editing. For example, typing[[Topic Name (qualifier)| ]]
will automatically produce[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]
.
Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link is intended for one or another of the topics being disambiguated, it should be changed to link to the relevant article. The project at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) keeps track of such links, and it lists a number of tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen for example when a disambiguation page is created, or moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. Editors involved in such actions are encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links. If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL.
If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPLmight be interpreted as
Don't bother tidying up after yourself; we'll happily pick up the litter you leave. It deserves a stronger injunction to leave the encyclopaedia in a consistent state or at least ensure that someone else is doing so. Certes ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Intentional links to disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" title (see below); links to disambiguation pages that are intended for one or another of the topics for the ambiguous title should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article (or to no article) may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
Well, I'm thinking of a version like this: (I've incorporated JHunterJ's stylistic improvements, but have kept the beginning two sentence unchanged as I thought they were simpler and so a bit clearer. I've also omitted the mention of redlinks: this is technically correct, but I don't think it's necessary to be precise in this context.)
Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link to a disambiguation page is intended for one or another of the topics with the ambiguous name, it should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page.
Here's the tricky bit. What should follow next? We've got either:
Editors involved in such actions are strongly encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links.
The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
A or B? I don't have a personal preference, and B is certainly a good representation of existing practices and expectations (though I'd reword away from "cleanup"). It all depends on what level of detail we would like the guidelines to contain. Narky Blert, JHunterJ, Certes, Crouch, Swale, BD2412? – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
...encouraged to ensure that the resulting links are fixed, to emphasise that the editor has responsibility for managing the work but need not make every edit themselves. Certes ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The resulting links will need to be corrected. For a handful of links, this can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by those who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed. They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
Hello. Aside from a few sentences of content at the top and in one entry, and some footnotes, the page Blue book looks very like a disambig page to me. It just isn't called one, and the formatting isn't quite right. And this is notwithstanding another page entitled, Blue Book (disambiguation) (note: capital-B, capital-B). Blue book has some features of a WP:BCA, but in that case it should follow BCA guidelines, and it doesn't seem to quite fit the examples or lend it itself well to a BCA. And it's definitely not an SIA, either.
What needs to be done here? (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot ( talk) 02:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If a page has people with the surname and people with the mononym, should the DAB template be {{disambiguation|hndis|surname}} or is {{disambiguation|hndis}} sufficient? Branquinho is the page that brought this to mind. Leschnei ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
|surname
, to put the page into
Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists.
Certes (
talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be used by editors who downplay (that's a generous way of putting it) the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so what is the benefit of this shortcut? In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Titles like Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1827-1907), Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1868-1899), and others, have date ranges with hyphens instead of en dashes. For the two Adolf von Rauch's, I debated between a properly-formatted date range vs. date of birth, and finally moved them to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) and Adolf von Rauch (born 1805) because this seemed to be more in line with WP:NCPDAB. Now I'm noticing more titles with the same issue (the Friedrich Wilhelms, for example), and I want to make sure that I'm not just creating a bigger problem. Was moving Adolf von Rauch (1798-1882) to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) the correct fix? Leschnei ( talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to request a disambiguation set-up for the term " peach fuzz". I recently moved the page previously located at Peach Fuzz (about an English-language manga) to Peach Fuzz (manga), and redirected the original term to Vellus hair. I've now discovered several other articles by the name ( Peach Fuzz (album), Peach Fuzz (song)) that weren't previously disambiguated and I don't want to mess this up, so I am asking here. — Goszei ( talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Done — hike395 ( talk) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai Zongqi ( talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with The Undoing? The Undoing (miniseries) is Wikpedia's 13th most viewed article, with 200 times more page views than the album. Although the series is enjoying temporary popularity during its first run, it is hard to argue that the album remains the primary topic for "The Undoing". However, a new dab would barely help readers because the miniseries would still be one click away from its obvious title. Redirect The Undoing (Tim Sköld album) also exists. Any thoughts? Certes ( talk) 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm stumbling across more of these: Kevin Holland (fighter) v Kevin Holland ( views), Joseph Epstein (writer) v Joseph Epstein ( views), , The Wilds (TV series) v The Wilds ( views), ... None of those clearly usurps the primary topic but a John Quested-style dab may not best serve our readers. How do we best balance passing trends with lasting notability? Certes ( talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Interlanguage links currently reads:
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list.
I think this needs to be clarified so it's clear the text is about links that appear in the sidebar, and updated to reflect the fact that this is handled at Wikidata now. How about something like this?
A disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia should be connected to the corresponding disambiguation pages in other-language Wikipedias. These will then appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). Such links are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.
This way, we're deferring to the Wikidata project, and so not explicitly leaving any room for the old-style technique of linking from the wikitext at the bottom of the page. Probably worth pointing out that the guidelines at Wikidata are relatively strict – they require the terms disambiguated to be more or less the same, so they will not, for example, allow for linking Cheese (disambiguation) to the hypothetical French Wikipedia page disambiguating the French word for 'cheese'. I think that's sensible, and if in some exceptional circumstance an editor would like to override the Wikidata guidelines, they should do so following WP:IAR, rather than any explicit exemptions in our guidelines.
