Template talk:Disambiguation needed

Template name

Say, could we use a shorter name, like Template:Amblink, Template:Disamb-link, or something like that? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have set up {{dn}} which can be used as a short form. Duckbill 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I use {{dn}} exclusively. I would, in fact, encourage this template be renamed to "Dn". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Lately (let's say for the last year or two), the trend with all maintenance templates has been to use descriptive names rather than cryptic abbreviations. In view of this, the template has been restored to its original title. The old abbreviation may still be used, of course, although - for the reason mentioned - I'd not recommend it. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Misbehaviour

There is a glitch with this template when used with italics - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#dn tag misbehaviour again. DuncanHill (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone fix it? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Request editprotected

{{editprotected}} Currently sorting redirects by placing redirect templates. Wish to add {{R from other template}} to {{Ambiguous link}}. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 18:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done --Amalthea 18:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't hide it

{{Editprotected}} This template is <includeonly>-hiding itself from view on its own page. No need for that, since it does not produce barfy code without parameters. Editors should not have to wade thru the docs just to find out what it looks like. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Prevent substitution

See also: User talk:Rich Farmbrough § Dn

I've made a modification in the sandbox that prevents this template from being substituted, in that it cleanly substitutes to itself as a transcluded template. I see no problems or drawbacks to this, but I've never applied this before in a live template. Two minor flaws: the parameter value "¬" is not supported (treated like an undefined parameter), and that numbered parameters are turned into explicit numbered parameters, i.e.
{{subst:dn|Foo}} → {{dn | 1=Foo | date=June 2010}}
(the date is filled in automagically if omitted).

Both flaws could largely be fixed, but paid for with slightly more boilerplate template code and using a string manipulation template. For this particular usage it's probably not worth it.

Any objections or comments? Amalthea 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A very interesting idea and well worth a trial. I didn't quite understand the bit about why the parameters had to be numbered. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Consider {{subst:dn|1= Foo=Bar}}. If the subst-to-self logic does omit the numbered parameters, it would result in {{dn|Foo=Bar}}. Always adding explicit numbered parameter will prevent that. Trying to scan the value for an equals sign with {{str find}} would usually work, but I'm not sure it's worth it. Although, whitespace handling is different in those cases; not important here I think, but maybe it's worth fixing it after all. Amalthea 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am of course full of admiration for this new code. I just fail to understand what is wrong with the old code, made up by Rich over a year ago: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates]]</includeonly>|}}? Debresser (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with my old code, it's just that this is better - it's the Nirvana preventing "foolishly substituting" for which we have striven so long, courtesy of Amalthea and WP:Safesubst. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

In {{Fix}} templates the line |substcheck=<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly> is used, which is even shorter than the code I mentioned before. Why is Amalthea's code better? Debresser (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Because if someone types {{subst:Cleanup|reason=eggs and ham|date=June 2011}} it makes the subst put {{Cleanup|reason=eggs and ham|date=June 2011}}. In other words it actually does the desubst (in effect). Rich Farmbrough, 15:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

(Drawback, sightly more maintenance, as params are added to templates, but that is fairly rare.) Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

That is great then! Can it be added to {{Fix}} using the same substcheck parameter that already exists? 16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

No, needs to be in the outer template. If they all get that treatment though, the substcheck from Fix can be removed. Amalthea 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added it here. I don't see that anything can go wrong, but would still take it slow with adding it to the other maintenance and tag templates. Amalthea 16:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If so, then please give them all "that treatment", and then remove it from {{Fix}}. Sounds great.

