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.

Cleared 100+ entries on Hyderabad yesterday & today (too slow for 24 hours? ;)). 85% of them link to Hyderabad, India, 10% to Hyderabad, Pakistan and 5% to Hyderabad State. (almost disambiguated all Hyderabad, India entries. Of the unfinished job left, majority would be of Hyderabad, Pakistan with some to Hyderabad State). So, I was wondering if Hyderabad should lead directly to Hyderabad, India with 2 disambiguation links on that page. Any views? --- Gurubrahma 07:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have moved you question to Talk:Hyderabad, discussion should continue there, but it was good to put something on this talk page too.
• About 100 edits in 24 hours, I think any contribution is good, no matter the time taken, and the time taken to dab's with links is really dependent on the difficulty, so time doesn't mean much. I just hope you didn't get RSI. -- Commander Keane 08:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • My record is ~600 in a day and my only injury was a slightly sore left little finger, so don't fear. Soo 09:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • When I did ~400 in 24 hours my hand started hurting. I don't have the endurance of Soo. -- Commander Keane 10:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I relinked close to 150 disambiguated links to Hyderabad (not at a stretch though), the remaining are either dead pages or very ambiguous. As Gurubrahma noted most linked to Hyderabad, India, I think we should redirect Hyderabad to Hyderabad, India. -- SwiftRakesh 11:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the database dump started on 2005-09-09 may finish any day now. In anticipation of this, I wrote an analysis script that handles the new XML dump format. It can be found at User:Bo Lindbergh/dabalyze. Comments and suggestions welcome. Bo Lindbergh 22:43, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the technical side of things, it's really appreciated.

I think when the new list is generated, that significant time should be allocated to sorting out if an article should remain a dab. A couple of months in from the last dump and Vice-Chancellor stills lies in limbo. -- Commander Keane 15:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Aaand it's finished! Downloading now. Bo Lindbergh 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Report re-generated. Bo Lindbergh 06:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've transplanted this from the the project page -- Commander Keane 10:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

So why didn't Turk even show up on the new list? That's kind of embarassing that the current collaboration isn't on the list. (Not that very many people are working on it anyway.) Whitejay251 06:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's not on the list then the collaboration has worked somewhat, there are less than 100 links (main namespace), I don't think that's embarassing. -- Commander Keane 10:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There look like quite a lot including redirects. Susvolans ⇔ 10:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It seemed to be around 100 (incl. redirects) and after discounting user pages and Wikipedia space, I can understadn why it's not on the list. -- Commander Keane 11:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit I was a bit hasty in my comment, and all because 1. I didn't click "next 50" a second time and 2. since it hasn't been wrapped up and I haven't worked on it, that it's not getting sufficient attention. Has it turned out to be an especially sticky one? I do feel like I should probably help on it. Whitejay251 12:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a new version of the analyzer that chases redirects. Bo Lindbergh 16:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And with redirects included, Turk is back. Bo Lindbergh 22:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've placed the old list here, hope that's ok.

Also, do we need the "Suggestions for improvement" section, I've never come across a {{msg:disambig}}? -- Commander Keane 11:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The {{msg: syntax for templates is obsolete and was removed from all pages before we went to MediaWiki 1.5. Susvolans ⇔ 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

But there's nothing to stop people from reintroducing it.

1. Arian
2. CLU
3. Ester (disambiguation)
4. Hercule
5. John Hooke
6. John Wray
7. June bug
8. Lords and Ladies
9. Major League
10. Nancy Allen
11. Red Cedar
12. RH
13. Richard Hatch
14. SEPP
15. Substantive
16. Uncle Jesse

Bo Lindbergh 18:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Using a search/replace bot, I was able to identify and correct over 100 pages that contained the phrase "[[album]] by [[American]]", invariably followed by "band", "singer", "rock band", etc., thereby reducing the counts for both of our top two targets. Adventurous participants might want to try searching for other double-disambigs like "[[album]] by [[German]]", "[[album]] by [[British]]", etc. -- Russ Blau (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, be careful of those - many articles that mention [[album]] in the opening line also have the same link in an infobox! --  BD2412 ^talk 20:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

District attorney should not be a disambig - the two choices it purports to disambig between are virtually the same officials at different levels of government. I intend to make it an actual article on the office, and all the current disambig links will be fine pointing to that article. --  BD2412 ^talk 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd generally get some consensus before making a change like this one, like at Talk:Alice in Wonderland. -- Commander Keane 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

User:BD2412's proposal seems sensible to me. Wikipedia:Be bold Stewart Adcock 13:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Posted my intent here for exactly that reason - but to be sure, I've also posted a similar notice at Talk:District attorney. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has a thoughtful objection, and in the meantime draft an article on a temp page. Cheers! --  BD2412 ^talk 14:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added some functionality to my popups tool which should help with disambiguation. To enable it, you should install the experimental development version of my script. See Wikipedia:Navigation popups for instructions, and be sure to set popupFixDabs=true;.

To use it, hover the mouse over a link pointing to a disambiguation page. A popup should appear, and after a (hopefully short) pause, a preview of the disambig page followed by a list of possible disambiguation targets should appear. Click one of the links at the bottom of the popup to disambiguate the link. The popup can get rather long, so you may have to scroll the page to see the links at the bottom (with keyboard or mousewheel).