Whatever the exact text here, I think it will also be a good thing to do something about the section title. "Interlanguage links" is ambiguous, so we should maybe change it to something like "Site links" (matching the Wikidata lingo), or "Sidebar language links". What do others think? I don't see any overriding reason to keep it as it is – I was able to find only three incoming links [3], only one of which is actually used correctly. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list. Such links should appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). These are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.
Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai. Zongqi ( talk) 11:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou Zongqi ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Archived at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_54#Interlanguage_links_and_links_to_sister_projects.
Taggart was recently moved to Taggart (series), and Taggart is now a disambiguation page. There is already a disambiguation page at Taggart (disambiguation). Would Taggart (series) still be considered the primary target or should the disambiguation page be moved to Taggart (and lots of links fixed)? Leschnei ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I posted this at the general help desk but today found my way to this page and I see that people are asking questions here, so I hope this is okay to post, because I think it might need DAB experts. I created a new DAB page out of what was previously redirect (to the Pearson InformIT section - which may become a separate article sometime), at Informit, only to discover InformIT (disambiguation). It's complicated by the upper/lower-case thing, and I'm not sure what the best approach to these are. I have also now created Informit (database), so this will creates a third item. What is the best way to treat these options? (I'm thinking perhaps all variations should redirect to one DAB page, and if so should it have "(disambiguation)" after the word or not?) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I found this page that has been tagged for a decade, but it might need to be deleted or turned into adab [age. What do you think? Bearian ( talk) 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The Kraft (disambiguation) page is a bit confusing, or perhaps it is the article names themselves, when it comes to Kraft Foods. Kraft Foods Inc. appears to be the original company that existed from 1923 until a split in 2011/2012, after which it became Mondalez. Kraft Foods, as far as I can make out, only actually existed between 2012 and mid-2015, when it became part of Kraft Heinz. Perhaps this discussion belongs on one or all of those talk pages, but I thought it worth consulting the DAB experts first. It strikes me as a bit analogous to the muddle with the various organisations known as "Anti-Slavery Society", on which I recently did a big clean-up. The problem is that editors just link to the most obvious name (which in that case was the Anti-Slavery Society, in this, Kraft Foods). I haven't done a thorough check, but given that Kraft foods has a LOT more pages linking to it than Kraft Foods Inc., I'm pretty sure that most of those (like a few I've discovered already) actually intend to link to the older company. I'm wondering if there should be a "Kraft Foods (disambiguation)", or else article moves to change the name of each article (followed by dates in parentheses?), or some other idea to help untangle these. Any suggestions or advice? Am I missing something? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In Atashi, the DAB template contains 'WIO-1011' as a parameter. I can find anything by searching, but thought I'd check here before removing it. Leschnei ( talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
dab|surname}}
, as I see several surnames listed but no WIO-1011s.
Certes (
talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Members of and visitors to this WikiProject are invited to comment on and to contribute to a new WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol. The founders think that it complements but in no way infringes on any existing WikiProject - and also, that we cannot have got everything right. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at Britain/ Britain (disambiguation). The DAB page was cut and pasted to Britain (disambiguation) but the talk page which has substantial discussion is still at the base name. It was moved after a small amount of discussion at Talk:Britain#This page should be a redirect to United Kingdom and there was 1 person who agreed and 1 person who didn't appear sure. Given the previous debate on this I think there should have been a full RM rather than just an informal discussion on the DAB. As someone in England I'd expect "Britain" to return the island an "UK" to return the sovereign state but I'm fine with disambiguation. Unlike the US being called "America" which I've commonly heard I didn't have any awareness that "Britain" is sometimes used to refer to the UK until recently. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DAB-Experts,
I have a question regarding two German film directors both named Wolfgang Becker. Currently the page of the director born in 1954 is named simply Wolfgang Becker. The director born in 1910 is named Wolfgang Becker (editor) – he was a film editor in the earlier part of his career (1931–1949), before becoming a director in the years 1950–1992. Now while his career as film editor is very significant, he is clearly even more notable as a director, as can be seen from the number of projects on his IMDb page. I have the hunch, that the parentheses (editor) was chosen for him simply to avoid the longer disambiguation Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910). But this is the choice made in the de-WP, where the two are named de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1910) and de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1954) – in the de-WP style guide, the "born"-part is left out.
I believe this to be the correct choice. Neither director is significantly more notable than the other, so I propose moving the younger one to Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954) and to change Wolfgang Becker into a DAB page. As an aside, there are more Wolfgang Beckers notable enough for an en-article, although they currently have none – see the German dab page de:Wolfgang Becker.