Btw, where do we add <!-- {{Disambiguation needed}} being --> now? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any purpose for that now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

For the begin and end remarks, you mean? Debresser (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You could use Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates to find all mainenance templates. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, that category you added yesterday to {{Fix}}, what does that do? And why do I see it on templates like documentation pages? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions about Bot

The documentation states: "If a date is not added, a bot will do so later." Could the bot also date {{dn}}, or change it to {{Disambiguation needed}} and then date it? Also, could someone change the documentation so that "bot" links to the specific bot instead of Wikipedia:BOT? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The specific bot is likely to be User:Smackbot. But since that is not a given, I used the general link to WP:Bot. As is done on all documentation pages that have this line. And yes, that specific bot can and will make the other changes you mentioned as well. Debresser (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right - I saw that Smackbot recently made a change from {{dn}} to {{disambiguation needed|date=June 2011}}. However, there are thousands of pages that still have {{dn}}, including some where I added it a month ago. I updated Wikipedia:AWB/Template redirects and Wikipedia:AWB/Dated templates so that AWB users (bots and humans) can make more of the changes. Thanks for the speedy response! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The move was made only today, and there are thousands of usages that need to be fixed now. It'll take some time. Debresser (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well now, that explains why I only stumbled across this template today. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: deprecate use of parameter 1

I would like to propose that the use of unnamed parameter 1, that is, the format {{Disambiguation needed|Article|date=MONTH YEAR}}, be deprecated, and the documentation changed to recommend only the use of the format [[Article]]{{Disambiguation needed|date=MONTH YEAR}}. Likewise, unnamed parameter 2 would also be deprecated. Use of the first format makes the use of automated tools to assist in disambiguation much more difficult, as most of these tools are searching for a bracketed link to "Article", not for a template parameter. Also, when a correct link is found, it is much easier simply to replace the offending link and delete the entire stretch between {{ and }} than to extract the link information from the template (especially in the two-parameter form), format that as a link to the correct article, then delete what is left of the template. Consistent use of the second format would make life easier for editors, without affecting readers in any way. I am not suggesting that the template itself be changed at this point, only the documentation, to discourage use of these parameters. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And in the future the template could be changed (read: simplified) as well, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support, for the reasons R'n'B has given. --Tesscass (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, keep it simple. --NSH001 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Support --GoingBatty (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since human behavior is hard to change, backwards compatability is still needed. The method implemented in Dab solver was to avoid the equal sign in the unnamed parameter match. So the regular expression is now \{\{\s*(DN_TAGS)\|([^{|}[\]<=>]+(\|[^{|}[\]=]*)?)((\|\s*[^{|}=]*\s*=[^{|}]*|)+)\}\} and is replaced with [[\2]]{{\1\4}}. — Dispenser 22:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Direct link to Dab solver

Currently this template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links which is whelming for new users. So I look at it and see most of the steps are unnecessary if Dab solver is used. For the reminding steps I've implemented an editintro feature. The resulting wikilink look like [[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&editintro=Template:Disambiguation needed/editintro]]. Since this is unlike the reset of the fix template, I suggest adding a pencil next to the link. — Dispenser 23:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is clever. I've put a little test of this on Go Down Moses so that others can see. It is a little untuitive to be taken straight to an external tool. Perhaps we could retain the current link and do something like ^{[disambiguation needed - fix!]} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Template:Disambiguation needed/editintro. Here's an example of what it with a pencil icon ^{[disambiguation needed ]}. — Dispenser 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest this. I would have proposed ^{[disambiguation needed, fix]} however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We know from User:WildBot/msg that users overlook small links, some might suggest swapping <sup> with <big> so people can't miss it. The aim of editintro the most of same information, but providing an easier to use editing interface. — Dispenser 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That message was mostly ignored because it was placed on the talk page. If you miss it on your watchlist ('cause it's a bot edit), chances are most people won't ever see it. "Bigging" the message will introduce horrible size discrepancy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