If this is useful, if you have an idea to improve it or if it fails to work, please let me know! Lupin| talk| popups 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been spending some time disambiguating (mainly English and £), and have come to the conclusion that there are situations when it is best not to disambiguate. For example:

Part of the richness of language is that it is possible to be deliberately imply several meanings:

• The English Butler: here English indicates that the Butler speaks English (with a particular accent implied), is ethnically English, and is (probably) an English national

Disambiguating by choosing one of these three actually looses imformation

• Or The Lord of the Rings is an English story. Again it's written in English and it's a mythology of England and the English.

• Or when saying "Hans Christian Andersen is Danish" I am simultaneously saying he is a Danish speaker, a Danish national and ethnically Danish.

• Avoiding disambiguation can help take a NPOV. So if I write an article about an Irish singer, I may want to avoid (in this particular article) the controversy over the political situation.

• Historically the meaning of a word may change. So if I write an article about the "English" King Alfred I can at least partially express the fact that in the time of King Alfred the language, territory and ethnicity of "England" were different by linking to a disambiguation page.

• Meta pages often deliberately link to disambiguation pages, so from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) "In these examples, please place a redirect to English language at English (language) and also ensure that it is listed on the English disambiguation page."

Although I've used English in most of the examples above, I think that similar things apply in many cases of nationality/language/ethnicity. In disambiguating "English" most of the links were actually about the language and straightforward. But in the case when it was not about language I often felt the best option was to leave the ambiguity.

In terms of the educational aims of Wikipedia, it is sometimes educational to the reader to be presented with the fact that a term is ambiguous. Sure, it's mostly correct to go straight to the correct article, but if the readers reaction to a disambiguation link is likely to be "Gosh, I never realised that 'Ireland' meant so many things", then perhaps it's good to leave the ambiguity. User:Martin.Budden 29 Sept 2005.

• All good observations; thanks for sharing. I'd like to see more use of (disambiguation) pages for these kinds of examples. Where you do want the link to point to the disambiguation page, you can create xxx (disambiguation) and make it a redirect to your disambiguation page, then point / pipe the links at the redirect. This makes it very clear that you did mean to point to the disambiguation (so well-meaning disambiguators don't come along and change it) and stops your link being shown on our list of problem links. This is actually the procedure given in WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages but not much use is made of it. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 07:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As to authors, I think the usual practice should be to link to nationality, not language. Hemingway and Longfellow both wrote in English, but no one would refer to them as "English authors"; similarly, referring to Dickens as an "English author" should indicate that he was from England, not what language he wrote in. Similarly, I would expect a "French author" to be from France, not Quebec or Martinique. Granted, there may be some exceptions to this rule, as there are with any, but this would be my "default" practice in disambiguating. -- Russ Blau (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago, whilst disambiguating mentions of Welsh, I came across the article English and Welsh, about a lecture given by Tolkien, in which there is a specific comment in the HTML text: "link to dab pages is intentional, since the topic is such disambiguation". I left it alone, but both English and Welsh were subsequently disambiguated. I have been bold and un-disambiguated them for now. This means that "What links here" for both English and Welsh will never be completely free of incoming article links, but I can see the point of the original comment. I have been very hard-put to decide between country and language for some links, but increasingly I agree with the author of that comment. There are some occasions where both senses are meant, and there is no non-cumbersome way to spell that out. Argh. Anyway, if anyone disagrees, they are welcome to re-disambiguate that pair of mentions, but this is just my explanation why I undid someone's work! Veledan's point about creating a specific link to a foo (disambiguation) page is a good one, and I'll look at that reference. Thanks! Telsa 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Someone has been very busy disambiguating links to Welsh: last time I looked, there were dozens, and now it's less than 50, 90% of which are talk or user pages. Dunno who it was, but wow, well done. Telsa 14:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The disambig page Legion of Honor is nearly empty, with only two real options. Every, or almost every, page that links to it really wants the Légion d'honneur page, not the non-existant page about the building in France or the other one about the building in San Fransisco. Could we just redirect [[Legion of Honor]] to [[Légion d'honneur]] and add a header to the latter page about the San Francisco art museum? Stillnotelf 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite possible. I've moved the disuccion to Talk:Legion of Honor, to see if there are any objections. -- Commander Keane 07:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I went to go work on Classical music, I discovered that {{ Classical-composition-stub}} contains a link to the dab page. We probably don't want to repair this, since the stub will be put on any type of classical music, right? Unfortunately, this will lead to a bunch of false links... --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 15:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. If you do come across a false positve, you can dummy edit it (hit the save button without changing anything, this will not appear in the history) and it will no longer appear in the "What links here" for Classical music.-- Commander Keane 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a "false positive." The template links to the disambig page Classical music, and Kzollman believes this is the appropriate page for the template to link to (and I think I agree). A dummy save won't change anything. (Incidentally, in those cases where templates are revised to eliminate dab links, it's best to get a bot to touch all the pages that use the template. I can do this if requested.) -- Russ Blau (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said why I was posting my comment!  :) I just mean to alert other project folks to the misleading state of the numbers, and I wanted to make sure that my opinion about the template is shared by other people. --best, kevin ··· Kzollman | Talk··· 20:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I assumed that the template link had been fixed, I should have checked first.-- Commander Keane 02:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I hereby propose a challenge - that we set a specific date and time, and have a competition to see who can accurately fix the most disambiguation links in one hour.