Are there any objections to this? And am I right in assuming that the word "born" is always used here in the en-WP when applying this method? Greetings from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 18:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
[[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]]
. Examples are
Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and
Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). –
Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Template:Wikipedia disambiguation has been nominated for merging with Template:Disambiguation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DAB-experts,
I believe there is a need for a proper disambiguation page for the name Hugh Elliott (and Hugh Elliot with one "t"). Right now the name page with two "t"s is a relink to:
There could also potentially be articles for Hugh Elliott (footballer) and Hugh Elliott (athlete) in the future, although the later doesn't seem notable enough. Plus some peerage-types floating about on wikidata.
The six existing articles are messy enough, and I would assume the best hatnote for all of them is the Template:Other people or the Template:Similar names.
I would also assume that one uses just one DAB page for both spelling types, since there is also only one DAB page for the name Elliot, while Elliott relinks to that. Where to put the DAB page though? The colonial governor occupies Hugh Elliot, and he may indeed be the primary topic amongst the Hughs with one "t", but I don't think he is much more relevant than the knighted ornithologist, or the current ambassador to Spain. Would you (1) move him to a new page with (parentheses), and then use his page as the DAB page, relinking Hugh Elliott to that? Or would you (2) just use Hugh Elliott as the DAB page, and let the governor keep his seat? Looking at the list of Famous bearers of the surname, it seems the two-t-types are far more common, so I would use method (2) if that is ok with everyone.
P.S. Does one include people like Hugh Elliott Eaglesham and Hugh Elliot Montgomery in the "See also:" section, or does one avoid that, because Elliot is a given name in these cases?
Looking forward to your advice; thanks from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, disambiguation squad! I noticed that on the Mary Miller disambiguation page, an editor recently divided the entries into Living and Dead sections. Is there any kind of standard or guideline about doing that or not doing that? I don't recall seeing that type of thing before, is why I ask. — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Magnovvig: Hello. It looks like you put back your recent change to the Mary Miller disambiguation page, here, dividing the entries into Living and Dead sections. I don't see how that's helpful, and neither do a couple of other editors who have commented in this section. And it's contrary to the usual practice. I recommend putting the page back the way it was, not divided into Living and Dead. But if you think there's a compelling reason to keep the two sections, feel free to explain it here. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
A simple list can be
Sections can be:
Do we have a consensus as to how long is too long for an undivided list?
Lots to discuss ... unless there's a MOS:HNDIS which I haven't found. Pam D 08:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sections with more than ten to twelve entries should usually be divided, so this one is marginal and at the editor's discretion. WP:LONGDAB#People suggests that we divide larger sections by field of notability: arts, science, sport, etc. That makes sense: I don't know when Mary Miller (artistic director) was born but an "Arts" heading would guide me quickly to the right entry. Certes ( talk) 10:30, 7 March 2021 (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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 |
Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 40#Species abbreviations I was going to suggest adding something like this in WP:PARTIAL:
However,
So is there a standard?
jnestorius( talk) 16:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert:. Drat. There's some stuff I'd forgotten about that I wish I had remembered before this test case. A template for adding links to species abbreviations (A. tristis...Z. tristis) to epithet disambiguation pages (Tristis) was deleted. The consequences of that deletion and the value of species epithet disambiguations were discussed. Some "disambiguation" pages no longer disambiguate anything following deletion of the template (e.g. Arenarius), and have fallen off the rader. Other epithet disambiguation pages were converted to redirects to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names following this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria (notes on changes following that discussion documented at User:Oiyarbepsy/Species_abbreviation). Plantdrew ( talk) 05:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: There is currently a Request for Comment at Talk:Vita concerning Josephus' "Vita" (book) and whether or not Vita (Josephus Flavius) would qualify for an entry on the "Vita" Disambiguation page. Those who are interested in voicing an opinion about this entry may do so there, in order to help build a consensus, one way or the other. Davidbena ( talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (video games) § RfC: "(gamer)" or "(video game player)"? -- В²C ☎ 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Narky Blert: User:Narky Blert and I disagree as to which should be used for Seba. The discussion started in User talk:Narky Blert#Seba, wandered over to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2020 March 4#Right forum and now here.
IMO, the latter is correct for obvious given names, such as Seba, Jean-Claude, and hndis for anything longer, for example John I, Thomas Thompson. This appears to be the consensus, as Category:Human name disambiguation pages is overwhelmingly populated as I would expect. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed new CSD criterion: R5, for redirects with malformed or misspelled (disambiguation) qualifiers which may be of interest to editors who follow this page. Narky Blert ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
See User talk:Crouch, Swale#Weston, Somerset is it possible to link to a part of a section without a section header? I tried adding {{ anchor}} to the redirect but that didn't work. The problem is that there are a number of Westons in the UK but not enough in each county to create a separate section for each so someone searching gets the top of the large list for the UK rather than the part only for Somerset. @ Mhockey: who pointed out the problems with the redirect. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of redirects. Many of those words need a disambiguation page. For example Whitter redirects to John Greenleaf Whittier but it should be a disambiguation page since there are three persons with this name. Same for Wixey. Starting from this list, I've already did such work at Abey (name), Acres (disambiguation), Adamthwaite, Aakash (disambiguation), Addicott (disambiguation). — Ark25 ( talk) 09:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Here the list is reduced to the elements that need disambiguation pages (or name pages) for sure (only the letter "A" at the moment but I will add more). — Ark25 ( talk) 21:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles about various places. Many of them need a disambiguation page, like for example Arthurton and Wookey. (Later edit: and Here is a list of the items that need a disambiguation page for sure) — Ark25 ( talk) 09:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
After a while I've found out that actually it's not that hard to find those that are missing a hatnote. So I reduced the list to those words that for sure need a disambiguation page or at least a hat note. The list is here - User:Ark25/To-do/Disambiguations-EN3a. — Ark25 ( talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
A lot of given names and surnames need disambiguation pages for.
