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.

I recently came across the disambiguation page, USS Monongahela and saw that it apparently did not conform to the disambog MOS, so I edited it to conform.

However, after visiting the page List of United States Navy ships, M and visiting the disambiguation pages of other ships, I see that most of those pages (such as USS Macdonough) also do not conform to the disambig MOS.

Question: Do ship disambiguation pages conform to a different set of criteria? If so, I will revert my changes. If not, then there are many non-conforming pages.

Thanks, Gjs238 14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I haven't encountered this before, but it seems like if they are pure disambiguation pages, they should fit with the manual of style. If they were multi-stub sorts of pages, I could see having descriptions of the ships, but since there are articles about most of them, the pages function as disambiguation pages, and should be formatted as such.

Aha! I think I've found why so many of the ships pages look like that! If you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index page outline, the sample disambiguation page includes a lot of inline wikilinks, periods, and multiple sentences. I don't know if that was purposeful or if they may not have been aware of MoS guidelines before then, but I'm all for checking with them and asking if it can be corrected, so at least ship pages from now on will be formatted correctly. However, I always don't want to invade their turf if there is a specific reason for the pages to be like that. Anyone have any objections with asking about it? -- Nataly a 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is a reference from this page ( WP:MOSDAB#Ships) to these activities, so I assume its been an accepted by "the community" that ship names be handled that way. It does seem a clearly separable type of page. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm not really a fan, though. There's no particular reason to have such a detailed disambiguation page if the articles cover all the information. I understand the need to differentiate between different ships, which can be challenging, but there isn't any need for all the extra wikilinks. -- Nataly a 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The ship index pages are intended to be an encapsulated history, not just of the ships, but of the name. Indeed, some are quite nice in this regard, such as USS Enterprise and USS Nautilus. Others are not. The fact that they're bad ship index pages does not make them disambig pages. Also, you may want to review the previous discussion on this subject. And more discussion. Jinian 18:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like they're valid target articles about ship names, then, and not disambiguations. Similar to some surname articles... -- JHunterJ 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation! :) -- Nataly a 23:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you  :-) Gjs238 23:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, these are disambiguation pages... USS Enterprise accumulates backlinks that need to be corrected. (see the section below)

Personally, I think subject-specific disambigs should be given greater leeway, especially by people who aren't subject experts (eg. besides the {{ shipindex}} and {{ hndis}}-only pages, there's Dodge Charger, Jeep Cherokee, Rover 2000). One good example of this is Greatest Hits... its current presentation is more clear and easier to find the desired link than the formatting that WP:MOSDAB suggests. -- Interiot 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't disambiguation pages. See WP:D#List of ships (tellingly under "What not to include"). Not every page that is incorrectly linked to is a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ 17:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes there's some confusion about whether a particular article is just a random list or a disambiguation. It seems like the primary difference is whether backlinks need to be disambiguated. An ambiguous term will collect accidental backlinks that need to be updated to point to one of the items on the list; a non-disambiguation list doesn't accumulate accidental links, and therefore its backlinks will never be corrected. If there's agreement on this, I'd like to update the main page to clarify this.

An example... C and D both have long lists of meanings at the bottom, but they also have separate disambiguation pages. Some of the entries on the list are disambiguatable, and they get copied to both places, while the non-disambig entries get mentioned only in the list. -- Interiot 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Updating the main page (of disambiguations) should be discussed on the talk page of the main page WP:D. -- JHunterJ 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of a disambiguation page? I was under the impression that it was to aid in navigation, in the case that the general term is linked in an article where it should go to a more specific article. Like where an editor links to "the pirates", but forgets to say the "Pittsburg Pirates." Some editors feel it should be an aid to browsing, where the DAB page should list any possible usage of the term (like, say, "Terry and the Pirates"). Just in case someone would be looking for a thing with "pirate" in the title.

Is there a consensus on this issue? - Freekee 06:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is it's an aid in navigation. Looking for a thing with "pirate" in it should be done with the search button or with an external search engine. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists -- JHunterJ 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In a most basic sense, disambiguation pages should contain any articles that someone might be reasonably looking for when they search for a term. This include all articles that are of the form "Foo (clarifier)", as well as easily confused articles that may contined the term "Foo" (and some other articles too). However, that does not mean that every article containing the word "Foo" should be included on the disambiguation page. -- Nataly a 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. - Freekee 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) -- Nataly a 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in my proposal to cut down on repeated newbie mistakes with disambig pages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_disambiguation_guidance.