The rules are simple:

1. At the appointed time, all contestants will put a notice on their user page or talk page indicating that they are participating in the challenge; in posting this notice, they will make a highly visible edit summary stating: THIS USER IS NOW PARTICIPATING IN THE WIKIPEDIA:DISAMBIGUATION PAGES WITH LINKS CHALLENGE!!!
2. Contestants will then accurately disambiguate as many links from disambiguation pages posted under "Pages currently in need of attention" as they can in one hour.
3. Inaccurately disambiguated links will not count towards their total.
4. Participants may open pages for editing before the contest starts, but no edits will be counted if they are saved before the start of the contest, or after one hour from the user's posting of the challenge notice.
5. If you open a page with multiple obvious disambig links, you must fix all of those on the same screen as the target disambig link.
6. If you get caught in an edit conflict, tough. You'll have to weigh those risks when choosing which articles to disambiguate.
7. Obviously, the winner will be the editor who fixes the largest number of disambiguation links within the appointed hour.
8. The winner will get a nifty custom-made double-platinum barnstar-type thing to proudly post on their userpage. I'm kind of imagineering it at the moment.

So, who's in? --  BD2412 ^talk 17:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Intriguing idea. Though I think it would be more fair to pick a day and allow people to start their hour at any time during that day. Then give people an hour from the time when they choose to put the notice on their user or talk page. This would be more fair in that it wouldn't create any sort of time zone advantage. We also would need to set an agreed upon procedure to judge appropriate links as per #3. Also this can temporarily replace (or be added on the project page in addition to) the current collaboration. Whitejay ²⁵¹ 17:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed as to the variable hour - since it's easy to tell when someone started, we can say any one-hour stretch in the next 24 starting at 12:01 AM on a particular day. --  BD2412 ^talk 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like fun :-). I did 196 in an hour last night on a very slow hotel network connection while watching TV and with Wikipedia returning errors on updates. So, you may want to ammend your guidelines to state that the dab repair needs to be done manually and not assisted via a bot/script to be fair. Just a thought. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist•  E@} 21:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

!!! Ye gads, all manually of course! Not sure how to check that, tho - I've done all mine manually, and was once suspected of being a bot anyway.__  BD2412 ^talk 21:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be offended if someone told me I had the personality of a bot, but not the efficiency :-) Heh heh. Bot-DAbramson? I guess there isn't anyway to tell if someone "cheated" by using a script or such, on your honor!! Conceivably, someone could open several hundred pages (or more) to be repaired, make the repairs and then wait for the prescribed hour and then just click save like mad.  :-) >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist•  E@} 21:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd think their computer would freeze up if they had so many webpages open at once, which is why I permitted that "Participants may open pages for editing before the contest starts". Depends on the system, I guess, but yes, definitely manual. We need a sign-up as well - I'm thinking of making a Wiki project page just for this, too. --  BD2412 ^talk 21:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea....on all accounts. I should have kept EP for this. Probably the easiest thing I've ever repaired. Let me know if you need some assistance getting this going. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist•  E@} 22:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've started a project page at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Challenge

Sorry to be a stick in the mud, but how can you check which links are disambiguated accurately? Unfortunately this challenge will result in quantity rather than quality. Once a link has been disambiguated incorrectly, it's hard too fix it. Martin.Budden 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I knew someone would bring up the whole quality vs. quantity argument. The edits done as part of the contest will be double checked by judges - this will be done by reviewing each contestant's edits from the user contributions link for each user. If you're concerned about the accuracy, why don't you sign up to judge! Whitejay ²⁵¹ 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't; the quality of dabbing is bad enough as it is. Further recklessness should be discouraged. Septentrionalis 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This will actually be an improvement - as it is disambig fixes aren't double-checked. --  BD2412 ^talk 20:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't I sign up to be a judge? Because I don't have time. If I'm disambiguating in an area I don't know well, it can take a while to work out the correct link. I actually think in terms of quantity we are making good progress. What would be useful is some stats that show the number of links excluding user and talk pages. This would show that there is not a huge amount left to do. Martin.Budden 20:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There are some 15,000 disambiguation pages - we just attack the worst 200 or so (and those on the maintenance page are constantly added on to). This job will never be done, so anything that takes us a leap towards a manageable level is a good thing. --  BD2412 ^talk 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What we're trying to do is improve the quality of Wikipedia. A disambiguation link is an an inconvenience, but not a factual error. An incorrectly resolved disambiguation link can be a factual error, or can amount to asserting an non-neutral point of view. Most of the disambiguation links seem to be to do with nationalities and this is an area where it is possible to inadvertently get involved in a dispute. Take "Irish", for example. Or while disambiguating "Scania" I found there was a debate about whether Swedish place names should be in Swedish or the latinised form of the Swedish. Sure there are 15,000 disambiguation pages but many of those are to user and talk pages. As I said, I think it's going pretty well and doesn't need a blitz. And of course it will never be finished. Martin.Budden 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Not 15,000 disambiguation links, 15,000 disambiguation pages - as in 15,000 different articles that are disambiguation pages. See Category:Disambiguation.  BD2412 ^talk 23:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK slight confusion here. At the time of writing there about 50% of the about 30,000 links had been done, so there were about 15,000 of each (OK some pages have more than one link on them to be disambiguated, but it's approximately right). I agree that links to disambiguation pages are in general not desirable, but are you implying that the fact that there are 15,000 disambiguation pages is a bad thing or are you saying that because there are so many dams, people will be linking to them faster than we can fix them?

The latter - I think it's a great thing to have so many disambig pages (as it shows what broad coverage we have); but many disambig pages never even get seen on this project until they've massed up a ton of bad links!  BD2412 ^talk 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way to highlight (or whatever) all/most of the possible required disambiguation page links when in the edit window. It is frustrating having to revisit the same article to fix up various links.

