This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Two ongoing move discussions ( Talk:Stroud, Gloucestershire#Requested move and Talk:Stroud (disambiguation)#Requested move) hinge on the question of whether Stroud, Gloucestershire is the primary topic for "Stroud". Comments welcome (I'm trying to combine the discussion at the first of those two venues).-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
User:AeronPeryton has questioned my familiarity with the disambiguation guidelines, specifically as they apply to Na. [1] If reverted again, I will just tag the page for clean up for fresh eyes, but if anyone would like to chime in before that, please do. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
See WT:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in redirects to articles, where an RfC has been opened on the use of non-English characters in page titles for disambiguation and redirect titles (and there appears to also be discussion about article titles) 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I hereby provide you the new disambig page Sirian which was a redirect to the Sirius Mystery. I also made Sirians a redirect to Sirian, and that page was previously a (pretty absurd) redirect to the Assyrian people, who are also called Syriacs. The reason for existence of the disambig Sirian is of course that there are myriads of myths, sagas and stories about extraterrestrial beings from the star Sirius. The topic is nearly not notable – at least not for me, so I won't cry if you decide the article existence is mote. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Alas, the article "owner" is resisting efforts to rid this article of things brought up merely in order to state that they have nothing at all to do with the article topic ( Geier#William Butler Yeats) and a partial dump of a book catalogue ( Geier#Prominent Authors with the Surname Geier). Witness the "Geier Glove" and "Geier Sausages" and the reference to Hitch (movie) in this revision of Geier hitch to see the pattern here. The attention of more editors is needed. Uncle G ( talk) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Ancient (disambiguation) and Ancients redirect to Antiquity, which, in turn, includes a number of proper nouns identifying entities (bands, fictional characters) as "Ancients". It seems to me that these should be two separate disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There are roughly 14,396 disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia that do not have associated talk pages. I have requested approval for a bot to fix this problem. Would some folks who are familiar with this WikiProject mind heading over to the request page and giving their two cents? Thanks! -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A bot is being proposed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Dab and taxa update bots. Editors may wish to contribute to the discussion there. -- NSH001 ( talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Some comments from wikipedians familiar with disambiguation policy would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District. A redirect at National Historic District was proposed for deletion, and an alternative of replacing that with a disambiguation page has been proposed.
Full disclosure: I am the one proposing deletion of the redirect or disambiguation page. The term "National Historic District" is not valid under any national historic designation program or any other regime; it is effectively a typo appearing in a scattered few small local nonprofit or commercial websites, posted by ignorant writers. None of the items offered under the proposed disambiguaton page are valid synonyms for the bogus phrase. There were about 50 wikipedia links to the bogus phrase which i have replaced, so now there are no links from mainspace. I suggest deletion of the phrase, to undermine future inappropriate usage of the phrase. Comments there welcome. -- doncram ( talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding disambig templates over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Disambig_templates. Mhiji ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I am not too familiar with disambiguation pages, but Sumi looks like a very unusual one and should probably be split into several articles. bamse ( talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion that editor's here might be interested in: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Contradiction in people section. Cptnono ( talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Snow bunny is currently a "disambiguation" page with only one potentially ambiguous link ( Snow Bunny) plus a link to Skiing. I would redirect it to Snow Bunny, but the See also section linking to Beach bunny and to Wiktionary give me pause. See also a mention at WP:Articles for deletion/Buckle bunny. Opinions? Cnilep ( talk) 10:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This disambiguation page should be at waiver (disambiguation), right? Smartiger ( talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Gentle people, I applaud all interest in helping to cleanup disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, but is it really worth an argument on something so minor? We have so much other work to do at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, perhaps we should work through the backlog first, and then come back to this "waiver" question? -- El on ka 17:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute occurring about disambiguation cleanup at the Thomas Wedgwood page. Additional opinions would be appreciated, thanks. -- El on ka 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I just ran across the Spambot article, which currently is a dab page with no actual spambot entries, but instead is a list of related topics with much different names.
It appears to have existed as an article with some problems but potential until July 2010, at which point it was cut down to the pseudo-dab page it is today.