(Can we keep the discussion over there, in one place? Thanks!)

Fourohfour 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Urgh, any opinions on List of London bombings which is tagged as a dabpage? Thanks/ wangi 21:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO that's not a dab page, that's just a list. Almost all the incoming links should point to 7 July 2005 London bombings, and changing the redirects at London Bombings and London bombings would fix almost all of them. CarolGray 08:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made one edit containing two unrelated suggestions. Abtract 09:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this guideline is that it makes a suggestion based on screen resolution, which is likely to vary significantly from user to user. I've attempted to address this by basing the guideline on number of entries instead. Please reword and/or copy-edit as needed. -- Muchness 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OK but its not copyediting I am after but a real change. First, it is clear to me that, for readers using a laptop (and surely there are lots), 30 is far too high a limit. I suggest some number between 10 and 20. Second, what is the reason for switching the index to the right when the vast majority of articles keep it on the left? IMO it looks better and is more visible in the normal place ... is there something peculiar about disambiguity pages that I have missed? Abtract 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no-one else seems too bothered I am going to edit it slightly. Abtract 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go along with some change on this, though I'd just assume omit any specific number and simply leave it as "longer lists" and allow discretion of the editors to format. Also, I really think the need to use second level headings should be fairly uncommon on disambiguation pages. Also, BTW, the use of TOC right is in common use throughout Wikipedia, not only on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 11:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I go along with not stating absolute numbers but I believe quite strongly that we should cater for the mass of users with laptops where lists with 4 or more headings would benefit from the table of contents facility to easily access the page required. Since this seems a 'no brainer' to me I cannot see what the objection to it is ... can someone tell me just why "second level heading should be uncommon on disambiguity pages"? It's surely not enough simply to state it? ......... As to TOC right, it is hardly in common use and surely isn't 'standard' so why should it be standard for disambiguity? Again simply saying it is so doesn't make it so, with respect :) Abtract 11:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Using random article and ignoring those without a table of contents, I just went to 30 articles all with a table of contents on the left and got bored before finding one on the right (I never did find one) ... I rest my case. Abtract 11:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong methodology. See What links here for the Template:TOCright. For a non-article page like a disambiguation page, the left TOC simply results in wasted white space--essentially forcing a reader to scroll down, whereas with a right TOC, a reader can scan a larger portion of the page. The same applies for second level headings--I'm pretty sure it has been discussed before on this talk page, which is how the guidance got incorporated into the style manual. It's really only appropriate with exceptionally long lists, like Aurora. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I take your point on Toc right; I still think it looks untidy and does not achieve its objective but this is clearly a well worn path and I accept it for the moment. However you don't mention my point about users with laptops so I will reiterate it: when using a laptop (and maybe other relatively small screens?) a list longer than about 10 is not viewable at one go - this leads me to think a table of contents would be helpful. Now so far as I can tell this is much the same reasoning that led to the 30 rule on big screens, simply adapted for small screens. What is the objection to this? Abtract 13:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your current change seems OK as it accords with current practices. I'm not sure I see your point about TOC and screen size, since the TOC is visible when using TOCright. I've rearranged the sentences a bit--and clarified that the use of TOCright is not dependent on use olevel two section headings. older ≠ wiser 14:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I may have explained it badly, the screen size point refers to the previous limit of 30 in the list before using level 2. I am happy with removing the limit. I have simplified it further but in doing so I went to the example page and found it uses level and level 3 so we may need a more typical example. Abtract 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reword [1] implied that subject area headings and second level headings can be used interchangeably, which is not current practice. This is a not-trivial revision that effects a large number of pages; please can you hold off on introducing it to the guideline until we've discussed it further on the talk page? -- Muchness 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I don't see that Aurora uses more than two levels. There may be some confusion over the difference between Wiki section levels and HTML heading levels. Basically, a top-level section heading in Wiki terms (i.e., constructed with ==Section title== translates into an HTML H2, and a level two section heading (i.e., constructed with ===Section title=== translates into an HTML H3. HTML H1 is always reserved for the article title. Help:Section explains a bit (although that is pretty dense going for a help page, IMO). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) may be a little better. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand but why does this guideline say only one level should normally be used when Aurora uses 2? On the other matter I hope you dont mind if I remove the word 'very' from the guideline. Abtract 17:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It says that typically only a single level of headings are needed. It identifies Aurora as an example of a case where an additional level of headings may be appropriate. older ≠ wiser 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I see. I have claryfied the wording to avoid anyone else misunderstanding. Abtract 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Help desk to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Header_tags