Also, could there be a Techniques/help/bots section (or subpage) created so that there is an overview of things that can help dab link repair efficiency? -- Commander Keane 09:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Good question, Commander! I use Popups to do dab link repair. I find the one I am looking for and then I hover over each of the other links that look like possibilities. It can be rather time consuming. I wanted to write a script to pull up an article page highlighting any link that points to a disambig page.....but, for a page with a large number of links, it could be overwhelming for the servers--so, I've not started on it. Popups is a great tool. The only issue with it right now is correcting redirects to disambig pages--it has trouble picking out the correct source wikilink to change even though it knows the target. I've pointed it out to Lupin.

I think a section/subpage is definitely in order. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist•  E@} 16:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Until then, editors interested in using bots can check out m:Pywikipedia and m:solve_disambiguation.py as well as the links elsewhere on this page for the Popups tool.

-- Russ Blau (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

USE FIREFOX. The Firefox find toolbar has a highlight button on it, which highlights in the editbox in yellow. So, typing [[Victoria into the find box when editing the article highlights all the links to Victoria. Scanning for yellow blocks is easy. Josh Parris # 00:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Josh Parris. I use the highlight feature quite often!! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk •  Hist •  E@} 01:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I use the Firefox highlighting. One niggle is that when you go to a new tab you have to press the highlight button again, which gets frustrating. Also, you can't use find next (Firefox doesn't seem to see inside the edit box). Are there ways around these problems? -- Commander Keane 02:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't found any, but I haven't looked too hard. Josh Parris # 05:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyhoo, a guide has been created. There are obviously many great ideas floating around, so I'll see you there.-- Commander Keane 10:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose Urban - it's relatively small and should be fun.  BD2412 ^talk 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Urban would be a good one. A difficulty that needs to be solved, is what to do with all the pages that link to urban as an adjective description of place - referring to an urban setting or quality. See all the college entries that link to urban from an infobox, stating that the campus is an urban setting. I suppose these can go to urbanization, but that doesn't quite fit right. Whitejay ²⁵¹ 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to link those to urban area.  BD2412 ^talk 18:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh,of course. I didn't even consider urban area, as I was thinking of it in the growth management context - an area set aside in advance for urbanization to occurr within. I wasn't thinking of it in the sense of describing the pre-existing development in an area, which is what I was looking for. I'm personally going to start working on 'urban' then. Whitejay ²⁵¹ 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Urban is a good idea, any collaboration that converts  BD2412's outlook from " Hulk mad" to "should be fun" is a good thing. -- Commander Keane 02:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Urban music, with about 40 links, currently redirects to Urban - it should definitely be a separate article.  BD2412 ^talk 18:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Never mind - re-redirected it to Urban contemporary. :)  BD2412 ^talk 07:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on fixing links toward disambiuation pages toward two regions in France: Ile-de-France and Auvergne. There used to be provinces in the Middle Ages but in the 1980's, the government created administrative divisions with the same name. As a consequence, there are two pages, one for the province and one for the region. However, some articles talk about this person, born in the, say, 1920's who was born in 'Auvergne'. It doesn't make sense to point to either of the articles and it that case, I'm leaving the link toward the disambiguation page. I think, as a general rule, that links toward disambiguation pages can be OK.

Tony 02:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to change the link to Auvergne (disambiguation) to make it clear it should stay to the disambig page. - Stillnotelf 03:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a person was was born in the 1920's in Auvergne it is refering to Auvergne (province) (which describes a general region), which has ample disucssion about the région at the top of it article if there has been some confusion. -- Commander Keane 06:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I second Commander Keane - leaving the link to the disambig page is kind of like telling the reader, "it's one of these - you figure it out".  BD2412 ^talk 06:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No it's none of these, as they are administrative subdivisions... but I guess a link to the province is okay. I almost finished Ile-de-France so you guys might want to check it out too. I'm making a dent on San Juan right now. Tony 17:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Urban is done now, so it's time to nominate a new page. For the future, we should probably get these nominations sorted out in advance. Having said that, I never have any good ideas myself. -- Commander Keane 06:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, how about some Russian Revolution, comrade?  BD2412 ^talk 01:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks fun, the dab could use a cleanup though.-- Commander Keane 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've had a quick look at some links - virtually all of them run to Russian Revolution of 1917.  BD2412 ^talk 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting redirection, or just giving a heads up?-- Commander Keane 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Redirection - what do you think of when someone refers to the Russian Revolution? Not the failed attempts... maybe the 1991 fall of the U.S.S.R., but in an article almost certainly the 1917 commie fest. How about Baden, for a collaboration, btw - it's all place names (tho some may need articles).  BD2412 ^talk 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Indeed I think of the stormy year of 1917, I was just checking. It's a lot less obvious than American, but that's still a dab. Baden is good for next collab. -- Commander Keane 08:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that an Oct-09 dump is available on download.wikimedia.org. Should we update this page? -- Russ Blau (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I was hoping we could make it to 100% for this dump, since a new dump generally takes all dabs with >=100 "What links here", all of the current unfinshed dabs will appear in the Oct-09 dump. However, if we do update, we will need to double check the counts since we have done a lot of work since Oct-09. -- Commander Keane 11:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mh. It's not that long until Nov-09. Should we just try to finish the Sep-09 dump until then, and then continue with link counts we know to be correct? Just an idea. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I feel that since many of the "fun" dabs have already been cleared, we are not running at peak efficiency with lots of people helping out (if any of the makes sense). You never know, maybe we can get almost done before someone runs the dump script.-- Commander Keane 14:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, there is now a 20-Oct dump available. -- Russ Blau (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, let's update to that one, then - surely we've cleared enough links that it will be smaller than the last!  BD2412 ^talk 21:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In your dreams. The latest and greatest version of my analysis script finds a total of 111550 links. Bo Lindbergh 01:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that only counting articles with 100+ links?  BD2412 ^talk 02:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. Bo Lindbergh 02:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmmmm... maybe we should start with those over 200...  BD2412 ^talk 02:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
          • A link limit of 100 gives 514 pages with 111550 total links.
          • A link limit of 150 gives 287 pages with 84274 total links.
          • A link limit of 200 gives 172 pages with 64431 total links. Bo Lindbergh 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
            • The last option sounds like plenty!  BD2412 ^talk 04:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, switched over to the October 20 dump. Please have a look at Author, which consists of a list of definitions and one link to a specific page ( Author (biology)). Does it really qualify as a disambiguation page? Bo Lindbergh 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Decidedly not - virtually all of the uses are similar enough to appropriately point to a single comprehensive article. The biology example is merely a subset.  BD2412 ^talk 05:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Boldly dis-disambiguated.  BD2412 ^talk 05:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