In case anyone is interested to create such pages, I got a list of names here The list was created by processing the names of English footballers and therefore many of those words are actually English-language surnames or English-language given names. — Ark25 ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Name list vs dab Subtle point per MOS:DABNAME: a namelist (or anthroponymy page) is not a disambiguation page.— Bagumba ( talk) 10:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is possible to create some intelligent scripts on the server side, or even for the client side, for automatic generation of surname and given name pages. Say for example you want to create a surname page for Byas (surname), and then such a script will generate the following text:
Also for checking if there are new entries that could be added to a surname page. For example, such a script would suggest adding Mo Agoro and Ismaïl Ouro-Agoro to the Agoro (surname) page.
Is there any chance for developing such scripts to be considered? Was such an idea ever discussed? — Ark25 ( talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Can we reach a broad consensus as to what circumstances justify creating which type of page? In particular, are there cases when we should not create a page, perhaps because search does the job better? Perhaps we can create a guide like this, where X is the surname, ⇒ is a redirect and → is a wikilink.
All of those suggestions are up are for discussion and should be modified at the editor's discretion in individual cases. In particular, we should decide when it is better not to create a page. Certes ( talk) 15:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
What order should entries be on a disambiguation page? (Or within a section, if multiple sections.) It seems that alphabetical, or historical (earlier ones first) or some such might be used? Or just the order that they were added? Gah4 ( talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
AFAIK, name lists can contain infobox templates like {{ infobox surname}} like for example this page: Valen (surname). But some disambiguation pages can contain name lists too and they are part of categories named Category:Human name disambiguation pages or Category:Disambiguation pages with given-name-holder lists or Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists, so they are a mix between disambiguation and name lists pages. And then, my question is the following: is it ok to use {{ infobox surname}} and {{ infobox given name}} into such pages? For example at Valentini or Valentinian. — Ark25 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
We need some sort of explanatory supplement on the use of pageviews in evaluating primary topics. At the moment the relevant section simply links to the tools and says the views are relevant, but there are many pitfalls in interpreting them, and they are not always obvious. I think we're being a bid bald in letting new editors find out about the limitations the way we have all done – by learning from our mistakes over countless RM discussions.
We need to provide some sort of guidance, but that would be too fine-grained for this page, so a separate explanatory supplement might be the way to go. I've got a first draft at Wikipedia:Pageviews and primary topics. This could definitely do with expansion, or at least more eyes on it. Please join in! – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to clarify our stance on titles which form part of a numbered series whose meaning is not inherently apparent, and whether we should disambiguate for the purpose of clarity even when not strictly necessary. An example would be Symphony No. 104 (Haydn) (as there is no other notable "Symphony No. 104"), which is already covered by WP:MUSICSERIES, but this RfC would explore the application of this principle to other domains, such as sequentially numbered legislation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a small example of a larger problem. I just searched for the name Tiphaine, an historical character referenced in a book I am reading. There are lots and lots of real people named Tiphaine out there, as I found in my searches. Wikipedia, however, redefines the name, without any explanation, and opens a Tiffany disambiguation page. Users should at least be told why this is happening. Merry medievalist ( talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have created Mahmud I (disambiguation) and Mahmud II (disambiguation), and tagged them for the moment with {{disambiguation}}. What is the more appropriate tag here - {{disambiguation|hndis}} or {{disambiguation|tndis}}? And how should the {{DEFAULTSORT}} be structured? Henry II uses {{human name disambiguation|Henry 02}} but most similar articles don't give any clue as to sorting. Leschnei ( talk) 14:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I notice there are now three different women in WP with the same name ( Michelle King). The articles have hatnotes on them but maybe there should be a DAB page listing all three? MurielMary ( talk) 04:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Why is National Trust listed as an example in WP:DABCONCEPT? That article is about a specific organisation in the UK. National trust, on the other hand, is closer to being a broad-concept article, but is actually just a list. I suggest we delete that specific example, as the other two will do. ― Hebsen ( talk) 14:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I and User:Vmavanti are in conflict over the latter's edit of Mach and my reversion thereof. I have copied over the argument from my talk page here for others' comments since we are obviously deadlocked:
What should be done with cases like Newton/ List of places called Newton in the United Kingdom, Kingston/ List of places called Kingston, Fairview/ List of places called Fairview in the United States, Bristol (disambiguation)/ List of places called Bristol and Tarbert (disambiguation)/ Tarbert? In the 1st 3 cases the SIA doesn't contain any other information other than what a DAB would have so I'd suggest merging them and the problem is that the places aren't included on the main DAB meaning readers need to make 2 clicks to find a full match (though a few of the largest are included on the main Kingston DAB page) and I don't see the need to split the DAB pages even if they're long. We split of names (eg Newton (surname) since most people there are not likely to be called that in a generic content but we include 1 (Isaac Newton) who is on the main DAB which makes sense since readers who only know part of the name aren't going to be too surprised if it takes them 2 clicks to find the person. In the case of Bristol the DAB page does include several non place topics and as noted does include some content so I'm fine with that being separate. In the case of Tarbert the only uses are place names so it might be better to just merge the DAB into the SIA. If a DAB page only relates to place names and content can be added about the name in general then it seems reasonable to include such content even though DAB pages otherwise generally aren't supposed to contain such content. There was discussion in 2008 at Talk:Tarbert @ Ben MacDui:. I added the Gigha one though maybe it should just be a redirect since although it has an entry in the Gazetteer for Scotland and GeoNames it seems to just be a farm. Interestingly like with User:Certes/misdirected links#Surnames @ Certes: I fixed 54 links that were intended for a specific Tarbert rather than the name in general. There are 13 mainspace links (ignoring the one on the DAB) left for the name its self. Obviously WP is not a dictionary so we usually assume readers are looking for a specific place rather than the name in general especially since the name origin should be included in the specific article. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 21:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
We should do nothing (except improve the current articles). I specifically created the first three examples in order to remove a very large number of entries from cluttered hard-to-navigate disambiguation pages, and to allow freedom to include redlinks which would otherwise be deleted. Reversing my creations and incorporating these long lists into the disambiguation pages would not improve those pages. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 11:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with Block voting? Perhaps abandon the disambiguation page classification and categorise it as an article? Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 16:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
While reading Template:Commons category, I ran across the sentence "On disambiguation pages, this template is usually placed at the top of the page.". I've always assumed that this is a sister project that shouldn't be included on DAB pages ( WP:DABSISTER). Am I correct? And if so, should this sentence be removed from the template instructions? Leschnei ( talk) 13:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that a Wikipedia search for "The dawning of the day" leads to an entry for a song. I was looking for the novel of the same name, which has an entry. There is no link on the song entry page to the novel, so it would be difficult to find. This seems like a candidate for disambiguation. I haven't been able to figure out how to actually disambiguate an entry, though -- too new, and haven't come across any easy explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucida sidera ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in Talk:Apple (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 September 2020, which discusses an article mentioned on this page. Certes ( talk) 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I enhanced the disambiguation template to allow
{{Disambiguation|given name|surname|hn=Lisa, Mona}}
in addition to the old method:
{{Disambiguation|given name|surname}}
[[Category:Human name disambiguation pages|Lisa, Mona]]
I didn't make it work with the other synonyms for hn, just hn itself. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place at Kyiv (disambiguation) about whether to include a song that is often known, in Ukranian, as "Kyiv Song" or "My Kyiv". The full title is "Yak tebe ne lyubyty, Kyieve miy!" (How can I not love you, my Kyiv?). My inclination is to remove the song because the page is not disambiguating "Kyieve miy" but I would appreciate other opinions on the talk page. Thanks, Leschnei ( talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a WP:PTM issue on Migration (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Talk:Lafontaine to split the people out of La Fontaine and Lafontaine and create a surname page. Please add comments there. Leschnei ( talk) 18:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The page Coronary is not labeled as a disambig page, though it looks like one to me. It's currently listed as WP:SIA, but that doesn't seem to cover it completely. Would like some feedback whether this page is correctly listed or not. Mathglot ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Where are we on this? Is this a consensus for redirecting Coronary to Myocardial infarction, or are we still discussing? Mathglot ( talk) 01:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a new merge proposal at Talk:The Runner. Please comment there. Thanks, Leschnei ( talk) 12:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Talk:Typhoon Haishen#SIA or dab? which may also apply to similar pages. Certes ( talk) 12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguated topics (shortcuts WP:FIXDABLINKS) has remained virtually unchanged since 2006. I think it's high time for a rewrite. The current version of this text consists of five paragraphs:
When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links and repair them.
Ambiguous links are periodically checked and repaired, but even if some ambiguous links remain, one of the primary reasons for making a disambiguation page is so that following such links will still be useful to the reader.
There is a tool to facilitate ambiguous link repair in the Python Wikipedia Robot. The bot offers to update links to choices listed on the disambiguation page. Do not forget to seek approval on the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval page if doing extensive or fast runs.