There is a proposal to merge Johnson and Johnson (disambiguation) which you may wish to comment on here. CarolGray 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the following recommendation

• Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments. When the entry forms a complete sentence, do not include commas or periods at the end of the line.

and with the examples in the People section, I think this could be added (just after the recommendation quoted above)

For lists which consist of people names only also avoid any leading article (a/an, the). When the list contains mixed types of entries people names should conform to a common article usage style.

I'm under the impression that this is already intended and that I'm just spelling it out, but I thought to ask :-) Also I think MoS is better edited by native speakers, so I'd prefer someone else than me to actually insert the new text (possibly shortening it a bit :-)). — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 19:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you've got the general idea with the first sentence. I don't quite understand the second one but I'm sure you've got the right impression — I'd appreciate it if you could give an example so that I get what you mean (please excuse my momentary stupidity :-)).

Possible wording for first sentence: "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role." Neonumbers 08:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's no stupidity at all: grasping 50% of what I say in my "English" is borderline genius :-) With the second sentence, I meant that there can be lists where some entries are people names and some are not, for instance Raglan (disambiguation). In such cases, while still preferable to avoid a, an, the, the omission could be jarring. Perhaps we could say: "Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role, unless the omission jars with the other entries." — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean that the (grammatical) article should be included where there are other entries on the page that use an article? I disagree with that; in my mind, the absence of the article gives a distinct characteristic to entries on people, thereby making the fact that it's a person very clear. It's sort of standard practice (in places other than disambiguation pages) to just write, "Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia", or at least from what I've noticed, anyway.

Because we don't like MoS's to be too long, I would be more than happy with the first part only if we can be satisfied that there is a misunderstanding of that, or rather, a lack of understanding that that's recommended (i.e. it's actually needed). My two cents. Neonumbers 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:-) Fine for me (first part only)! — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 05:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In considering that sometimes such entries are placed on the page by people that include everything for the sake of it, and that sometimes such entries are placed on the page for no real reason at all, I propose that in section 5.1 "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", after the text:

However, if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them.

that the following text be appended:

If you feel such an entry should be included, it is advisable to include an invisible comment and/or a note on the discussion page of that disambiguation page to explain why.

with or without further elaboration, or words to the same effect.

The idea is that where such an entry is deemed necessary, that and the reason is made clear so that someone else doesn't come along thinking it's been included just for the sake of it.

Please feel free to comment. Neonumbers 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. In fact, I think comments should generally be used more in Wikipedia (as well as todo-lists, but that's another issue :-)): providing rationales is important and easy to do when a choice is made; quite difficult to recover even a short time later. What do you think about changing "it is advisable to include" to simply "include"? If that doesn't sound rude, of course. — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 14:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. And rather than use "include" twice, how about:

If you feel such an entry should be included, please add an invisible comment and/or a note...

CarolGray 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been one week. Any other comments? If no objections on or before 18 December 2006 (UTC), I'll add that sentence. Neonumbers 02:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neo, thanks for taking care of this. BTW, about the "and/or"... my experience is that many editors don't look at the talk page before editing, so I'd favor suggesting to add the comment anyway (not as an alternative to a talk page note) plus, if needed, a talk page explanation. Does that make sense? BTW2: What about my proposal about avoiding the leading article (a/an, the)? That's an old one now as well. — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 03:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. There's a disambiguation page at Passage, and there are three articles that could be intended by The Passage — the St. Petersburg department store, The Passage (band) and The Passage (Battlestar Galactica). (There's also apparently a film starring James Mason, but it doesn't have a page yet.) Right now, a hatnote at The Passage directs readers towards the band's page, but there's nothing for the other meanings of "The Passage". Should a separate dab page be created at The Passage (disambiguation), or should the hatnote at The Passage point towards the general dab page Passage?