1) WildBot tagged without marking them as bot edits. 2) Responses had a sharp drop off two days after tagging. 3) The usage of Dab solver was measured by looking at RelatedChanges and picking out the distinctive edit summary. 4) The CSS line-height: property can be adjusted so surrounding text is unaffected, but we probably don't want it anyway. 5) The Usability Team studies and Wikia both noted the textural edit links are not effective and have redesigned them as "Call to action" buttons. — Dispenser 22:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Its been a month without discussion so I'm filling the editprotection request to copy the sandbox to the main template and get things moving again. The most instructive parts of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing links were added to Template:Disambiguation needed/editintro, making a link to it a bit pointless. A tracking tag was added which can help us measure click, conversion rates, etc. Looking forward, we may want to investigate using {{button}} as something that's eye-catching to recruit newbies. — Dispenser 02:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Headbomb and I commented above that a separate "fix" link would be better. But you don't seem to have taken these on board. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Fixing links" page is not useful enough for the typical reader. And while my edit intro which is derived from it, we'll fix it in time with the feedback provided by the tracking mechanism. Also, I feel that the click area of "fix" is too small for its importance and the icon would distinguish it from regular links. I'd be alright to change it to ^{disambiguation needed — fix} (all one line). Incidentally, {{dead link}} behaves similarly when using url=. — Dispenser 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to leave this languishing, but you don't have a consensus. I've pinged headbomb who is the only other person who commented above. If he's okay with your suggestion then I'll deploy it. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox version's good. What's the problem with it? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there is no problem, we can implement. I don't think we need to link to the image file? I've removed this in the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be something that differentiates this link from the regular "wall of text" links found with other fix tags. I'm testing a call-to-action button approach, but some editor dislike the design and these seems to some workflow issues. — Dispenser 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Per your revert, I think that is a free image - why does it need attribution? Otherwise, I think we need to find a free image so that a link is not needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA licenses require attribution. On Wikipedia we do this by linking to the image description page. If you believe the image constitutes simple geometric shapes and thus lacks creativity, you can change the license to public domain (argument why fonts aren't copyrighted). After which we can unlink it. — Dispenser 21:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've created a new PD image, File:Tiny pencil.gif, if anyone wants to use it. Could be made a bit longer if needed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked User:Jorm to re-license the pencil as CC0 which he did. The simple blue design fits with the external link icon style. — Dispenser 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I cancelled out the "{{editprotected}}" - clearly it's not a simple uncontroversial edit, discussion is ongoing, and there's plenty of folks here who can edit it; if you need a specific edit on the protected page - with consensus - please re-request. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost two weeks have past with no more discussion. Re-enabling {{editprotected}}. — Dispenser 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I have implemented the sandbox code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputed correct target?

It seems to me there ought to be a template to use for links that don't point to a disambiguation page, in order to indicate that it might not point to the correct article.

An example would be a link to a person's name, but the editor who added the link didn't check whether there is more than one person with that name. In some cases there may be no disambiguation page for the name, but the possibility that the linked-to page actually is the intended person cannot be ruled out. There also may or may not be an article for the person who is actually intended.

Is there an accepted way of dealing with this situation, or should we create a new template by which to tag such links? — Smjg (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep link, remove pencil

At Template:Disambiguation needed/sandbox I have standardized this template in accord with other WT:INLINE#Standardizations. The pencil icon was removed as no other inline template uses icons, its presence interferes with the link hoverbox, and its presence is confusing whether or not the user identifies it as a pencil. Instead, I kept the dab solver link and added a dab project policy link, similar to other 2-link inline templates like "dubious - discuss". Discussion above showed only one editor strongly favoring the pencil icon, but amenable to the word "fix" instead, with two other editors recognizing the standardization needs for language like "fix", so this change has the presumption of former consensus. Please consider or comment on the recommendation to replace this template with the current draft at the sandbox. (Incidentally, I'm not sure of why this page is still full-protected unlike most other inlines; no guidance at WP:HRT requires that, and semiprotection may be better.) JJB 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you cloned all of {{fix}} in order to add features it already supports (such as a different link title and an additional link). I've modified the sandbox to use text, link-title, post-text and so on, which gives the same effect without reinventing anything. If that's sufficient I'll sync. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: that was apparently changed with this edit. Are those concerns still applicable here? Can they be fixed elsewhere, rather than hacked around here? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I don't know what the concerns amount to in the edit summary you linked. I am comfortable with sync to either your version or mine. The editor who closed {{fix}} may have a comment but it appears those concerns were not recognized by anyone else. JJB 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Dispenser to comment here. Also I note that the pencil was removed yesterday by User:Kaldari, but I don't know whether it was because of this discussion or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've actually read, WP:ICON is really abused. The rational for the icon is: It an external link (so already has an icon); Indicates to users will be entering an online editor and not some a project page; Avoid using unsupported unicode symbols (e.g. ✎) and still unobtrusive. BTW, the hoverbox interferes could be fixed including the image in the span wrap. — Dispenser 23:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've disabled the request because I am not sure if anything else is needed here. If there is consensus to re-add the pencil, please reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2014

