Template talk:Place name disambiguation

Guidelines on use

This article consisting of geographical locations is a disambiguation page, a list of pages that otherwise might share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

This template has just been added to the Aida (disambiguation) page, which tells users that Aida is an opera, a musical, a term used in marketing, a cruise ship line, a type of cloth, a Spanish television series, a figure in ballroom dancing, and a chain of coffeehouses. And, oh yes, a town and district in Japan.

At the same time the old {{disambig}} was deleted.

Is there a policy on this removal? To me this borders on the ridiculous. <KF> 18:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't a policy - however it's noted at Category:Disambiguation that the general category is getting rather large. However, I do note that it may be ridiculous to category a disambig as just one type - what I'm doing for ones that are both names and geography, I put both {{geodis}} and {{hndis}}. Perhaps we could develop disambig tags and subcategories for the arts etc. But might the page then get too cluttered with tags? Enochlau 01:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

why exist?

I don't understand the value in this template? How does it give more/better information than a simple disambig tag? Where is the benefit? Tedernst | talk 23:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a vigorous discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) William Allen Simpson 14:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Category

As the category is being kept, we should keep this template as well. It's a simple way to add the category. --William Allen Simpson 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Use with ambiguous place-names

I'm trying to decide if Tom's Restaurant should have geodis instead of the standard disambig. It refers readers to two different unassociated restaurants with the same name in New York City (by some really weird coincidence, I've been to both in the last month, hence my interest). Thoughts? -/- Warren 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Template's saying changed

I disagree strongly with the change as there is now no way of telling people that what they are looking at isn't a normal DAB page but a GEODIS page as this was useful for the reader and for the editors. I would like if this modification was reverted as there is no consensus IMO for such a change. Lincher 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is still a disambiguation page, and the reader can clearly see that place names are listed. —Centrx→talk • 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, the geodis tag as it now looks, doesn't lead the user to know that this DAB is a geographical one only. Lincher 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are many disambiguation pages that have place names in addition to other terms. I don't think we should have a separate template for "This is a disambiguation page that contains place names and also disambiguates between other things too, etc." or that it would be appropriate to split them into separate pages. —Centrx→talk • 19:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents on this. The way I personally was using this template was adding it to disambiguation pages that only list geographical entities, going with regular {{disambig}} if at least one entity of another kind was added. I can see how it is a less-than-ideal solution, but I also don't see how making this template essentially a copy of {{disambig}} solves anything. The geodis template is still here, true, but now it simply duplicates the disambig template, which is pretty much the same as deleting the geodis altogether and redirecting it to disambig. In my view, we should either keep the old wording or delete this template for good and use disambig for all cases. Also, why is geodis targeted, but, say {{hndis}}, is not? That template has exactly the same problems as this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the category, and there was much more agreement that the category was useful. The only substantive difference between Template:Disambig and Template:Geodis before was that it is a page "consisting of geographical locations", which is quite obvious regardless of the template. —Centrx→talk • 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A matter of taste, I guess. Besides, it is not always obvious that a page consists solely of geographic locations, especially when there are many of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of distinguishing pages based on whether they consist solely of geographical locations or not? We shouldn't have another template to say "This page consists partially of geographical locations", or"This page consists partially of geographical locations and human names, but the people were not necessarily born in those geographical locations". —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just like I said above—it's a matter of personal preference. Knowing at a glance whether the page lists only geographic locations or not is very useful in what I do in Wikipedia. Admittedly, the benefit to an average reader is much less clear-cut.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please add documentation template

{{editprotected}} I've created a documentation page at Template:Geodis/doc, based on the documentation for the similar Template:Hndis. I would appreciate it if an admin would add {{Documentation}} to Template:Geodis. While you're at it, the template also has one too many </div> tags. Here's the revised code:

<div class="notice metadata" id="disambig">
{|style="background:none"
|style="vertical-align:middle;"|[[Image:Disambig gray.svg|30px]]
|style="vertical-align:middle;"|''This [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page lists articles about distinct geographical locations with the same name. If an [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|internal link]] led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.''
|}</div><includeonly>
[[Category:Ambiguous place names]]
</includeonly><noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE. -->
</noinclude>

Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 05:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Allpages

To simplify finding pages with the same name, I'd like to link "with the same name" to Special:Allpages by changing the template to [[Special:Allpages/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|with the same name]].