My thought is to revert it back to its July 2010 article form, since if treated as a dab page, the best "fix" would appear to be to delete it. Any thoughts? Thanks, NapoliRoma ( talk) 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD#Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation). Your opinions are welcomed. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Could use additional opinions at Talk:William Hunter as to whether or not the page should be split into "William Hunter" and "Bill Hunter" pages. -- El on ka 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an interesting requested move at talk:Poland–Lithuania concerning dash employment. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be endless discussion (partly fuelled by one obsessed user, but not only) about how to handle the terms "White Rabbit" and "White rabbit". Given that the Alice character has been deemed to be the primary topic for " White Rabbit", where should the uncapitalized "White rabbit" go to? See discussion at Talk:White rabbit.-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I was looking at the Rancid disambiguation page and in my opinion typing Rancid should redirect to the page Rancid (band). There are currently four other entries in the disambiguation page. There is an article about a Swedish film that is currently a stub. The one about the software ( RANCID) is poorly developped while the two other articles actually wear different names : the process of rancidification and the magazine Rancid News, that was called Last Hour in its later form. None of them seem as notable as the band, and all four articles are either stubs or poorly developped compared to the band's article. What do you think ? Maimai009 ( talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The mosdab checker is using a new naming which uses mnemonic letter instead of the weird numbering. The new changes also address other small issues with usability. Additionally, three new checks have been added:
These new issues will slowly appear as I will not rescan all 11,000 pages or 5.8% of all disambiguation pages. This number is disappointingly high due to the random data collection used.
On a related note some of the reports at WP:DBR#Disambiguations are being neglected. — Dispenser 08:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, afaik in dab GEM= gem. - DePiep ( talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this can't remain a dab page. It needs references, it probably needs the nav table, it needs the lengthy explanations, it needs to mention things for which there is an article. Also in many articles linking directly to this page is the best approach since some/many articles (e.g. Idempotent matrix) refer to all types of bias. Bottom lines, it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck. Maybe it's not a duck? Opinions? -- Muhandes ( talk) 07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
At the moment there is some cleaning up going on in the hatnote business. Since many are, especially historically, redirect & disambiguation related, it might be interesting for you Projecters. documentation is growing up; some are for TfD. - DePiep ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-one Chinese radicals (out of the 214 on the list of Kangxi radicals) are currently either disambig pages or redirects to disambig pages. Chinese radicals are the equivalent of letters of the alphabet, and the primary meaning in each case should be the character itself. I propose that these should, therefore, redirect to articles on the characters, in the same way that 干 presently redirects to Radical 51. The pages at issue are: 力 勹 十 又 士 大 小 尢 幺 廴 廾 弓 文 方 曰 木 欠 止 片 皮 黃. Most of the corresponding articles have yet to be made, but this is something that should be done. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone create this page and clean up the some of the article tags (the small print ones at the top of each article)?
Please also add
Hi. I am working in the
Hatnote department (
guidelines available), bureau
Template:Other hurricanes. Hurricanes are:
From usage of the template {{
Other hurricanes}}
, I see a multiple forked way of dab.
My question is: is disambiguation in this storm-season correct? Tripping is:
or: what with the pattern (storm type) (personal name) (year)? - DePiep ( talk) 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for help with the incoming links to Blackfoot. A right mess. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a thunderhead in the sky once that was too big for my eyes (or the light filtering through the skydome) to handle. Is there a technical term for when the naked eye sees a thunderhead that "bends" because it's too high for the hemisphere to physically show a straight-up thunderhead from your point of view? Or is it simply known as "Skybending" or "Skydome Effect"? 71.87.112.14 ( talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 40#Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect for a bot to help fix these. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Rosalie (disambiguation), which has the following single line:
Should Cytherea REALLY be a disambiguation page? The meanings listed are: -an epithet of Aphrodite (by far the predominant meaning)
-two generic names which are invalid, because junior synonyms
-an insect genus that is obscure enough not to have an article
-a silent film that has been lost
-a pornographic actress (I do admit that this is the primary reference found by Google, but the case of a 21st century pornographic figure vs a classical matter is practically the paradigmatic case for Internet bias.)
