Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Acceptable content on disambiguation pages?

Am I correct in assuming that the only things which really belong on disambiguation pages are links to wikipedia (or possibly other wikimedia) articles? I have seen external links, dictionary definitions, and links to articles which don't actually exist. Am I correct in simply removing all these? Including redlinked articles? --Xyzzyplugh 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of the various rules is basically Yes, but then sometimes it seems that a short definition of a word is a nice introductory sentence for the list that follows. As for redlinks, I think if the entry is notable and deserves an article, it's very likely that some associated topic has an article, and then a blue link to that article should be inserted along with the entry, and then I think it's okay to keep the redlink, pending creation of an expected article on the subject. There are counter-arguments for keeping a solo redlink, such as when putting a red link in a disambig page helps a user immediately who is looking for a subject with no wiki article as yet. In that case, the red link serves a purpose, but it only makes sense if the subject is notable enough for someone to be looking for it, and thus notable enough to eventually receive an article, and it's unlikely you can't think of something in the description that already has a wiki article to link to (eg, let's say there was no article on the book Jaws, then you could redlink the title, but the description could say "a novel by Peter Benchley", and "Peter Benchley" could be bluelinked). However, I think it's important to keep the number of blue links to one per entry. There are some users who spend quite a bit of time on disambig pages, and you could also ask them directly. Try User talk:CatherineMunro or User talk:Natalya. -- Slowmover 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've occasionally added a "See also" section to a disambiguation page, for such things as alternate spellings of a name. (The viewer might not have entered the spelling of the name correctly, for example.) — RJH (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Slowmover has covered it pretty well. Unless there is an article about them, dictionary definitions should not be there, as we can link to Wiktionary instead. There should definitly not be external links. Redlinks are fine as long as it seems possible that an article could at some point be written on the subject. Slowmover is correct in saying that it's good to be able to have a blue link in some section of the description of the red link (and yes, there should only be one). As was also mentioned, a See also section can be useful, when appropriate. For complete information on the topic, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), which covers what should and shouldn't be on disambiguation pages, and how it should be layed out. -- Natalya 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

disabig pages where all but one entry only exist in other languages

Vum was forerly a redirect to Victoria University of Manchester. Someone changed it into a disambig but didn't provide an english article for the other entry only a red link here and a link to nl. Should this be reverted and should we add something to the policy to make this clear? Plugwash 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears appropriate to be changed back. We could add something into the policy, but it doesn't seem like a very common occurance, so it might not be necessary. -- Natalya 00:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of an abbreviation

The page "ELO" used to be a disambiguation page [1], however, AmbigDexter claims that these are false entries and has redirected "ELO" to the Electric Light Orchestra page. While I agree that ELO is probably most commonly used to refer to the band, I think that some of the other entries on the previous disambig page (Elo rating system and Electronic Literature Organization) can claim as much use of "ELO" as can Electric Light Orchestra. Should "ELO" be a disambiguation page, or do those other entries not count? -albrozdude 20:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Most certainly the Elo DAB page should be retained. As a chess player I can confirm that 'Elo' is a standard search term. Directing to the band would cause annoyance, make navigation harder and reduce the usefulness of the encyclopaedia. Elo is also used in world football. There is no reason to give overwhelming precedence to the band. Disambiguation guidelines should be applied with common sense and with regard to the benefit to the Project. Wikilawyering wastes valuable time and does not help the Project. BlueValour 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page should certainly exist. If Electric Light Orchestra is agreed upon as the primary topic (though it does not seem to make much sense for that to happen), it could function similiarly as to how ETA and ETA (disambiguation) do. However, it seems like it would be more appropriate to have the disambiguation page at ELO. -- Natalya 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Camera (disambiguation)

Could I ask someone to look in on camera. There is an entry about in camera there that I would be inclined just to remove. I am quite certain that it is factually incorrect (camera in this sense is Latin, not archaic English, and it is not quite correctly defined), and I could go on, but I already have, at Talk:Camera (disambiguation)#private council. But clearly there are not enough people looking at that page to get a consensus to remove it. Could someone please drop by? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you be bold. Camera is Latin, not English, meaning simply "chamber". In camera therefore simply means "in a chamber", as opposed to in court. Any dictionary with etymologies, such as dictionary.com, can tell you this. In fact, so can the in camera article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much exactly what I said on the talk page when I came at this the first time, but since I'd been reverted once, I figured it was better to bring in a third party than to play "he says, she says". - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Bosley Disambiguation request

Could someone whip up a disambiguation for Bosley? There are 3 ppl and one town associated with it, and i think there should be a disambiguation.