On 23 Oct, Baden Germany was moved to Baden, so that Baden is no longer a dab page. (And no one here noticed?) So it's time to pick a new collaboration. Suggestions? -- Russ Blau (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• I nominate cow, because it is an inherently funny word. BD2412 T 22:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I find your reasoning impeccable and concur with your conclusion. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • At Talk:cow I see consensus (3 to 1) for Cow to be redirected to Cattle.-- Commander Keane 05:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... I won't disagree with the logic of such a move. In that case, lets do drug. BD2412 T 02:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I hope that wasn't a Freudian slip.  :-) I tried to dab drug earlier. It's a difficult one ;-). >: Roby Wayne ^Talk 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The hardest part for me about drug is the difference between drug of abuse, psychoactive drug, and recreational drug use, which seem to be used interchangably in common society. Anyone have a good way of differentiating between these in the context of articles? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll whack up Documentary. Seems easy. I know it's autocratic, but "pending" has a short half-life.-- Commander Keane 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This one is dubious. It could be argued that the correct action is to simply delete the {{disambig}} from the article.

I wonder if that is possible with other disambiguation pages, for example: South Pacific where relinking some links to Oceania is kind of akward. The great majority of articles that link to South Pacific are not really wanting to link to Oceania as it complicates the matter. -- Mexaguil 05:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Horse of a different color, I think. All the definitions of "author" were different kinds of authors (i.e. the topic of a single article). South Pacific is an ocean, but also a play that was made into a movie. Disparate terms, but perhaps the geographic reference could be made the dominant article, with other references linked from a South Pacific (disambiguation) page.  BD2412 ^talk 05:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw someone running a bot this morning that was changing links from the Native American redirect page to the Native Americans disambig page. Maybe I'm missing something, but how does this help? The edits were being made by User:68.230.177.98, but I thought maybe it was a registered user running the bot. Thanks for your input in explaining this to me. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's User:RussBot. I don't know why some of its edits get made anonymously, because the vast majority are properly attributed to it. As for the reason; (1) it doesn't hurt anything to point links directly to the disambig page rather than to a redirect, and may reduce the servers' load slightly, and (2) for a script I'm working on that counts links, it is easier to count links that go directly to the dab page rather than through a redirect. This is only an issue if there are more than 500 pages linking to the redirect; as far as I can tell, "Native American" is the only redirect in that category at the moment. -- Russ Blau (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Russ. I figured it was something along those lines. Thank you very much for your contributions to the project. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize we don't use bots all the time for this project because these links require a human's touch. However, for the Lunar disambiguation, many (100s) of the pages are craters of the moon. I don't know much about the programming of these bots, but could we have a bot that changes [[lunar]] to [[Moon|lunar]] for pages that have (crater) in the title? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: All of the remaining pages in the lunar list either contain (crater) or (lunar crater). I have eliminated all the rest, except the pages associated with this project, one user page, and Pigface, which doesn't seem to fit any of our disambig possibilities. Note: There are 1000+ craters on Wikipedia...who knew? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I delinked the Pigface instance. Whoever wants to create Lunar (musician) can link to that instead. Bo Lindbergh 03:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic idea EWS23! A bot using m:Solve disambiguation.py can do this job automatically and clearing out non-crater links really helps. User:Commander Keane bot will clear out a few now. -- Commander Keane 05:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This would be a good strategy for quite a few disambigs, I imagine - clear out the questionable ones manually, leave the easy ones for a bot.  BD2412 ^talk 05:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have found this occurence before, but instead of using a bot I got the dab changed to a redirect. Probably what should be done with lunar. If you need a bot, then you might need a redirect instead.-- Commander Keane 06:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their help and comments, especially Commander Keane. Unfortunately, only a few of these pages have such simple solutions (which of course is why the disambiguation page exists in the first place). Good thing I don't have a case of editcountitis...I could have taken a day to mechanically do every single one of the craters, and I would have tripled my current edit count. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unforunately I am going to have to venture away from my computer and cannot leave the bot unattended so I won't be able to finish off Lunar today. If User:RussBlau pops up later he will probably get his bot to finish the job.-- Commander Keane 06:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

How'd you know?  :-) This turned out to be a simple task; I simply set a bot to scour all articles in Category:Craters on the Moon and change all instances of [[lunar]] in those articles to [[Moon|lunar]]. As you said, Commander, most disambiguations aren't so easily resolved. -- Russ Blau (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I just ran solve_disambiguation.py in the main namespace, always replacing [[lunar]] with [[Moon|lunar]]. Of course, I could only do this thanks to EWS23 clearing out non crater entries first. I'll give your method a go next time (it just uses standard pywikipedia functions, yes?).-- Commander Keane 16:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide has been created. I thought it might need some publicity.-- Commander Keane 10:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I have been working on dabbing Network and run into about 200 articles that I am not sure (read as: not confident) in changing. Some of the links appear to "need" a dictionary entry and the current disambig page does a poor job of that. Any thoughts are appreciated! >: Roby Wayne ^Talk 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Of the many links we deal with in this project, many would be best suited by a dictionary defintion.