Surely Cytherea should simply redirect to Aphrodite... Vultur ( talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am having some difficulty getting through to the handful of editors who are interested in Cardboard that (1) the primary topic for this term is the various forms of heavy paper stock, and (2) that term is not ambiguous, but is merely a genus encompassing several species. I hereby convene a special session of the High Council of Disambiguators to make a final determination of this question, and request a ruling that the title, Cardboard should be a non-disambiguating article describing the general concept of different forms of stiffened paper, and that the remaining ambiguous terms be removed to Cardboard (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412, Senior Editor III/Labutnum of the Encyclopedia T 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In 2007, an editor disambiguated The Day the Earth Stood Still, and moved the original film to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film). We now have three articles, the dab, the original film, and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). Shouldn't the dab page simply be the location for the original film, with a hatnote to the remake? Viriditas ( talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Adel has been a dab page since 2008 when I did a major cleanup. An editor has just done some cut and paste moving to make Adel a page about the male name "Adel", with lists of name holders, and moved the rest to Adel (disambiguation). I'm not sure that the name is the primary usage, and my inclination is to move the name page to Adel (name) - not sure whether the correct thing would be to revert to a previous version and then explicitly copy from that version, though I suppose attribution etc isn't an issue for dab pages.
I'd be glad if someone else would have a look and offer a view as to whether the current situation is right. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 08:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't find a guideline on this. Someone made a dab page for things that the acronym CATD could stand for, but all of the links are to pages that don't exist, and nothing links to it. I'm thinking speedy delete, but I don't see any appropriate criteria. What's the right thing to do here? Ivanvector ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We have dozens of disambiguation pages for various common government departments and ministries. In my opinion, not a single one of these should be a disambig page. Instead, each one should be an article describing generally what the purpose of such a department usually is, and identifying in a list the various countries which have such a department. Here is as complete a list as I could cull from special pages:
Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle, where a number of editors are seeking to foist what they perceive as a problem on us by turning this article back into a disambig page, despite the clear primary meaning for the term and the large number of perpetually unsolvable disambig links this change would generate. bd2412 T 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There were several pages on pieces of music, film or other art that linked to the DAB page Finale. That page currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre with blue links to those key words, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, MOS:DAB suggests that they should not be included on the page.
Should such incoming links to the page be redirected to Wiktionary:finale? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the latter, removing internal links from La romanzesca e l'uomo nero, Matilde di Shabran, Ivan Susanin, The Scottsboro Boys (musical), Taualuga, Rozen Maiden and It's Tough to Be a Bug!. I would welcome a better solution, though.
I have also asked at WP:WikiProject Classical Music, WP:WikiProject Opera, and WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre for suggestions of somewhere else to link to. Cnilep ( talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion is at Talk:Finale#Definitions. Cnilep ( talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a little unclear on the purpose of this dab page. When a user types in Norwegian Wood, they want to be taken to the song, not to the dab page. The current dab page lists a music festival which states on the article page that "the festival refers to the famous Beatles song Norwegian Wood". The dab page also lists a 1987 Japanese novel by the same name which clearly says in the article: "the original Japanese title Noruwei no Mori, is the standard Japanese translation of the title of The Beatles song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"...the song is often mentioned in the novel, and is the favourite song of the character Naoko." The dab page also lists a 2010 film based on the book. Finally, the dab page contains two red links. It is obvious then, that all of the references on the dab page primarily refer to the song, and as such the dab page should be moved to Norwegian Wood (disambiguation), and Norwegian Wood should be redirected to Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) as the primary redirect, with a hat note linked to the dab page at the top. Are there any objections to this proposal? Viriditas ( talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Could someone at the wikiproject give a comment at talk:infantilism? It's an odd DAB page and I'm not sure I've enough experience to say for sure what is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Should SHARP, a disambig page, be folded into and redired to Sharp (disambiguation)? It seems odd to have two, and most similar pages I've found use only one. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly complex, but some input on how to handle the situation being discussed at Talk:Nth Man might be helpful.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Intellect about where the term intellect should point:
I thought members of this project might have an opinion, in which case please discuss at Talk:Intellect.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When it is necessary to disambiguate Burmese place names at the township level, which of two forms should be preferred: "Kontha, Ayadaw Township" or "Kontha, Ayadaw"? The shorter form might be preferred because it is short, but the longer one might be preferred because it avoids confusion with similarly named districts, and district disambiguation. For example with "Kontha" there are eight occurrences in Sagaing Region:
The first first four can be distinguished at the district level. However, in Monywa District there are four instances of "Kontha" so they will need to be distinguished at the township level. Are there other pro and cons? -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad concepts are not "ambiguous" will prove to be a useful new policy - please review and apply liberally. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing a bit of work on Chris Robinson (animation scholar), and while a LOT of references are still needed it's become clear that he may be notable for alot more than his animation scholarship. Robinson is, by my count, an Ottawa-based animation historian, non-fiction author and screenwriter; film festival director; and ice hockey writer and historian. So I'm thinking to rename with the geographical disambiguation Chris Robinson (Ottawa), per Christopher Robinson (Rhode Island). However, the RI Robinson was a state politician and I worry that a geographical disambiguation like this would indeed suggest such a formal link to the region mentioned. I've tried without success to find more detailed guidelines about what should go in the parentheses, over and over what's found in WP:PRECISION. Does anyone have any suggestions or advice regarding this idea? thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
While stub-sorting I came across P. erecta and cleaned it up. But I haven't come across this group of dab pages before and wonder whether I was right:
Any views on this? There's a whole family of similar pages. PamD ( talk) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Two ongoing move discussions ( Talk:Stroud, Gloucestershire#Requested move and Talk:Stroud (disambiguation)#Requested move) hinge on the question of whether Stroud, Gloucestershire is the primary topic for "Stroud". Comments welcome (I'm trying to combine the discussion at the first of those two venues).-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
User:AeronPeryton has questioned my familiarity with the disambiguation guidelines, specifically as they apply to Na. [1] If reverted again, I will just tag the page for clean up for fresh eyes, but if anyone would like to chime in before that, please do. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 16:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
See WT:Article titles#Non-Roman characters in redirects to articles, where an RfC has been opened on the use of non-English characters in page titles for disambiguation and redirect titles (and there appears to also be discussion about article titles) 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 09:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I hereby provide you the new disambig page Sirian which was a redirect to the Sirius Mystery. I also made Sirians a redirect to Sirian, and that page was previously a (pretty absurd) redirect to the Assyrian people, who are also called Syriacs. The reason for existence of the disambig Sirian is of course that there are myriads of myths, sagas and stories about extraterrestrial beings from the star Sirius. The topic is nearly not notable – at least not for me, so I won't cry if you decide the article existence is mote. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 11:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The Great Backlog Drive needs your help! Join our project by adding {{ subst:The Great Backlog Drive}} to your mainspace and help us in our aim to reduce the backlogs! |
Panyd The muffin is not subtle 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Alas, the article "owner" is resisting efforts to rid this article of things brought up merely in order to state that they have nothing at all to do with the article topic ( Geier#William Butler Yeats) and a partial dump of a book catalogue ( Geier#Prominent Authors with the Surname Geier). Witness the "Geier Glove" and "Geier Sausages" and the reference to Hitch (movie) in this revision of Geier hitch to see the pattern here. The attention of more editors is needed. Uncle G ( talk) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Ancient (disambiguation) and Ancients redirect to Antiquity, which, in turn, includes a number of proper nouns identifying entities (bands, fictional characters) as "Ancients". It seems to me that these should be two separate disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There are roughly 14,396 disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia that do not have associated talk pages. I have requested approval for a bot to fix this problem. Would some folks who are familiar with this WikiProject mind heading over to the request page and giving their two cents? Thanks! -- Andrew Kelly ( talk) 05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
A bot is being proposed at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 39#Dab and taxa update bots. Editors may wish to contribute to the discussion there. -- NSH001 ( talk) 22:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Some comments from wikipedians familiar with disambiguation policy would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5#National Historic District. A redirect at National Historic District was proposed for deletion, and an alternative of replacing that with a disambiguation page has been proposed.