Link still points to toolserver.org, which was shut down. Please change {{fullurl:tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py|page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&editintro=Template:Disambiguation_needed/editintro&client=Template:Dn}} to http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page={{FULLPAGENAME}}&commonfixes=on (or if you know a better way to form the link, change it to that). ekips39 04:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should change tools: to point somewhere else. But I guess youre saying that this one tool moved to a private webhost, so tools: wouldnt be appropriate for this even if tools: pointed to wmflabs? —Soap— 05:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should--that's a good point. You are correct, however, that in this case we still need to change the link. Also, if all tools: links were changed to point to wmflabs, many would still be broken because the URLs changed somewhat when they were transferred over. For example, tools:~snottywong/adminscore.html moved to toollabs:jackbot/snottywong/adminscore.html. ekips39 05:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

{{FULLPAGENAMEE}} with an extra E at the end is needed to encode characters for url's. At Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#What redirects links here I suggested http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py?page={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&editintro=Template:Disambiguation_needed/editintro&client=Template:Dn to be similar to the old url. editintro=Template:Disambiguation_needed/editintro displays Template:Disambiguation needed/editintro at the top. I don't know whether client=Template:Dn does something. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

dispenser.homenet.org doesn't work, why isn't it pointed here ? Like seriously, there's a needed, lets goto the needed page for information ? homenet, toolserver ? Dave Rave (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed change

I propose changing the text displayed by this template from "Disambiguation needed" to "Ambiguous link." Saying something is ambiguous is clearer and more straightforward than saying it "needs disambiguation". We don't tell our kids that their rooms need to be un-dirtied. Please comment. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. Readers see this - so clarity is preferable to Wikipedia jargon. DexDor ^(talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose 1. The Wikipedia standard is to say what is missing, like {{Citation needed}} or {{Page needed}}, for example. 2. The category is also called Category:Articles with links needing disambiguation. We can't make a localized change to the template without also changing the category and all of the maintenance templates on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Re 1: See {{Ambiguous}}. Re 2: This discussion is about changing what is shown in the article text - we could also change the category name. DexDor ^(talk) 23:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Re 1: So use {{Ambiguous}}! Re 2. Obviously. If there would be consensus for this. Which I advice against, for the stated reasons. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure you understood my point so I'll try explaining again. (1) displaying "[ambiguous link]" (when there's a link that's ambiguous - i.e. it's a link to a dab page) would be entirely consistent with displaying "[ambiguous]" (where there's a statement that's ambiguous) or "[dead link]" (see Template:Dead link). (2) Why do you think changing this template would require "changing ... all of the maintenance templates on Wikipedia"? (there are thousands of maintenance templates.) DexDor ^(talk) 07:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously you don't understand my point. I did get yours, by the way. The proposal makes this template so similar to {{Ambiguous}}, that I propose that those who are in favor of it, use that template instead and leave this template be. 2. There are hundreds, not thousands, of maintenance template on Wikipedia, and the standard is "that need" or "in need of" or "needing". It is my opinion that this localized discussion is not enough to reach any decisions on changing one of them and make it come out of the fold, so to speak. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(1) "use that template instead" indicates that you still don't get the distinction between the text being ambiguous and the link being ambiguous. (2) Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates (as of today) contains over 9,000 templates (one subcategory alone contains over 26,000 pages). How are you counting maintenance templates? (although, as you haven't shown one example of another template that you think would need to also be changed, it's probably irrelevant how many maintenance templates there are). DexDor ^(talk) 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your objections, to me, both appear to be examples of that "foolish consistency" of which Emerson spoke. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument. Frankly, I don't think we need to use confusing or overly technical language in article text just to be consistent with a category name, or to be consistent with other kinds of cleanup templates that are doing different things. "Citation needed" is clear and to the point; "disambiguation needed" isn't, and can be said more succinctly. And {{ambiguous}} isn't an ideal substitute, since it is referring to ambiguous text, not an ambiguous link. And I don't understand your last statement, that some kind of global RFC is required to change the language of a single cleanup template; no one is proposing to make any kind of global change in the standards for such templates. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