Examples

• RobyWayne has cited this when working with Network
• EWS23 (mentioned in the collab. discussion above) has noticed this with Drug (take a look at Drug abuse for example, in the first line it links to Drug, yearning for a dictionary defintion)
• I have just noticed that Chemical links to the dab Chemical substance. When someone links to Chemical all they want is the one line descirption like: "A substance with a distinct molecular composition that is produced by or used in a chemical process".

Options

• Un-link wikilinks that need dictionary definitions, where no aritcle is appropriate (Problem: someone might come along a re-link to the dab)
• Link to Wiktionary (Problem: Wiktionary is messy, hard to navigate, it takes you away from Wikipedia)
• Link to any article that seems reasonable. You could change [[Chemical]] to [[Chemical compound|Chemical]], but this is simply technically incorrect. However, there is no appropriate article in Wikipedia.

Your ideas are requested.-- Commander Keane 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are times when a dictionary definition seems more along the lines of what the link is looking for. If Wiktionary was more integrated with Wikipedia, this would be a great solution; unfortunately, this is not the case. Perhaps when we come across problems like this, we should view it as an inherent problem with the current page layout for the given subject. Depending on what the circumstances are, this could potentially be solved by:

• A better explanation of the subject, especially in page intros
• Making of a new page that better describes the general phenomena
• Merging of pages that seem to have overlapping or highly related material
• Complete reorganization of the subject matter

While this may seem a tad rash, I think the bottom line is that people come here for information, and if experienced users have a hard time figuring out where to go for the correct information, a casual user certainly will. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary is sufficiently interoperable with Wikipedia to act as a close ally rather than as a competitor or poor cousin with hand outstretched. The decision of whether or not to link to a Wiktionary entry vs. a Wikipedia article in any particular instance is an editorial one that is almost solely dependent upon content and context, and suggesting that editorial license to choose to link where the content would best be served should be restricted or policy-dictated is not something I would support. That being said, the issue at hand is how to deal with links to dab pages and not how to change the editorial behavior within the two resources. My working rule of thumb in cases where I am not acting as an editor but as a maintenance person is to opt for linkage to a Wikipedia article if that is an option if the dab-page title is a noun. In cases where the dab-page title is an adjective or adverb, I am more prone to link to the Wiktionary entry than a Wikipedia entry because in many cases an appropriately unambiguous Wikipedia entry does not exist. Even in cases where there is a choice between linking to Wiktionary vs. creating a red-link on a dab page to handle a newly discovered instance, I will often opt for the latter. This behavior is not 100% consistent with what I would do as a content editor; as an editor, I think I make more liberal use of Wiktionary links than the average editor; further, I am not adverse to creating a Wiktionary entry or augmenting/cleaning up an existing Wiktionary entry to accomodate what I believe would be a useful linkage for a reader of a particular article. There have been times when I have posted a note on the talk-page of an article that links to a dab page asking that a knowledgeable person conduct the disambiguation, and I think that rather than forcing a resolution as a part of cleanup this would be the best approach to take in the most ambiguous or thorny cases. There are plenty of folks I interact with here who might say "but then you've not completed the cleanup - just finish it and someone will fix it later, if it needs fixing." To that I would ask what is the rush? People appreciate being asked what to do with a link a lot of times and the delay in completing a task that intrinsically is never complete by opting for domain-experienced input is not an issue. Courtland 23:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Courtland got me thinking and I have decided that the reason why I am here (at this project) is to enrich the experience of Wikipedia readers. In the case of drug, in many cases the option that will give the reader most satisfaction will be to go to the dab and pick an article themselves. Maybe the circumstances (article infrastructure) for drug will change in the future, but until then I'm not going to work on it. This will probably apply to other dabs on the list.-- Commander Keane 11:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • In cases like this, when the best user expirence is the DAB page, I tend to link directly to the page that contains the word (disambiguation) if it does not exist I create it and redirect it to the actual DAB page. This sorts the articles out of the "what links here" so they are all under the redirect, and futher DABers will see that someone explicitly linked to the DAB. Dalf | Talk 03:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest that whoever tackles that one be very careful. Jkelly 05:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If I find time, which I hope I will, I'll do it next week. I think I know the topic well enough, and I'm neither Greek nor (FYRO)Macedonian, so POV should not be a problem. I hope. Just try to establish a safe perimeter around me while I edit, to keep the POV crusaders away. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been working on this quietly for a couple of weeks and so far have avoided being caught in the crossfire. To get an idea of its intensity, look at the history page for Macedonia. By contrast, no one has reverted or protested my disambiguation of the links to Macedon, Macedonia (Greece), Macedonia (region), Macedonia (Roman province), the Republic of Macedonia, etc. I'd be glad to share the work and risk with anyone interested! -- Flauto Dolce 18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't directly related to this project, but it's highly related to disambiguation, so I figured I'd post it here to get comments and help from experts/admins. I've posted a message on Talk:Staten Island about the necessity of Staten Island (disambiguation). Does anyone else feel that this page should be deleted? EWS23 | [[User_talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 04:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S.- In addition, can anyone tell me why my signature suddenly stopped working? I haven't done anything to change it...