Full disclosure: I am the one proposing deletion of the redirect or disambiguation page. The term "National Historic District" is not valid under any national historic designation program or any other regime; it is effectively a typo appearing in a scattered few small local nonprofit or commercial websites, posted by ignorant writers. None of the items offered under the proposed disambiguaton page are valid synonyms for the bogus phrase. There were about 50 wikipedia links to the bogus phrase which i have replaced, so now there are no links from mainspace. I suggest deletion of the phrase, to undermine future inappropriate usage of the phrase. Comments there welcome. -- doncram ( talk) 05:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion regarding disambig templates over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Disambig_templates. Mhiji ( talk) 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I am not too familiar with disambiguation pages, but Sumi looks like a very unusual one and should probably be split into several articles. bamse ( talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion that editor's here might be interested in: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Contradiction in people section. Cptnono ( talk) 21:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Snow bunny is currently a "disambiguation" page with only one potentially ambiguous link ( Snow Bunny) plus a link to Skiing. I would redirect it to Snow Bunny, but the See also section linking to Beach bunny and to Wiktionary give me pause. See also a mention at WP:Articles for deletion/Buckle bunny. Opinions? Cnilep ( talk) 10:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
This disambiguation page should be at waiver (disambiguation), right? Smartiger ( talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Gentle people, I applaud all interest in helping to cleanup disambiguation pages on Wikipedia, but is it really worth an argument on something so minor? We have so much other work to do at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, perhaps we should work through the backlog first, and then come back to this "waiver" question? -- El on ka 17:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a dispute occurring about disambiguation cleanup at the Thomas Wedgwood page. Additional opinions would be appreciated, thanks. -- El on ka 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I just ran across the Spambot article, which currently is a dab page with no actual spambot entries, but instead is a list of related topics with much different names.
It appears to have existed as an article with some problems but potential until July 2010, at which point it was cut down to the pseudo-dab page it is today.
My thought is to revert it back to its July 2010 article form, since if treated as a dab page, the best "fix" would appear to be to delete it. Any thoughts? Thanks, NapoliRoma ( talk) 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation) has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD#Abdul Khaliq (disambiguation). Your opinions are welcomed. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 13:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Could use additional opinions at Talk:William Hunter as to whether or not the page should be split into "William Hunter" and "Bill Hunter" pages. -- El on ka 06:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an interesting requested move at talk:Poland–Lithuania concerning dash employment. 65.93.14.196 ( talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be endless discussion (partly fuelled by one obsessed user, but not only) about how to handle the terms "White Rabbit" and "White rabbit". Given that the Alice character has been deemed to be the primary topic for " White Rabbit", where should the uncapitalized "White rabbit" go to? See discussion at Talk:White rabbit.-- Kotniski ( talk) 13:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I was looking at the Rancid disambiguation page and in my opinion typing Rancid should redirect to the page Rancid (band). There are currently four other entries in the disambiguation page. There is an article about a Swedish film that is currently a stub. The one about the software ( RANCID) is poorly developped while the two other articles actually wear different names : the process of rancidification and the magazine Rancid News, that was called Last Hour in its later form. None of them seem as notable as the band, and all four articles are either stubs or poorly developped compared to the band's article. What do you think ? Maimai009 ( talk) 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The mosdab checker is using a new naming which uses mnemonic letter instead of the weird numbering. The new changes also address other small issues with usability. Additionally, three new checks have been added:
These new issues will slowly appear as I will not rescan all 11,000 pages or 5.8% of all disambiguation pages. This number is disappointingly high due to the random data collection used.