When building an encyclopedia, consistency is an absolute must. Eroding the standard in this case, can be used as a precedent, and should be discussed in a broader forum. Especially in this case, where the formula has been "disambiguation needed" since the creation of this template in 2006, broad consensus would be needed to change this. Debresser (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The proposed change would make the text that this template puts into the article text more consistent with similar templates (e.g. ambiguous and dead link). But the main point (IMO) is clarity for Wikipedia readers and casual editors who are not familiar with the term "disambiguation" (i.e. are not aware that it's our jargon for fixing ambiguous links). The OP advertised this at WT:WPDIS and you can neutrally advertise it at other relevant places if you so wish. DexDor ^(talk) 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

"disambiguation" is a normal word, found in all dictionaries in precisely the sense it is being used on Wikipedia as well. You are trying to push through your likes with all kinds of non-arguments, and it shows. Debresser (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A good dictionary contains thousands of words that even well-educated English-speakers can't all be expected to know. "Disambiguation" isn't a word I've ever heard used at home/work etc (except perhaps myself re Wikipedia) - have you? Even Wiktionary just defines it as "The removal of ambiguity" (making no distinction between text ambiguity and link ambiguity). DexDor ^(talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"ambiguous" is a word that is used, and it is not hard to understand the meaning of "to disambiguate" on that basis. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. While "disambiguation" is a strange word, "ambiguous link" is not helpful for someone who has not encountered the situation before. The good thing about disambiguation is that it tells the reader it is a technical issue they can skip over, while they might waste time trying to extract some meaning from ambiguous link. A compromise might be to play with the text, or the mouseover popup text. Following are some possibilities. The first is the current wording; the second changes the mouseover text; the third has two links, one on each word.

  Example

  Example

  Example

  I don't think a change is needed, but the second option is fine, and the third seems overkill but might work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure I'm with you. "Ambiguous link" lacks incitement. It looks like a mere statement, it doesn't tell people they should do something. "Disambiguation needed", in this respect, is much clearer and alerts readers they might want to look into it. --Midas02 (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a subtle difference between these templates that should not be lost. When WP speaks of "disambiguation" we mean between subjects/topics, i.e. something that has or could have an article or at least a section. When I write "She was attacked by a cat in Africa", does it mean a domestic cat, of which Africa has many but which aren't know for attacking people, or does it mean one of the many wild Category:Felids of Africa for which the continent is famous? That's a disambiguation issue. While WP did not invent the word, it is very much a term of art here, with a specific implication. By contrast, "ambiguous" is much broader. If I write "Smith collapsed on 14th Street and was rushed to an emergency room", does that mean while walking along the street on the sidewalk, or while literally standing in the middle of the road? The construction "on [the/a/that] street", even "in [the/a/that] street" can have different meanings depending on context and English dialect. That's an ambiguous wording matter, not a WP disambiguation matter. (That said, I would probably use {{Clarify}} for that; I might have thought a bit harder and come up with a different example for {{Ambiguous}}, but got side tracked into creating the category I just linked to, which seemed more productive). I also agree that "disambiguation needed" is a call to action, not simply an observation. There is something to be said for the fact that word isn't familiar to everyone, but then again few people ever resolve WP-style disambiguation problems other than people already familiar with our article titling system, so it's perhaps an illusory issue; all those people know what "disambiguation" means and what it means here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I loathe the clunky word "disambiguation". However, I've been unable to think of anything better. One problem is that the word "ambiguous" is itself - well - ambiguous.

Some editors sort out problems they've unwittingly created, either in response to a {{dn}} tag or to a nastygram from User:DPL bot. For them, I doubt whether the wording of the tag or message matters at all ("OK, I see the problem, I'll solve it"). I've also had success a couple of times by posting on a WikiProject page, asking for help from experts. My bugbear is people who remove {{dn}} tags because "they make my page look ugly". I doubt whether any form of wording would prevent that. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition of a parameter for topic areas.