Update to two things: First off, I fixed my signature by following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to fix your signature. Secondly, there seems to be no objection to the Staten Island changes. I could easily make the suggested changes to the Staten Island page, but I can't delete Staten Island (disambiguation) by myself. I don't even know the correct process for this...does it need a VfD, or can we just take care of it? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

... should not be a disambig - all the links refer to rap music. BD2412 T 04:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Same with techno. Gflores ^Talk 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I still think we should always pop something on the talk page. Reasons include:

• someone could be Watchlisting the page and may be interested
• the goal of this project may influence descisions made, and general community consensus should be attained (at least give passers-by to the dab a chance to have an opinion).
• it's easier to justify (and hence retain) a descision if there is some existing discussion/consensus.
• It was somehow descided that American should not redirect to United States. I'm still recovering from that one. Looks like that's been fixed up now. Spoke too soon, it's back.

I had already started discussion about redirection at techno, and have now done so at Rap. I'm guessing a week (7 days) is a good period to wait.-- Commander Keane 08:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

As with "lunar" above, all of the few-hundred articles titled "Foo (crater)" (or occasionally "Foo (lunar crater)" refer to named impact craters on the moon. Can a bot pick out these titles and change [[crater]] to [[impact crater|crater]]? BD2412 T 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• It certainly could be done without too much trouble. However, I'm no expert on lunar craters. Are we sure that all craters on the Moon are impact craters and none have any other origin? -- Russ Blau (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether there was ever volcanic activity on the moon is open to debate, but any traces of such activity would be long wiped out by now. The other option, subsidence craters caused by underground detonations, would be man-made, and we've done none of that on the moon so far as I know. In short, I'm pretty sure they're all impact craters. BD2412 T 18:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • List of craters on the Moon says that the "vast majority" of these craters are impact craters; and Volcanic crater says that some volcanic craters have been identified on the Moon. I am hesitant to proceed via 'bot. -- Russ Blau (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, new idea - since most of the lunar crater articles do not specify what kind of a crater the subject is, how about we make all the lunar crater refs point to lunar crater? BD2412 T 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Oops - that's a redirect - so, list of craters on the Moon. (Or make an article out of the current lunar crater redirect). BD2412 T 20:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it was a good choice to change pepper to not be a disambiguation page. Black pepper and capsicums ( chile peppers and bell peppers) are very different things; it's always an improvement to disambig those links. I'm currently disambiguating them anyway, but I thought I would solicit opinions on whether pepper should be restored as a disambiguation page. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion will continue at Talk:Pepper.-- Commander Keane 06:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone has seen fit to create a giant disambig link farm at Dictionary of languages - not sure I'd say this is even Wikipedic, as it's likely too big and too full of false positives to be useful. BD2412 T 04:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, indeed they have. We had a bit of a discussion about this at maintenence.-- Commander Keane 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's gone, per AfD. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I took off Drug as the current collab. We discussed the difficulty of this one earlier (above), and I'd think it would be best if only "easy" dabs are set as the collaboration. I'll put on Classical music soon if there are no objections.-- Commander Keane 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I've looked over Drug and it does seem to be very difficult, I actually proposed a merge be done of Hard and soft drugs and Recreational drug use to further simplify that dab page Thaagenson 16:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. I leaped before looking. Thanks for catching me. Tedernst 16:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I propose Liberal instead. It's been growing steadily. It is a little tricky, though, as the differences among the various targets of disambiguation are not always clear. -- Russ Blau (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Liberal, that I found when I tried it a while back, was the difference between between Liberalism and American liberalism (having antoher look at the articles, I still don't know if you are using "American liberalism" over there or what). I was hoping a USAian would take care of it. I also imainge there will be a requirement to link to Wiktionary a fair bit (or de-link), and I'm not sure that this is a common practice - the instructions on the project page don't explain how to deal with a link that doesn't have a target on the dab.-- Commander Keane 01:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we will have to use soft-redirect as the target for links on wiktionary. -- Gurubrahma 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A soft-redirect isn't needed in this case (there is a dab in place). You could just use (in aritcles) [[Wiktionary:Liberal|Liberal]], which looks like Liberal.-- Commander Keane 10:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Before we begin the next round, can we generate a list of disambig links in templates? If we can find and fix those, then have a bot just touch all of the pages with disambig links, we can head off transclusions. BD2412 T 19:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My list tells you how many templates link to the dabs the we are working on. Are are you asking for a specifc list of templates that link to any dab (or just dabs the dabs that we work on)? Maybe "templates.txt" from User:Bo Lindbergh/dabalyze is what you want.-- Commander Keane 20:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The latter - a list of the actual templates that I can click on and fix, and ideally for all disambigs, as I believe we will eventually work on all of them! BD2412 T 20:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• PS - I've yet to learn how to run a script - guess that's my next learning curve! BD2412 T 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good suggestion, especially finishing things with a bot. I dab'd a couple of AM radio stations templates yesterday, but haven't touched all of the transcluding pages yet (there should be a 'touch' button). Kusma (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the developers should have a program that regularly crawls through and touches all Wikipedia pages. BD2412 T 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Kusma and BD2412, just checking, when you say "touch" it sounds like you know that RussBot or Commander Keane bot (and probably others) can go through and touch each of the pages that have a template on them (touching clears them from "Whatlinkshere" if the template no longer links to the dab). Just ask.-- Commander Keane 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I was waxing poetic about having a bot go through and touch all 1.5 million pages in Wikipedia, just to shake out any and all bad transclusions from any source (disambig or no). I don't know whether the typical bot can do that - but just for disambig purposes, indeed any bot will do. :-) BD2412 T 20:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm downloading the latest dump right now. What's a good place to store the template report, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates? Bo Lindbergh 04:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That would do perfectly. BD2412 T 04:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Go wild. Bo Lindbergh 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Over 1100 links, but most seem pretty straightforward - I propose we make this list the next collaboration. BD2412 T 16:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we list the bot touching requests in a central place, say Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates? Seems more reasonable to me than spamming Commander Keane's talk page every time I finish a template that is transcluded more than a couple of times. Kusma (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea Kusma. I was originally thinking that aynone could just pop a request on this talk, but since it can get quite busy sometimes a seperate page may be advantageous. I've made Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Bot requests, I'm sure a couple of bot operators will watchlist it.