On a related note some of the reports at WP:DBR#Disambiguations are being neglected. — Dispenser 08:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, afaik in dab GEM= gem. - DePiep ( talk) 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion this can't remain a dab page. It needs references, it probably needs the nav table, it needs the lengthy explanations, it needs to mention things for which there is an article. Also in many articles linking directly to this page is the best approach since some/many articles (e.g. Idempotent matrix) refer to all types of bias. Bottom lines, it doesn't quack like a duck, it doesn't look like a duck. Maybe it's not a duck? Opinions? -- Muhandes ( talk) 07:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
At the moment there is some cleaning up going on in the hatnote business. Since many are, especially historically, redirect & disambiguation related, it might be interesting for you Projecters. documentation is growing up; some are for TfD. - DePiep ( talk) 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Twenty-one Chinese radicals (out of the 214 on the list of Kangxi radicals) are currently either disambig pages or redirects to disambig pages. Chinese radicals are the equivalent of letters of the alphabet, and the primary meaning in each case should be the character itself. I propose that these should, therefore, redirect to articles on the characters, in the same way that 干 presently redirects to Radical 51. The pages at issue are: 力 勹 十 又 士 大 小 尢 幺 廴 廾 弓 文 方 曰 木 欠 止 片 皮 黃. Most of the corresponding articles have yet to be made, but this is something that should be done. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone create this page and clean up the some of the article tags (the small print ones at the top of each article)?
Please also add
Hi. I am working in the
Hatnote department (
guidelines available), bureau
Template:Other hurricanes. Hurricanes are:
From usage of the template {{
Other hurricanes}}
, I see a multiple forked way of dab.
My question is: is disambiguation in this storm-season correct? Tripping is:
or: what with the pattern (storm type) (personal name) (year)? - DePiep ( talk) 22:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America for help with the incoming links to Blackfoot. A right mess. DuncanHill ( talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a thunderhead in the sky once that was too big for my eyes (or the light filtering through the skydome) to handle. Is there a technical term for when the naked eye sees a thunderhead that "bends" because it's too high for the hemisphere to physically show a straight-up thunderhead from your point of view? Or is it simply known as "Skybending" or "Skydome Effect"? 71.87.112.14 ( talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I've asked at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 40#Article page is a dabpage, talk page is a redirect for a bot to help fix these. DuncanHill ( talk) 15:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Re: Rosalie (disambiguation), which has the following single line:
Should Cytherea REALLY be a disambiguation page? The meanings listed are: -an epithet of Aphrodite (by far the predominant meaning)
-two generic names which are invalid, because junior synonyms
-an insect genus that is obscure enough not to have an article
-a silent film that has been lost
-a pornographic actress (I do admit that this is the primary reference found by Google, but the case of a 21st century pornographic figure vs a classical matter is practically the paradigmatic case for Internet bias.)
Surely Cytherea should simply redirect to Aphrodite... Vultur ( talk) 05:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I am having some difficulty getting through to the handful of editors who are interested in Cardboard that (1) the primary topic for this term is the various forms of heavy paper stock, and (2) that term is not ambiguous, but is merely a genus encompassing several species. I hereby convene a special session of the High Council of Disambiguators to make a final determination of this question, and request a ruling that the title, Cardboard should be a non-disambiguating article describing the general concept of different forms of stiffened paper, and that the remaining ambiguous terms be removed to Cardboard (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412, Senior Editor III/Labutnum of the Encyclopedia T 19:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In 2007, an editor disambiguated The Day the Earth Stood Still, and moved the original film to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951 film). We now have three articles, the dab, the original film, and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film). Shouldn't the dab page simply be the location for the original film, with a hatnote to the remake? Viriditas ( talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Adel has been a dab page since 2008 when I did a major cleanup. An editor has just done some cut and paste moving to make Adel a page about the male name "Adel", with lists of name holders, and moved the rest to Adel (disambiguation). I'm not sure that the name is the primary usage, and my inclination is to move the name page to Adel (name) - not sure whether the correct thing would be to revert to a previous version and then explicitly copy from that version, though I suppose attribution etc isn't an issue for dab pages.