I couldn't find any advice on what to do in a case like this in the guideline — should something be added? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a separate dab page at The Passage (disambiguation); if anyone thinks it's redundant, feel free to change it to a redirect to Passage. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your last option above is the right one, point to the general dab page. The new dab page is really not needed. I don't think the guideline is explicit on whether to have a dab page that includes the definite article, but most editors would put "The Passage" and "Passage" on the same dab page. The hatnote in "The Passage" should point to the dab page at "Passage". The new dab page "The Passage (disambiguation)", while much prettier, has been redirected to "Passage" per your invitation. It's ironic that the major article "The Passage" is qualified only by the definite article, since the Russian language has no definite or indefinite articles. Chris the speller 16:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion would have been better placed on the talk page for WP:D instead of the talk page for WP:MOSDAB, since it does not just concern the style of a dab page, so if you want other opinions, or more detail on this question, you may get more responses or better responses over there. Chris the speller 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I also went on to the old dab page (a poster child for WP:MOSDAB} and worked it over. Chris the speller 17:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. I noticed that Passage needed a lot of work, but didn't have the energy to take care of it last night. The redirect is fine by me — I just wasn't sure what the usual practice in a case like this was. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request feedback on Robert Johnson. I like the way it has evolved. I have tried to format other dab pages like and have been contested by other editors on the see also section. The major points of contestation are the propriety of including the surname and the list of names in the see also section. I think in Human name dabs these should be standard and this dab makes it clear why. If people agree, I would even like to note such a belief on the MOSDAB page itself. TonyTheTiger 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would want to see upon typing "Robert Johnson" and pressing go! Wareh 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think there should be an amendment to MOSDAB to describe this type of see also section. TonyTheTiger 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Robert Johnson looks very good. I've made some trivial punctuation changes. Of course, the incoming links need to be fixed since this may reveal some more Robert Johnsons who should be added. Then I would be happy to see this quoted on the Mos:DAB as an example to follow. One small query - in the example at section 7, Longer lists, we've got a slightly different style of subheading:

In science:

whereas in Robert Johnson we have:

In politics

I think we should choose one or the other and be consistent about it. CarolGray 20:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a preference for the formatting, but I find the semi-colon is slightly easier to do.

Thanks for your support for specifically expressing desire for inclusion of Surname and List of People by name in the See also section. I have worked on several dabs, although I do not have your expertise. I am wondering how to handle the 2/3rds match. William Johnson provides an additional concern for a 2/3rds match that Robert Johnson and Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) do not provide in their Middle name sections. Should this be split in two sections in this instance.

Also, it is important to confirm that these larger names still suggest Norman Johnson and Sam Houston (disambiguation) should have the sections I include at the bottom, which is the point I am hoping to address in my See also section clarification. TonyTheTiger 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The subheading that CarolGray refers to should match the manual. The idea is that only the keyword is bolded.

The page is well constructed, but I have some small comments about inclusion of entries.

In the see also section, there should not be a need to include a link to "all other names", either first or last, because someone who typed in "Robert Johnson" would not be looking for "Michael Johnson" or something like that. The misspellings are okay. Middle names should not be included; we would expect them to type in "Jeremy Johnson" to get to "Jeremy Robert Johnson". Everything named after Robert Wood Johnson needn't be there because they refer to things, not people; someone who expects to type in "Robert Johnson" to get there can go through the "Robert Wood Johnson" page. I will say, though, that it was very wise to include those in the see also section rather than the main body.

In short: The question is not if it is part of the name, or if someone could possibly expect to get there, but whether they could reasonably expect to get there. Try to include entries of confusion rather than possibilities.

Remember that disambiguation is not a search function. We have an internal search engine for that purpose, so 2/3 matches can be omitted if chance of confusion is little.

For a page of this length, I would consider (though not necessarily recommend) removing redlinks altogether.