When repairing a link, use pipe syntax so that the link does not show the new qualifier. For example, when renaming Topic Name to Topic Name (qualifier),
[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]
will render as Topic Name just like the original.
A shorter alternative is to use empty pipe syntax, also known as the pipe trick. This allows editors to leave out the piped alternative when editing. For example, typing[[Topic Name (qualifier)| ]]
will automatically produce[[Topic Name (qualifier)|Topic Name]]
.
Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link is intended for one or another of the topics being disambiguated, it should be changed to link to the relevant article. The project at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) keeps track of such links, and it lists a number of tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen for example when a disambiguation page is created, or moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. Editors involved in such actions are encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links. If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL.
If any remain, they will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPLmight be interpreted as
Don't bother tidying up after yourself; we'll happily pick up the litter you leave. It deserves a stronger injunction to leave the encyclopaedia in a consistent state or at least ensure that someone else is doing so. Certes ( talk) 16:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Intentional links to disambiguation pages should use the "(disambiguation)" title (see below); links to disambiguation pages that are intended for one or another of the topics for the ambiguous title should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article (or to no article) may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page. The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
Well, I'm thinking of a version like this: (I've incorporated JHunterJ's stylistic improvements, but have kept the beginning two sentence unchanged as I thought they were simpler and so a bit clearer. I've also omitted the mention of redlinks: this is technically correct, but I don't think it's necessary to be precise in this context.)
Links to disambiguation pages may be intentional (see below), but in many cases they are not. If a link to a disambiguation page is intended for one or another of the topics with the ambiguous name, it should be changed to link to the appropriate article. The Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (DPL) project tracks such links and lists tools and practical suggestions for fixing them.
Links previously pointing to an article may suddenly become links to a disambiguation page. This can happen, for example, when a disambiguation page is created, when one is moved to a title formerly occupied by an article, or when a redirect is retargeted from an article to a disambiguation page.
Here's the tricky bit. What should follow next? We've got either:
Editors involved in such actions are strongly encouraged to make an effort to fix the resulting links.
The encyclopedia needs to be cleaned up following such actions. For a handful of links, the cleanup can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by the administrators who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed (and editors proposing such changes and administrators carrying them out should address that). They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
A or B? I don't have a personal preference, and B is certainly a good representation of existing practices and expectations (though I'd reword away from "cleanup"). It all depends on what level of detail we would like the guidelines to contain. Narky Blert, JHunterJ, Certes, Crouch, Swale, BD2412? – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
...encouraged to ensure that the resulting links are fixed, to emphasise that the editor has responsibility for managing the work but need not make every edit themselves. Certes ( talk) 20:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The resulting links will need to be corrected. For a handful of links, this can be done by the editors who create such disambiguation pages or propose such moves or redirect changes, or by those who carry them out. For changes with larger impacts, a task force may be needed. They will eventually be dealt with by volunteers at DPL, but the encyclopedia will be less reader-friendly until then.
Hello. Aside from a few sentences of content at the top and in one entry, and some footnotes, the page Blue book looks very like a disambig page to me. It just isn't called one, and the formatting isn't quite right. And this is notwithstanding another page entitled, Blue Book (disambiguation) (note: capital-B, capital-B). Blue book has some features of a WP:BCA, but in that case it should follow BCA guidelines, and it doesn't seem to quite fit the examples or lend it itself well to a BCA. And it's definitely not an SIA, either.
What needs to be done here? (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot ( talk) 02:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
If a page has people with the surname and people with the mononym, should the DAB template be {{disambiguation|hndis|surname}} or is {{disambiguation|hndis}} sufficient? Branquinho is the page that brought this to mind. Leschnei ( talk) 13:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
|surname
, to put the page into
Category:Disambiguation pages with surname-holder lists.
Certes (
talk) 14:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be used by editors who downplay (that's a generous way of putting it) the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so what is the benefit of this shortcut? In ictu oculi ( talk) 21:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Titles like Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1827-1907), Friedrich Wilhelm von Rauch (1868-1899), and others, have date ranges with hyphens instead of en dashes. For the two Adolf von Rauch's, I debated between a properly-formatted date range vs. date of birth, and finally moved them to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) and Adolf von Rauch (born 1805) because this seemed to be more in line with WP:NCPDAB. Now I'm noticing more titles with the same issue (the Friedrich Wilhelms, for example), and I want to make sure that I'm not just creating a bigger problem. Was moving Adolf von Rauch (1798-1882) to Adolf von Rauch (born 1798) the correct fix? Leschnei ( talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would like to request a disambiguation set-up for the term " peach fuzz". I recently moved the page previously located at Peach Fuzz (about an English-language manga) to Peach Fuzz (manga), and redirected the original term to Vellus hair. I've now discovered several other articles by the name ( Peach Fuzz (album), Peach Fuzz (song)) that weren't previously disambiguated and I don't want to mess this up, so I am asking here. — Goszei ( talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Done — hike395 ( talk) 23:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai Zongqi ( talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
What should we do with The Undoing? The Undoing (miniseries) is Wikpedia's 13th most viewed article, with 200 times more page views than the album. Although the series is enjoying temporary popularity during its first run, it is hard to argue that the album remains the primary topic for "The Undoing". However, a new dab would barely help readers because the miniseries would still be one click away from its obvious title. Redirect The Undoing (Tim Sköld album) also exists. Any thoughts? Certes ( talk) 15:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear, I'm stumbling across more of these: Kevin Holland (fighter) v Kevin Holland ( views), Joseph Epstein (writer) v Joseph Epstein ( views), , The Wilds (TV series) v The Wilds ( views), ... None of those clearly usurps the primary topic but a John Quested-style dab may not best serve our readers. How do we best balance passing trends with lasting notability? Certes ( talk) 23:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Interlanguage links currently reads:
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list.