I'd be glad if someone else would have a look and offer a view as to whether the current situation is right. Thanks. PamD ( talk) 08:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I can't find a guideline on this. Someone made a dab page for things that the acronym CATD could stand for, but all of the links are to pages that don't exist, and nothing links to it. I'm thinking speedy delete, but I don't see any appropriate criteria. What's the right thing to do here? Ivanvector ( talk) 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We have dozens of disambiguation pages for various common government departments and ministries. In my opinion, not a single one of these should be a disambig page. Instead, each one should be an article describing generally what the purpose of such a department usually is, and identifying in a list the various countries which have such a department. Here is as complete a list as I could cull from special pages:
Cheers! bd2412 T 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Particle, where a number of editors are seeking to foist what they perceive as a problem on us by turning this article back into a disambig page, despite the clear primary meaning for the term and the large number of perpetually unsolvable disambig links this change would generate. bd2412 T 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
There were several pages on pieces of music, film or other art that linked to the DAB page Finale. That page currently includes definitions of finale in classical music, opera, and musical theatre with blue links to those key words, but none of the linked pages describe or define finale. As such, MOS:DAB suggests that they should not be included on the page.
Should such incoming links to the page be redirected to Wiktionary:finale? Or should they simply be removed? I have opted for the latter, removing internal links from La romanzesca e l'uomo nero, Matilde di Shabran, Ivan Susanin, The Scottsboro Boys (musical), Taualuga, Rozen Maiden and It's Tough to Be a Bug!. I would welcome a better solution, though.
I have also asked at WP:WikiProject Classical Music, WP:WikiProject Opera, and WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre for suggestions of somewhere else to link to. Cnilep ( talk) 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Further discussion is at Talk:Finale#Definitions. Cnilep ( talk) 22:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I am a little unclear on the purpose of this dab page. When a user types in Norwegian Wood, they want to be taken to the song, not to the dab page. The current dab page lists a music festival which states on the article page that "the festival refers to the famous Beatles song Norwegian Wood". The dab page also lists a 1987 Japanese novel by the same name which clearly says in the article: "the original Japanese title Noruwei no Mori, is the standard Japanese translation of the title of The Beatles song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"...the song is often mentioned in the novel, and is the favourite song of the character Naoko." The dab page also lists a 2010 film based on the book. Finally, the dab page contains two red links. It is obvious then, that all of the references on the dab page primarily refer to the song, and as such the dab page should be moved to Norwegian Wood (disambiguation), and Norwegian Wood should be redirected to Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) as the primary redirect, with a hat note linked to the dab page at the top. Are there any objections to this proposal? Viriditas ( talk) 02:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Could someone at the wikiproject give a comment at talk:infantilism? It's an odd DAB page and I'm not sure I've enough experience to say for sure what is appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Should SHARP, a disambig page, be folded into and redired to Sharp (disambiguation)? It seems odd to have two, and most similar pages I've found use only one. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 16:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem particularly complex, but some input on how to handle the situation being discussed at Talk:Nth Man might be helpful.-- Kotniski ( talk) 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Intellect about where the term intellect should point:
I thought members of this project might have an opinion, in which case please discuss at Talk:Intellect.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
When it is necessary to disambiguate Burmese place names at the township level, which of two forms should be preferred: "Kontha, Ayadaw Township" or "Kontha, Ayadaw"? The shorter form might be preferred because it is short, but the longer one might be preferred because it avoids confusion with similarly named districts, and district disambiguation. For example with "Kontha" there are eight occurrences in Sagaing Region:
The first first four can be distinguished at the district level. However, in Monywa District there are four instances of "Kontha" so they will need to be distinguished at the township level. Are there other pro and cons? -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Broad concepts are not "ambiguous" will prove to be a useful new policy - please review and apply liberally. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've been doing a bit of work on Chris Robinson (animation scholar), and while a LOT of references are still needed it's become clear that he may be notable for alot more than his animation scholarship. Robinson is, by my count, an Ottawa-based animation historian, non-fiction author and screenwriter; film festival director; and ice hockey writer and historian. So I'm thinking to rename with the geographical disambiguation Chris Robinson (Ottawa), per Christopher Robinson (Rhode Island). However, the RI Robinson was a state politician and I worry that a geographical disambiguation like this would indeed suggest such a formal link to the region mentioned. I've tried without success to find more detailed guidelines about what should go in the parentheses, over and over what's found in WP:PRECISION. Does anyone have any suggestions or advice regarding this idea? thanks, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
While stub-sorting I came across P. erecta and cleaned it up. But I haven't come across this group of dab pages before and wonder whether I was right:
Any views on this? There's a whole family of similar pages. PamD ( talk) 08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)