I must say, though, that the page is very well constructed and, in term of inclusion, entries are generally very well selected. I'm reluctant to have certain pages as exemplars though; the reality is that even in something like this, oddities can and do arise, and I think the guidance in the manual should be sufficient. My two cents. Neonumbers 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I add "(keyword only in bold)" after "The list may be broken up by subject area" here? CarolGray 08:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind that addition, though (on a somewhat unrelated note) I will say I'd be careful not to encourage use of subject areas too much, because they don't always work (their use often compromises the "most likely target comes first" principle). Neonumbers 01:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

By length of discourse Neonumbers has singlehandedly rebutted 3 people heading toward a consensus. I am going to set up a separate page with alternatives at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)/seealso. With respect to human names there is generally consensus on what the most common name is for living persons. However, with respect to historical figures it is a bit harder to establish. Nonetheless, we should certainly assume that the page creator diligently chose correct name. That is the way wikipedia is built. I think there is always room for disagreement on the most common name of individuals. The question is when someone types in Robert Johnson, William Johnson or any name with many common given variants do they truly want to see 1.) only those pages with the formal name, 2.) those pages with the formal name and common related names, 3.) all possible related names. Lets say for example a notable "Roberto Johnson" bio article is entered into WP. Suppose also that he is equally well known by an anglicized "Robbie Johnson". Regardless of whether such an article is named Robbie or Roberto, it may very well end up in Johnson before the See also section of Robert Johnson if we make it a policy to add common alternative names to such a section. Do we want to exclude Johnson with this in mind. TonyTheTiger 01:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) The idea of inclusion-exclusion can be thought of in this way, to ensure extraneous links aren't there:

Could someone looking for Target Page reasonably expect the article to be named, or expect to get there by typing in, Disambiguation Page?

A good measuring stick is that if Target Page is often referred to by people as "Disambiguation Page", then it's a reasonable expectation.

For Robbie Johnson, someone looking for "Robbie Johnson" would not type in "Roberto Johnson", because they'd probably normally call Robbie "Robbie". We generally wouldn't be so nice even as to give them a link to it on a "Johnson" dab page, because there are so many Johnsons that they can't reasonably expect to get to a specific Johnson in that way, but we give them the courtesy of directing them to an extensive list of Johnsons that was designed to be an extensive list (not a dab page).

By contrast, someone looking for what we call an alphanumeric keyboard normally probably just calls it a "keyboard", and would probably type in "keyboard" and expect to find that article. Same goes for musical keyboard.

I generally tend to consider the "see also" section very rarely used, typically for misspellings and links to the list of people in cases of last name dabs only. Neonumbers 05:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that there is room for separate rules for each separate dab tag without causing anarchy. Generally, the difference between Google search results and dab pages are as you say. What I am proposing is essentially a main section that conforms to traditional wiki dab rules and a see also section that adds many googlish links that are suggested by the general MOSDAB. I think generally dab see also sections in WP are for things you should not be expecting when you enter the search term. Note however that this takes several of the official dab items and attaches special human name dab rules to them. Basically, item 2 is exemplified by Lacey Robert Johnson or Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, item 3 is exemplified by Bob Johnson, and I am not sure about item 4 as it pertains to human name dabs. I think adding the Surname and LoPbN pages serves both to help the user as the existing manual suggest by listing "Terms which can be confused with Title" and and to validate the hard work of our editors. The proposed term accounts for the existing manual's "Likely misspellings of Title". I am not sure what to point to for rational for reversing of name order, but it seems reasonable. I think given name could be justified as a way of listing "Terms which can be confused with Title", but it should be redundant with LoPbN. TonyTheTiger 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The principle we had in mind when designed the original manual is that disambiguation pages are to be consistent in format, simple, and short. My fear is that a lengthy see also section would compromise the shortness. Even though the important stuff is upfront and the other stuff is out of the way, the increased length of the page still creates extra content that, in a navigational aid, is best avoided.

With the order of entries, it's not on the manual, but that's intended mainly for things rather than people. Shouldn't apply to people dab pages, because (in theory) all entries on a people (First Last) dab page should be "First Last (clarifier)". The purpose of that suggested order is so that the disambiguating words line up nicely in one line, which make the target page easier to pick out, like this (made up with bogus descriptions):

While it's normally (hopefully) also the order of importance (common usage), where it isn't, order of importance takes precedence over that order. The idea is that a scan of the page is sufficient, rather than having to read what's on the page. The reason I said that extra content is best avoided (above) is that, the more content, the harder the page is to scan—even if the unimportant stuff's at the bottom and clearly separated, it still makes it harder to skim through quickly. Maybe it's distracting, maybe it's just the idea of looking at a longer page (with a shorter scroll bar), but whatever it is, it means that the time spent on the dab page is longer.