For Lake County, the link would be "with the same name". -- User:Docu

Hmm, I think a switch to enable the display might be advisable. Some geographic disambiguation pages would not benefit by such a link. For example while it would be helpful on a page like Adams Township, it would not be very helpful on a page like Adams Township, Michigan, where the articles are disambiguated by inserting the county name in the middle, e.g., Adams Township, Arenac County, Michigan; Adams Township, Hillsdale County, Michigan; and Adams Township, Houghton County, Michigan. In such a case, Special:Allpages/Adams Township, Michigan would not be very helpful.

Also, perhaps [[Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] would be a better choice than Special:Allpages. Compare Special:Allpages/Lake County and Special:Prefixindex/Lake County. Special:Prefixindex produces more focused results. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a way to do the switch (e.g. by checking for a comma), that would be great, but, I don't think discrete links such as "with the same name" or the one for Whatlinkshere (on "internal link" ) are a much of a problem.

Prefixindex seems better for "Lake County", but for "Adams Township, Michigan", Allpages may be preferable as it includes links to previous pages.

Possibly the "Adams Township, Michigan" type is the exception, thus we could go with [[Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|with the same name]] -- User:Docu

I'm not sure how to gauge how exceptional pages like Adams Township, Michigan are -- I know there are quite a lot for Michigan and Minnesota and there is a similar situation for states that make a Town/Village or City distinction, as in New York and Wisconsin. For example, Albion, New York.

In any case, it probably would not hurt to have a link to Prefixindex on such pages, it just wouldn't be of much use. What I was thinking of with a switch was something like having a parameter like "allpages=y" in the template to explicitly turn on the display. But that would likely not be very helpful as it would require an enormous amount of tedious edits to enable it on the applicable pages. older ≠ wiser 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, pages that have "(disambiguation)" in the title would also not benefit much from such a link. Perhaps instead of a switch like "allpages=y", perhaps the template could use an optional parameter to specify a different starting point for the link to Prefixindex? It would have to be manually inserted, unless someone can figure out way to do it programatically. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

name of template

To be consistent with other Wikipedia usage, shouldn't this be named geodab? —EncMstr (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of Icon on template

This suggestion is purely for aesthetic purposes, and will not affect the way the template would work.

I think the greyscale disambig icon we use on these templates can be replaced with a colored variant that other Wikipedia uses. I think that can do much to liven up the template.

It does not take much effort (simply replacing the file name on template, so I think it is worthwhile to do so.

Any thoughts? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Attn:Administrator (page in need of edit)

{{editprotected}}

{{POWdis}} can be removed from the See also section. It was deleted and is now a redirect to the generic {{disambig}}. ~EdGl (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Documentation subpages like this one are not usually protected; you could have edited it yourself. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Whatlinkshere" link

{{editprotected}} Please replace [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}|internal link]] with [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page-title|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|namespace=0}} internal link], so that it shows backlinks only from the article namespace, as is the case with template:disambig and other disambiguation templates. Mxipp (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage example

The second option may now be simplified to disambig|geo as it's no longer necessary to add the category as shown. Best Wishes. Saga City (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

This template currently puts all pages on which it is placed into Category:Place name disambiguation pages. However, as this edit shows, it is not always appropriate, as more specific categories also exist. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 19:37 (UTC)

The subcategories help in seeing how many Dab pages of a certain type exist and where special dab considerations are needed the most. I can imagine the numbers of canton dabs going up massively since they exist on a lower level in several countries of Latin America. Madreselva (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Giuliopp, 8 February 2011: smaller typeface for the second line

{{edit protected}} {{dmbox | type = disambig | text = This [[Help:Disambiguation|disambiguation]] page lists articles about distinct geographical locations with the same name.<br /> <small> If an [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page-title|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|namespace=0}} internal link] led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.</small> }}

The Geodis template would look better like this, following the same typeface convention as the Disambig one, i.e. the text "If an internal link led you here etc." should go on an new line and with a smaller typeface, as it is relevant to editors only, not the general readers. Giuliopp (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay that seems to make sense.  Done, in the spirit of WP:BRD. If anyone disagrees please revert and discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit req