I've noticed that Portal subpages are also typically transcluded - can we get a similar list of Portal links? (should be much shorter, I'm guessing 50 or so) bd2412 T 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

338 links from 240 portal pages in the 2005-11-13 dump. So, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from portals right now, or only after we're done with the templates? Bo Lindbergh 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates are virtually done (most of the rest are problem children). bd2412 T 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait - hold that thought - some templates transclude into portals, so touching all the links before generating the list of links to portals will probably result in a shorter list of links to portals. bd2412 T 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a clarification is needed here: Special:Whatlinkshere follows transclusions, dabalyze ignores them. Bo Lindbergh 23:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me get my head around this one, that means that since many Portals use transclusion, the above count of "338 links from 240 portal pages" is a gross underestimate? Or is it correct, since the templates are in Portal namespace anyway. You are just saying that unlike "Whatlinkshere", your script only counts the link once, and hence is superior?-- Commander Keane 00:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are 240 pages that need actual editing to fix links. There may be other pages that transclude one or more of those 240; whether it's desirable to touch all those to stop Whatlinkshere from reporting false positives is discussed elsewhere. Bo Lindbergh 00:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, Bo, could you answer our burning question at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/from templates on touching disambig links and server load and such? bd2412 T 00:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I created Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/from portals so you can see the shape of things for yourselves. Bo Lindbergh 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am fixing the disambiguation pages about manga, anime and video consoles. For now, I don't have the self discipline nor the time to pick one of the lists suggested here. However, I would like using the disambiguation link repair ( You can help!) tag when fixing those errors, if only to spread the word about this project.

I just don't want anyone to say "This dude has never fixed a disamb. page found here, yet acts as if he had!" ;-) -- ReyBrujo 19:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation link repair ( You can help!) edit summary can used for any disambiguation link repair, like the ones you've been doing. Thanks for using it! The project can always do with more volunteers.-- Commander Keane 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone take a look at Template:Political Affiliations: Argentina, it links to the dab Concordance, and I don't know how to deal with it. If you are wodnering it's a part of the new collaboration.-- Commander Keane 23:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Concordance" appears to have been the name of a short-lived merger of two political parties following a military coup in Argentina in 1932. The link is totally inappropriate, as are several others in this template; they are linking to English translations of the parties' names, where they should be linking to articles about the party itself (if there is one). It would be like having a template on U.S. politics and having "R" link to Republic; or in Australia having "Lab" link to Labour union. -- Russ Blau (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• While I'm asking, could someone take a look at Template:Subnational entity. It links to the dab Council. I tried fixing it once, but got reverted [1] - is there a good solution?-- Commander Keane 23:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

(Discussion moved from the project page to here. Bo Lindbergh 03:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

(part of the issue with this one is Template:Material-stub refers to material. This accounts for 120+/- of these links) Kaiserb 05:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any more-specific term available to use in the template. Russ Blau (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Can the word material in the stub template be dewikied, or would that violate a policy somewhere? - Kaiserb 17:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about policy, but it violates common sense. The problem seems to stem from the same stub notice being used for several different things which all happen be called "materials". Probably the best course of action would be to refer this stub to a suitable WikiProject first, who can do whatever they do with the 120 uses of it. We'll then clean up the rest. Soo 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting would seem to be that suitable project. Bo Lindbergh 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Earlier this week I moved 70+ of the items linking to the material-stub to textiles-stub There are only about 50 problem children left in the material-stub catagory.

At the moment the progress is manually calculated by summing up the number of fixed links. To aid this I use html comments like

• "<!--Subtotal (for above ten entries): 7993, Cummulative total: 7993-->"

in the "Done" section. I was hoping that others would use this too, but since no one else uses the html comment (as far as I can tell) I end up doing it. I find that a bit of a waste of time, since I have a script that I can run anytime that tells me the exact progress.

I'm asking if (for the next dump) I can use my script to update the progress daily, rather than doing to manual summation. This has the advantage of a more accurate progress, but the disadvantage that only I can run the script. What do you think?-- Commander Keane 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering the recent spate (in a good way) of updates to the progress, it looks like keeping the old way is just fine.-- Commander Keane 16:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

At the Project there is disucssion about a new template that will go on the talk of dab pages to aid link repair. Your ideas are requested.-- Commander Keane 11:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the links for all articles except List of songs whose title includes geographical names (since I wouldn't know what a Dutch song is referring to) and List of state leaders in 1747 and the like, so a bot could change all of the latter to Groningen (province).

Being done now. -- Russ Blau (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2005 (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.