Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Location of self-reference tool templates {{srt}}, {{look from}}, {{intitle}}

These templates help a lot with cutting down on non-essential WP:PARTIAL matches, but it's not really clear WHERE in the See also section they should appear. I always put them at the top because that's how I saw them first in Draw#See also about 15 years ago. But in recent times, I tend to see them (70%) as the very last thing in the See also section, below other XXX (disambiguation) and alternative-spellings. Is there a good reason to do it one way or the other, or deliberately leave it to the editor? – sgeureka ^t•c 12:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: I would put them first, using the guideline at MOS:DABSEEALSO. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

how reader navigation functions without our navigation elements set up right

Here's an interesting example I stumbled upon:

• All-time monthly page views for "Tivadar" and "Tivadar (given name)"

The village article was effectively set as a primary topic for "Tivadar" since it was created in 2006.

The name article was written in late 2019, and it immediately got some persistent traffic, which is not what I'd expect when it wasn't linked from "Tivadar" itself - a hatnote was missing throughout this period.

In early 2020, someone adds[1] an indirect link to the name by linking Theodore (name) in a Name section, and the traffic at Tivadar seems to start dropping, while the traffic at Tivadar (given name) starts rising, and since 2021 it regularly overtakes the village traffic.

All this time, the list at Theodore (name) was still linking back to the (misplaced) village article, and again there was no hatnote even.

Seems like search engines learned where our navigation was lacking and worked around the problem - at least most of the time. --Joy (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And in turn, since then the new pattern has emerged: page views with the new layout included. Given name list is at peak volume, while the traffic at the base name fell to its lowest volume ever. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Cleaning up INCDAB

I've been going through Category:Disambiguation pages with (qualified) titles and cleaned up all the straight-forward cases, but I am not sure if my "solution" for the past few incdabs were going to far (and that I should self-revert them). Specifically, I created {{anchor}}s in list sections within articles (which are neither dab pages nor lists, as mentioned in WP:INCDAB) where the former incdabs now redirect.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X_Factor_(Russian_TV_series)&redirect=no
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Brother_(French_TV_series)&oldid=1245182870
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Korea)&oldid=1245184372

The navigational/dab value is still intact, but I figure there might be problems with Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links down the line. Opinions? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Additional comment I figure, at least in the case of Ministry of foreign affairs#Lists of current ministries of foreign affairs, one could add {{setindex}} at the bottom of the list section and leave it to run-by editors to fix incoming bad links. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding confusing or astonishing readers

WP:D says in the lead:

[An important aspect to disambiguation is] ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be.

I'd like to compare that to WP:CONS, which says:

The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few editors as possible.

Using that kind of a standard, I'd say we should make it an explicit aim of disambiguation (or more generally, navigation) to make sure we confuse or astonish as few readers as possible.

This would be aimed at helping balance the two major primary topic criteria and in general reinforce the idea of double-checking whether there is a primary topic at all. So, for example,

• if there's very popular topics for a term, but they don't necessarily have long-term significance, we remind people to ponder if the average reader would be confused or astonished to see us 'push' one of these popular topics rather than present the ambiguity

Conversely,

• if there's no particularly popular topics, but there are topics of long-term significance, we remind people to ponder if the average reader would be confused or astonished to see us 'promote' one of these significant topics rather than present the ambiguity

Often times in requested move discussions I notice people can be keen to just pick a topic as primary and be done with it, regardless of whether we have a sound analysis of the big picture - whether we can actually tell how big is the advantage of the most popular/important topic over the others. Too often we're just spitballing it, deciding based on personal biases. The guideline should do more to try to counteract that.

The current guideline text covers reader confusion and astonishment in a few places, notably:

To be clear, it is not our goal to astonish our readers, and the topic that comes first to mind indeed often is suitable as the primary topic. Anne Hathaway, as one of countless examples, takes the reader to the modern-day American movie star's page, not to the article on the wife of William Shakespeare. But in no case do "what comes first to mind" or "what is astonishing" have much bearing, either positive or negative, on which topic, if any, actually is the primary topic.

I don't think this final sentence is actually helpful or leading to good navigation outcomes - leaving things open like that is not a good guideline. --Joy (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

followup to how page views can change between having and not having a primary topic or primary redirect

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 56#a change in page views between primary topic and primary redirect got archived, but I keep finding more of these examples:

• Talk:Jump drive - went from 4k views/month to almost nothing after being turned into a primary redirect
• Talk:Tuk#post-move - went from less than ~200 views/month to consistently over, spiking at ~350

--Joy (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC) --Joy (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor insists on adding references and external links to the disambiguation page Ionex

User:MolecularPilot has added references and external links to the disambiguation page Ionex, and has readded them following my removal of them. It has been explained to this editor that these are forbidden on disambiguation pages, but the editor persists. Will someone please explain this point of policy to them in a way that will cause them to conform their conduct to policy? I am beginning to fear that a topic ban may be necessary. BD2412 T 01:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Hi! I'm so sorry. What happens: I added new content with references, reporter undid them. I wanted to add the content back without references (as they are in the article) but I'm in mobile now so it was a bit tricky so I undid the reporters undo and then I removed the references. I think they might just have seen the undo notification and not checked the page history for what I did. MolecularPilot 01:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I accept this explanation, given the difficulties that sometimes arise with editing on a mobile device. BD2412 T 01:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Nutshell