I think this needs to be clarified so it's clear the text is about links that appear in the sidebar, and updated to reflect the fact that this is handled at Wikidata now. How about something like this?
A disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia should be connected to the corresponding disambiguation pages in other-language Wikipedias. These will then appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). Such links are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.
This way, we're deferring to the Wikidata project, and so not explicitly leaving any room for the old-style technique of linking from the wikitext at the bottom of the page. Probably worth pointing out that the guidelines at Wikidata are relatively strict – they require the terms disambiguated to be more or less the same, so they will not, for example, allow for linking Cheese (disambiguation) to the hypothetical French Wikipedia page disambiguating the French word for 'cheese'. I think that's sensible, and if in some exceptional circumstance an editor would like to override the Wikidata guidelines, they should do so following WP:IAR, rather than any explicit exemptions in our guidelines.
Whatever the exact text here, I think it will also be a good thing to do something about the section title. "Interlanguage links" is ambiguous, so we should maybe change it to something like "Site links" (matching the Wikidata lingo), or "Sidebar language links". What do others think? I don't see any overriding reason to keep it as it is – I was able to find only three incoming links [3], only one of which is actually used correctly. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language; that is, they should refer to another disambiguation page, not to one of the many meanings from the list. Such links should appear in the left sidebar (see Help:Interlanguage links § Links in the sidebar). These are normally handled at Wikidata, which has guidelines for appropriate linking.
Hello, I would like guidance on changing a page from one that is a disambiguation page to a Wiki article. Gogyo. As the philosophy is expounded in Japanese Medical and Buddhist text. This page is very different in meaning to Godai. Zongqi ( talk) 11:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou Zongqi ( talk) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Archived at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation/Archive_54#Interlanguage_links_and_links_to_sister_projects.
Taggart was recently moved to Taggart (series), and Taggart is now a disambiguation page. There is already a disambiguation page at Taggart (disambiguation). Would Taggart (series) still be considered the primary target or should the disambiguation page be moved to Taggart (and lots of links fixed)? Leschnei ( talk) 14:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I posted this at the general help desk but today found my way to this page and I see that people are asking questions here, so I hope this is okay to post, because I think it might need DAB experts. I created a new DAB page out of what was previously redirect (to the Pearson InformIT section - which may become a separate article sometime), at Informit, only to discover InformIT (disambiguation). It's complicated by the upper/lower-case thing, and I'm not sure what the best approach to these are. I have also now created Informit (database), so this will creates a third item. What is the best way to treat these options? (I'm thinking perhaps all variations should redirect to one DAB page, and if so should it have "(disambiguation)" after the word or not?) Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I found this page that has been tagged for a decade, but it might need to be deleted or turned into adab [age. What do you think? Bearian ( talk) 01:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The Kraft (disambiguation) page is a bit confusing, or perhaps it is the article names themselves, when it comes to Kraft Foods. Kraft Foods Inc. appears to be the original company that existed from 1923 until a split in 2011/2012, after which it became Mondalez. Kraft Foods, as far as I can make out, only actually existed between 2012 and mid-2015, when it became part of Kraft Heinz. Perhaps this discussion belongs on one or all of those talk pages, but I thought it worth consulting the DAB experts first. It strikes me as a bit analogous to the muddle with the various organisations known as "Anti-Slavery Society", on which I recently did a big clean-up. The problem is that editors just link to the most obvious name (which in that case was the Anti-Slavery Society, in this, Kraft Foods). I haven't done a thorough check, but given that Kraft foods has a LOT more pages linking to it than Kraft Foods Inc., I'm pretty sure that most of those (like a few I've discovered already) actually intend to link to the older company. I'm wondering if there should be a "Kraft Foods (disambiguation)", or else article moves to change the name of each article (followed by dates in parentheses?), or some other idea to help untangle these. Any suggestions or advice? Am I missing something? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 04:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
In Atashi, the DAB template contains 'WIO-1011' as a parameter. I can find anything by searching, but thought I'd check here before removing it. Leschnei ( talk) 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
{{
dab|surname}}
, as I see several surnames listed but no WIO-1011s.