Can an admin add in Category:Disambiguation pages? If someone uses {{disambiguation|geo}}, that page will get added to Category:Disambiguation pages and Category:Place name disambiguation pages. (e.g., Canaan, Nova Scotia) However, currently, using {{Geodis}} will only place the category Category:Place name disambiguation pages. (e.g., Church Green) Since these template calls are essentially the same, the categorization should be as well. ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:38, 12 Elul 5771 / 09:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, but it is not normal to categorise a super-category when you are already using a sub-category. I would prefer to only use Category:Place name disambiguation pages in this case, so perhaps it would make more sense to change {{disambiguation}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense (though from a brief look at that template, I'm not sure what to change to effect such a change.) ^Avic_ennasis @ 01:00, 15 Elul 5771 / 01:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll start a thread over there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Wouldn't it be better for the two examples to link to the actual DAB/geodis pages (the constituent items can be spelt out or not - as per MOSDAB examples) Widefox; talk 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mechanicsburg is not a geodis, we need a new example - any suggestions? Widefox; talk 12:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just pick one :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2012; 13:20 (UTC)

Remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Hi. Please undo this edit. The article feedback tool is now opt-in per-article. The blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the rivers?

Should we use this template in disambiguation pages about rivers?

• Agriș River and Buda River contain {{geodis}}
• Aluniș River contains {{disambiguation}}

Which one is better? —  Ark25  (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just wondering this myself. Does it have to be a geographical location (a country, province, county, town, etc.) or will geographical features, such as rivers, lakes or mountains, do? Should we create a new template for the latter, or expand the scope of this one?

For that matter, what if the same name is both the name of one or more geographical locations and of one of more geographical features, either related or not? — Smjg (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Please update the template's code from the sandbox version, which:

• Uses |nocat= to disable {{Disambiguation page short description}}
• Propagates the value of {{{nocat}}} to the {{Dmbox}} transclusion.

These changes (borrowed from the {{Disambiguation}} template code) allow categorization to be prevented when displaying example message boxes on pages like Wikipedia:Template_messages/General, which is currently being categorized in Category:Disambiguation pages with short description. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 June 2021

Resolved

Please replace {{Disambiguation page short description}} (which gives the lengthy short description "Disambiguation page providing links to topics that could be referred to by the same search term")

with

{{short description|This name can refer to multiple places|noreplace|pagetype = Disambiguation pages}} — HTGS (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a way to get around the consensus at Template talk: Disambiguation. Is there a reason that this page should be treated differently? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the impression that strong consensus was formed there. The main rationale was against having regular short descriptions on DAB pages; the pagetype param would appear to solve that. It was also three years ago, and many short descriptions have been changed and re-changed in that time. Nobody is happy with the 95 character long DAB page SD as it is, and it seems not at all inappropriate to have a (slightly) different SD for more specific templates like this. I see this as a sort of BOLD, but I understand your caution. — HTGS (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the SD is too long, but {{Disambiguation page short description}} appears to be used in 325,000 pages. I would prefer to see that SD shortened rather than seeing people doing BOLD one-by-one end runs around it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're viewing this as some sort of… competition? I'm not trying to beat any system here. Regardless of what the DPSD ends up as, I see no downside to allowing the more specific DAB templates to have more specific SDs than the generic one. — HTGS (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed at the source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but this does not address the problem I was trying to solve. The opportunity of a template like this one is that we do not have to refer to the subject as “topics”, but we could instead say “places”. I don’t see this as controversial, but perhaps I’m better to start an RFC? — HTGS (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I see what you are saying; I got hung up on the ridiculously long description provided by the other template. The current (new) text of the generic dab short description is "Topics referred to by the same term". For consistency, perhaps this one could say "Places referred to by the same term" or "Places referred to by the same name". What do you think? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing me out. I think “name” is better, as it’s more specific and I can’t think of any reason a placename wouldn’t be a name. As I expressed on the DPSD discussion, I think starting with a self-reference (“This name…”) would be better (sadly I think I arrived too late to shift anyone’s perspective). I view SDs as accompanying listings in an index (of sorts), and with a self-ref, readers will understand quicker that it isn’t a description of a single term/place, but of a term for many. But that might be a better discussion to have elsewhere before making that kind of change. If you prefer to just keep consistency for now, I quite understand. — HTGS (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)