I propose to have a parameter added so that a topic can be added, with tags including the topic also added to a category for fixes needed within that topic. For example, so that {{disambiguation needed|topic=math}} would add the page to a Category:Articles with math terms needing disambiguation. The parameter would need to be set up so that a missing or nonsense term would have no effect. Likely categories would include math, physics, anatomy, placenames (possibly further divided into placenames in likely countries like the U.S., France, Poland, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Japan, etc.), and, of course footballers. If anyone has the template skills to do this, let me know. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Especially for those specialist areas which leave WP:DPL generalists scratching their heads, such as maths and anatomy. There are {{dn}} tags relating to those back to 2012 which I have no idea how to resolve, but which a specialist might be able to solve at sight.

I would suggest keeping the effective parameters (i.e. those which actually populate a category) for |topic= held down to a small number. In particular, to those where non-WP:DPL editors might actually join in if notified about the category on a Wikipedia:WikiProject page, and do something about the ambiguous links. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Seems like a good idea, and I can't see any downside, as long as the template is set up so that only a discrete set of "topic" values result in populating a category. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Isn't it possible to get a list of dn-tagged articles by WikiProject? – Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. The dabsolver allows you to get a list of pages with links sorted by the WikiProject that the article is associated with, but not the link itself. Thus, if an article on a particular kind of sparrow were to indicate that it was found in an ambiguously linked city in Poland, the article would show up in the list of articles about animals needing disambiguation, rather than a list of place names in Poland needing disambiguation. The aim of this proposed parameter is to group together the links themselves by the area of expertise needed to fix them. Of course, in certain cases these areas can be highly coincidental. Most mathematical topic disambiguation links occur in mathematics articles, for example. bd2412 T 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Well it doesn't list dn links yet [1]. — Dispenser 17:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Dispenser: So if we are able to tag links by the area of expertise needed to address the link, then it would be fairly easy for Dabsolver to offer a collection of links with that particular tag, yes? bd2412 T 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Well you wouldn't need to because you have the category view, but yes. Also, we have ~1,200 WikiProjects so the drop down is huge. That could be reduced to where banners are listed on 2+ links, until you consider that redlinks have no WikiProject banners. — Dispenser 18:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
          • I think we are definitely going to focus on only a handful of the most common issues. bd2412 T 23:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Comment. Agreeing with User:BD2412, any topic= parameters should be tightly-defined - to areas where WP:DPL (a) sees multiple problems, and where (b) specialist editors might be able and willing to solve them. Two of my other bugbears are mononymic Indian actors/actresses/etc., and mononymic footballers (especially Brazilian ones). I am not convinced that topic= would persuade many/any editors to address those. I would settle, for starters, to try to get those anatomy, genetics, and maths links to DAB pages off the WP:DPL books. Narky Blert (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe mark them by Wikiproject? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Doc James, that is a very reasonable suggestion, since we will ultimately want to ask Wikiproject experts to address sticky dabs identified as being in their area. Ultimately, I would like to see some kind of automated monthly notification of any links needing attention from a specific project. bd2412 T 00:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I've changed my mind, and no longer think that this good idea is needed. I'm currently on my third run through Disambiguation pages with links (now containing 11k links rather than 40k when I first looked at it; props to all WP:DPL regulars for that). I have asked several relevant WikiProjects for assistance on specific problems; and every time, the responses have been both speedy and useful; I will continue to ask. I single out in particular WP:Classics and WP:Mathematics for praise; but that's only because I haven't yet asked for help on anatomical or genetics articles. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Link to dab solver appears dead

Has the link been moved or replaced so it can be appropriately repaired in this template? It appears to be affecting the DAB notification talk message template as well. —RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 22:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@RedSoxFan274: try this link [2]. Plantdrew (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That one works perfectly . Thanks! EDIT: Now somebody needs to edit it and insert that link because I don't have clearance. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 03:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A selfish but minor request

Equate |Date= to |date=.

Why selfish? I have a sticking shift key, and it's a pain to have to check and sometimes to correct the field after posting. Narky Blert (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)