This is why we strongly discourage extraneous links. It does involve a certain degree of, well, un-sympathy for those that don't quite know the name of what they're looking for, but that's what search engines are for. We allow for confusion, but not stupidity. It's a very subjective area, and certainly a gray area (and possibly insulting), but that's the idea (if not guideline). Just because Target Page has Disambiguation Page within its title, it doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. You seem to already understand all of that, for the "normal" section, anyway.

Historically (from what I've seen), dab pages almost never have a see also section, and my reasoning for generally discouraging see also sections is that they make the page longer and therefore harder to skim through, and the consequences, benefits and costs, as far as I can see are similar to having them in the main section.

As a sidenote, if "Robbie Johnston" was also known as "Roberto Johnston", then yes, that would merit inclusion. Sorry my post was so long. Neonumbers 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Currently, about 90% of the various 2LC dab pages use upper case for both letters; the remaining 10% use upper then lower. I'd like to see this standardised to both upper and have commented to such effect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Standardisation of names of two-letter combination pages. Please comment there if you wish to voice an opinion! Grutness... wha? 12:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Above I asked about Surname and List of People by name dabs. I was referring to the first 3 surname letters for the latter.

However, I am wondering whether First name dabs or first name articles should be in the see also section. E.G., should August Busch have both links to August and Busch in the see also section or just the latter TonyTheTiger 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. But there should be a link to "List of people by name: Bus" in the [Busch (disambiguation)] page if there is one. Neonumbers 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Neonumbers. Disambiguation pages are not lists of free associations of tangentially connected topics where there is little risk of confusion. A link to August is almost certainly not needed there. I'm ambivalent about linking to Busch or List of people by name: Bus-Buz there. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to bring attention to the two bullet points the section "The 'See also' section":

• People with Title as a surname — if there are more than a handful of these, a separate Title (name) or Title (surname) page should be created
• People with Title as a given name (rare/unusual names only — otherwise, entries should be moved to a separate Title (name) or Title (given name) page)

whilst considering the basic principle on Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes " Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

The "see also" section should be very, very rarely used — when we created this page, "see also" sections on disambiguation pages were almost unheard of, and we certainly didn't intend for that to change, and we really only intended it for misspellings, as outlined in the last two bullet points of that section. The intention at the time was that there should virtually never be more than one or two entries in it. Paraphrased, the "see also" section was intended to be part of the navigational aid, where people were wrong (wrong, not insufficient) in what they were looking for, so we directed them to the right place.

Most of us will know what the guideline prior to this was, so I won't need to explain what it is in further detail than that such entries were generally to be avoided. There was a reason for this, and that reason was the same reason the above guideline from Wikipedia:Disambigation exists: the page should be as short and simple as possible, having only what is necessary and directing the user intuitively to the right place. This principle also applies to the see also section, because it is still part of the page.

For this reason, I would suggest (not propose yet) that those two bullet points both be removed, with allowances for exceptional cases.

I have read the discussions leading to the addition of those two bullets, but I haven't figured out why the given name provision needs to be there. For the surname provision, although it is reasonable to expect some users to know the surname but not the given, I feel that the List of people by name exists for this purpose, which of course implies that a link there (from the see also section) is necessary: entering a surname only is not "ambiguous" such that there is "risk of confusion"; rather, it is insufficient information for us to direct the user directly to the right article.

I've said this in other discussions above, but that was before I realised the guidelines had changed. I know I'm being a little nostalgic (being someone that's been in this for a long time), but I hope either that I can gain a better understanding of the rationale for those changes, or that we can discuss this again. No rush — have a break over Christmas/New Year if we want before we go deeply into it. Neonumbers 04:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I read through that a couple days ago, and kind of thought "Huh?". Your point of linking to LOPBN in the See Also section makes lots of sense, and I think that would alleviate many of the concerns over entries of surnames being on the disambiguation pages. -- Nataly a 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy for things to work this way. Related dabs are a little odd. It would be lovely if there were a magical template for linking to the right LOPBN page. Josh Parris # : 11:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooo... that would be nice. I could see having someone input the first three letters of the name in question, but the problem would be that LOPBN has sections of names, not a page for each name. There must be some way to do it, though... hmm. -- Nataly a 17:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be nice, but I understand there are problems with linking dab pages to LoPbN, as described by Jerzy here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Archive 26#Lk from Dabs into LoPbN?. CarolGray 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Christmas/New Year's break's over ;-)