Certes (
talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Members of and visitors to this WikiProject are invited to comment on and to contribute to a new WikiProject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Bluelink patrol. The founders think that it complements but in no way infringes on any existing WikiProject - and also, that we cannot have got everything right. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at Britain/ Britain (disambiguation). The DAB page was cut and pasted to Britain (disambiguation) but the talk page which has substantial discussion is still at the base name. It was moved after a small amount of discussion at Talk:Britain#This page should be a redirect to United Kingdom and there was 1 person who agreed and 1 person who didn't appear sure. Given the previous debate on this I think there should have been a full RM rather than just an informal discussion on the DAB. As someone in England I'd expect "Britain" to return the island an "UK" to return the sovereign state but I'm fine with disambiguation. Unlike the US being called "America" which I've commonly heard I didn't have any awareness that "Britain" is sometimes used to refer to the UK until recently. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DAB-Experts,
I have a question regarding two German film directors both named Wolfgang Becker. Currently the page of the director born in 1954 is named simply Wolfgang Becker. The director born in 1910 is named Wolfgang Becker (editor) – he was a film editor in the earlier part of his career (1931–1949), before becoming a director in the years 1950–1992. Now while his career as film editor is very significant, he is clearly even more notable as a director, as can be seen from the number of projects on his IMDb page. I have the hunch, that the parentheses (editor) was chosen for him simply to avoid the longer disambiguation Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1910). But this is the choice made in the de-WP, where the two are named de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1910) and de:Wolfgang Becker (Regisseur, 1954) – in the de-WP style guide, the "born"-part is left out.
I believe this to be the correct choice. Neither director is significantly more notable than the other, so I propose moving the younger one to Wolfgang Becker (director, born 1954) and to change Wolfgang Becker into a DAB page. As an aside, there are more Wolfgang Beckers notable enough for an en-article, although they currently have none – see the German dab page de:Wolfgang Becker.
Are there any objections to this? And am I right in assuming that the word "born" is always used here in the en-WP when applying this method? Greetings from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 18:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
[[Name (qualifier, born YYYY)]]
. Examples are
Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1858) and
Charles Hawtrey (actor, born 1914). –
Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Template:Wikipedia disambiguation has been nominated for merging with Template:Disambiguation. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Elliot321 ( talk | contribs) 18:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Dear DAB-experts,
I believe there is a need for a proper disambiguation page for the name Hugh Elliott (and Hugh Elliot with one "t"). Right now the name page with two "t"s is a relink to:
There could also potentially be articles for Hugh Elliott (footballer) and Hugh Elliott (athlete) in the future, although the later doesn't seem notable enough. Plus some peerage-types floating about on wikidata.
The six existing articles are messy enough, and I would assume the best hatnote for all of them is the Template:Other people or the Template:Similar names.
I would also assume that one uses just one DAB page for both spelling types, since there is also only one DAB page for the name Elliot, while Elliott relinks to that. Where to put the DAB page though? The colonial governor occupies Hugh Elliot, and he may indeed be the primary topic amongst the Hughs with one "t", but I don't think he is much more relevant than the knighted ornithologist, or the current ambassador to Spain. Would you (1) move him to a new page with (parentheses), and then use his page as the DAB page, relinking Hugh Elliott to that? Or would you (2) just use Hugh Elliott as the DAB page, and let the governor keep his seat? Looking at the list of Famous bearers of the surname, it seems the two-t-types are far more common, so I would use method (2) if that is ok with everyone.
P.S. Does one include people like Hugh Elliott Eaglesham and Hugh Elliot Montgomery in the "See also:" section, or does one avoid that, because Elliot is a given name in these cases?
Looking forward to your advice; thanks from -- Sprachraum ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, disambiguation squad! I noticed that on the Mary Miller disambiguation page, an editor recently divided the entries into Living and Dead sections. Is there any kind of standard or guideline about doing that or not doing that? I don't recall seeing that type of thing before, is why I ask. — Mudwater ( Talk) 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Magnovvig: Hello. It looks like you put back your recent change to the Mary Miller disambiguation page, here, dividing the entries into Living and Dead sections. I don't see how that's helpful, and neither do a couple of other editors who have commented in this section. And it's contrary to the usual practice. I recommend putting the page back the way it was, not divided into Living and Dead. But if you think there's a compelling reason to keep the two sections, feel free to explain it here. Thanks. — Mudwater ( Talk) 21:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
A simple list can be
Sections can be:
Do we have a consensus as to how long is too long for an undivided list?
Lots to discuss ... unless there's a MOS:HNDIS which I haven't found. Pam D 08:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Sections with more than ten to twelve entries should usually be divided, so this one is marginal and at the editor's discretion. WP:LONGDAB#People suggests that we divide larger sections by field of notability: arts, science, sport, etc. That makes sense: I don't know when Mary Miller (artistic director) was born but an "Arts" heading would guide me quickly to the right entry. Certes ( talk) 10:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)