Moved from user talk:The Mountain of Eden

 – The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I undid your edit to the nutshell but accidentally hit the return key before typing an edit summary! The problem is that "disambiguation" occurs in a variety of ways, not only via disambiguation pages, but also by hatnotes and "see also" links in articles. Your rewrite suggested that the topic is limited solely to disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think "see also" sections are used for disambiguation purposes. They are used for making links to related articles.
• While hatnotes can be used for disambiguation purposes, they are only good when the number of possible links is very limited (2 or 3 at the most)
• Most importantly: I don't think that the existence of hat notes invalidates the proposed text "Disambiguation pages serve as navigation guides that allow a reader to quickly find the article that best fits what they had in mind in cases when the search term could reasonably apply to more than one article."

The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not adequately provide a nutshell of what disambiguation is. This guideline page is about much more than disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. We can modify the proposed text to say "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes serve as navigation guides ..." -- The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that there was any actual problem with the current text. older ≠ wiser 21:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the existing text of the nutshell is that it starts out with "It is necessary ....". Since that is the very first sentence, the pronoun "it" is ambiguous. That's why I rewrote the nutshell. —The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there some stylistic prohibition about this on Wikipedia? It seems a fairly common imperative construction using a dummy pronoun. Is there evidence readers are finding this construction ambiguous? older ≠ wiser 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why use a dummy pronoun when it can easily be written out? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes writing it out is not an improvement. And if there is no actual problem, then what the is need to fix anything.older ≠ wiser 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing the dummy pronoun makes it less colloquial. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Still don't see that there is any problem that needs fixing.older ≠ wiser 00:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the proposed text is worse than the existing text? If so, how? —The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The question to start with is to specify precisely what is it that you are trying to "fix" aside from a possible stylistic weakness and gain consensus that this is actually a problem. Then discussions about solutions can be more fruitful. older ≠ wiser 10:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already stated what I'm trying to fix (eliminate the use of the dummy pronoun). In your opinion, it's not broke, and you are entitled to hold that opinion. So now the question is even though you don't think the existing text is broken, is the new proposed text worse than the existing text, and if it is worse, why? The Mountain of Eden (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It provides an incomplete summary of the page. And your suggestion for making it more complete would be more unwieldy and less efficient than the current text. older ≠ wiser 14:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are saying that the fix of the additional words "and hatnotes" to give "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes serve as navigation guides ..." makes the proposed text a good summary.

I fail to see your point that "Disambiguation pages and hatnotes" is any more unwieldy than the existing text of "links and disambiguation pages". The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying. You object to the current text on a stylistic basis, not on any actual deficiency. I do not think what you propose is any sort of improvement. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You have made your point abundantly clear that you don't like the proposed text. Up to now, you have failed to communicate what you think is wrong with the proposed text. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate any actual deficiency in the current text. older ≠ wiser 16:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. I have already pointed out that the existing text uses the dummy pronoun, which is too colloquial. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not an actual defect. older ≠ wiser 17:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's not a defect. So given that you cannot point to any defects in the proposed text, I will go ahead and put it into the project page. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You've already been reverted by another editor. I suggest that you first gain consensus that there is an actual problem with the current text. Then there perhaps can be some productive discussion about how to address that. older ≠ wiser 18:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with older ≠ wiser on this. The page is about disambiguation generally. In fact, the first two of three bullets start out by mentioning titling and wikilinks. There are several methods of disambiguating topics, including titles, incoming wikilinks, outgoing links not just in hatnotes, although that is most common, but also in the lead or body of articles or See Also sections. The focus of the page is not just hatnotes and dab pages. It might be possible to improve the nutshell, but the focus is not just hatnotes. Station1 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Good points. How about this proposed text?

Disambiguation helps readers quickly find the article that best fits what they had in mind in cases when the search term could reasonably apply to more than one article.

This takes takes out the details of what tools are used for disambiguation, is much shorter and cleaner than the existing nutshell (29 words for the proposed text, 33 words in the existing text), and most importantly (at least for me), takes out the dummy pronoun "it is" that gives the nutshell a colloquial tone. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is progress. I'd suggest leaving out mention of the reader's mind and also "search term", as the process isn't only about searching -- it is also about ensuring articles are named in a way to minimize ambiguity. How about:

Disambiguation helps readers quickly find a desired article in cases when a term could reasonably apply to more than one article.

older ≠ wiser 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Even better !! Only 21 words. -The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Station1 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the last word be topic rather than article? PamD 05:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's about finding the right article when multiple articles can reasonably apply to a term. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This is nice and clear and concise. I agree it applies to articles, not topics. There may be multiple articles with similar titles but different topics: that's what disambiguation is usually about. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Merging dab pages

I couldn't find any guidelines on the process for a possibly contentious disambiguation page merge. Perhaps the process for articles applies: Wikipedia:MERGEPROP?

Discussion is at Talk:Alex Ferguson (disambiguation). Commander Keane (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)