Thank you for posting that link, CarolGray. I do not believe that such problems are significant; the fact that the list is in strict alphabetical order is, in my opinion, sufficient for the user to understand where he will find his desired person. Most of the list of people by name pages I have visited are well under the 32KB limit (not even kind of close), and myself having a dial-up connection, I do not believe that the pages take excessively long to download.

Naturally, whenever I remove people entries from a disambiguation page, I always ensure they are in the list (and enter them if they are not) before linking there.

I now propose that the two bullet points referred to above be removed, with allowances for exceptional cases.

Any further comments? Neonumbers 00:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From this discussion I gather most of us are okay with this. If without further objection, I will delete those two bullet points after 11 January 2007 (UTC). Neonumbers 00:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm the person who added these bullet points, and I am happy to see them removed now. At the time, it was a compromise to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. Since then, the use of Name (surname) pages (which have the {{surname}} template and not {{hndis}}) has defused the conflict by taking the disputed material out of Category:Disambiguation. CarolGray 08:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this, because Neonumbers isn't around just at the moment. CarolGray 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys,

I recently moved the page "Comment (computer programming)" to "Comment (computer language)". The reason is that comments are supported in pretty much all computer languages, not only the programming ones (e.g. in HTML). I was going to fix all resulting double-redirects when this doubt occurred to me: should it be "(computer language)" or "(computer languages)"? This doesn't seem to be covered in the manual, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. BTW, comments are generally allowed in configuration files too, for instance, so it seems that we have another specific problem: "computer languages" is too narrow, "computing" is too wide. Do we have a standard practice for similar issues? Thanks, Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be really half asleep. According to our page naming conventions "Comment (computer language)" suggests an article about a computer language named Comment :-( So perhaps we should lean towards "Comment (computer language construct)". The taxonomy problem I mentioned remains though (unless I'm going to discover that I'm 90% asleep) — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gennaro, and Merry Christmas

Actually, the convention for programming languages is "Something programming language" (where it would be ambiguous otherwise), in the same way that French language is there and not at French. (I'm sure there's some reason for that convention.)

I would say use Comment (computing) (or Comment (programming), but you don't seem to like that), for the sake of simplicity. Looking at Comment, there's only one other meaning and I don't think (despite being computer-related) it falls under computing as such — I guess I could re-word this as, "it's not a geek's thing". That's what I think, anyway. Neonumbers 02:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neonumbers, and Merry Christmas to you and all the helpful guys who watch these pages. Hopefully one day I will be knowledgeable enough about our guidelines to avoid boring you all the times :-) Yes, I think I'll rename it to "comment (computing)" which is enough for disambiguation. In honesty, the other entry, "Feedback comment system", looks a little misplaced there (if I had to look for the meaning of "feedback comment system" by using one word I guess I'd choose "feedback"). — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 11:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe don't worry, that's what a wiki's all about... :-)

I'd say that for this case, "Feedback comment system" is a meritable entry, because they are generally called "comments" on things such as blogs (weblogs), Q&A such as Windows Live QnA and Yahoo! Answers, and similar things where users are invited to leave comments (feedback). Because they are known as "comments", they are suitable for entry.

One of the very, very few cases where I would be inclined for inclusion rather than exclusion on a disambiguation page. ;-) Neonumbers 12:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment (computing) seems like a good choice. I've taken care of one set of redirects by making Comment (programming) redirect directly to Comment (computing), rather than to Comment (computer programming). -- Nataly a 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops… thanks Natalya but please hold on! I was happy with the change but at least one user objected and I think we have opened a can of worms. You might want to comment (or just have a look and run :-)) on Talk:Comment (computing)#Article structure, disambiguation and scope. Thanks again for the collaboration though :-) — Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 19:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. No worries though, the redirects should be easily changed/moved as appopriate once agreement is made. -- Nataly a 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)