Since the main Bosley is a place, and all the other Bosleys are people, I've added a link to List of people by name: Bos, instead. CarolGray 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll

As the state route naming conventions poll is in many respects a debate about how to do disambiguation, it belatedly occurs to me I should mention it here. (Part 1 is almost concluded, but this is bound to rumble on when by-state specifics are discussed next. Alai 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Out of date examples

The article Titan rocket now redirects to Titan (rocket family), which sort of ruins the point of citing it. Similarly, seal (mammal) now redirects to Pinniped, inflation (economics) now redirects to Inflation, and so on. False examples somewhat undermine the authority of the guideline. Deco 08:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Top links

I notice over the past few months the guidelines on "top links" has changed. After a brief look through the talk page archives I can not see any discussion as to the changes. Having investigated when and how the change was made I get the impression it may have been made by somebody who didn't realise they were changing the guidelines.

The change was made by User:William Allen Simpson on the 4th of February with the edit summary "use actual templates to reflect wording changes".

This changed the guideline from

• a hatnote should be used on an article entitled "Quaoar" to one entitled "Quaoar (deity)"

to

• a hatnote should be used on an article entitled "50000 Quaoar" to one entitled "Quaoar (deity)", and vice-versa

the change presumably being made because of a page move, but having the additional affect of changing the meaning of the guideline.

Looking through the talk archives, AFAICT the issue of whether to disambiguate on articles with already disambiguated names has come up four five times (most recently here?) and never gotten anywhere. Additionally, the new wording contradicts Wikipedia:Hatnotes.

I am therefore changing the example and guidelines back to the originals, unless and until there is a proper discussion and concesus to change the policy. My example may not be the best available, so if anybody can come up with anything better... Joe D (t) 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

dl usage

The use of <dl> in these templates seems incorrect. It looks like it's being used just for the indentation it usually has by default. This is not a good reason to use dl. :p ¦ Reisio 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? Which templates are you refering to? I'm not aware that any of the dab templates use dl. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

topic (disambiguation)

As I understand it, a topic page might potentially qualify as a Primary Topic page, upon which a topic (disambiguation) page might be listed, at the top, as in See: topic (disambiguation). Is there a process by which the community might agree that such a page be agreeably defined?

My motivation is there are some terms in common use, much like the Time page which benefit from the expository style which would be appropriate for a Primary Topic page, but not a Disambiguation page, such as Time (disambiguation), which adheres to the standards of the WikiProject. --Ancheta Wis 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you wrote, and I'll guess I'm not alone in that. That might be why no one has responded in a week. Could you try saying this a different way? - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Combined otheruses templates

I felt that there exist a lot of otheruses templease that have minor differences. My new template {{otheruse}} (could be moved to better spot if necissary) could obsolete {{otheruses}}, {{otheruses1}}, {{this}}, {{otheruses2}}, {{otheruses4}}, {{two other uses}}, {{for}}, {{for1}} and {{for2}}. _→AzaToth 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What are the differences? —Centrx→talk • 15:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the question I asked my self, why so many different templates for the same thing, only some parameters where different. _→AzaToth 17:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made a simple test case, using the examples on the {{otheruses template}} page, see Template:Otheruse/testcase _→AzaToth 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Where have all the nice tridents gone to?

This really looks damn "empty" now. For example: Frank Beard. (<-the golfer) [ ] This article is about the golfer. For .... I could swear that the [ ] part still contained a trident symbol not long ago. Which weirdo has removed it? -andy 80.129.105.81 13:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's only in pages that use {{Disambig}}. —Centrx→talk • 18:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! So what about doing *ALL* disambiguations with the trident and not doing one the one way, the other a different way? I see no point in having umpteen types of disambiguation styles. Example Plant. Looks as if there's something missing without the trident symbol. So should we now fix 100,000 articles or what? No, that must be standardized. -andy 80.129.122.8 05:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the notes that are on articles that point a user to a disambiguation pages, they are supposed to be non-intrusive; the vast majority of readers want to read that article not go somewhere else. In the past, there was not a trident on any of them. —Centrx→talk • 06:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambig forks

Recently, the page Slade (surname) has been split of from the page Slade (disambiguation), thereby making it one click further away from the reader. It contains no extra info (and shouild not do so either, Wikipedia is not a site for the explanation of names). I could understand this split if the disambig page had been very long, but in this case, I see no use for it (a subsection would do the trick just fine). Is there any guideline or discussion on this kind of forks of disambig pages? I would personally merge the Slade (surname) page back to the original disambig page, but would like some extra input first. Fram 11:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion of this sort of thing at Manual of Style, especially under the sections Hndis needs its own Manual and See also. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: it looks like most people there thought it better to have separate surname disambig pages, although I still fail to see the benefit (except for very long disambig pages). I'll leave it as it is now, but I'll continue making unified disambig pages for most terms I come across if needed. Fram 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Placement of templates

I replaced disambiguation text at Jericho (TV series) with a template ({{Otheruses4}}) placed at the very top of the article, but this was quickly put further down in the article, seemingly because the template at the top creates unneeded whitespace. From what I can see placing the template at the top makes sense, for several reasons given at Wikipedia:Hatnotes, but that page seems to be only kept for historical interest. Therefore I would like to know if there are any guidelines on where to put DAB templates. The reasons stated at Hatnotes, about not mixing meta text with article content, seem to make sense to me, but should they be followed after the discontinuation of the project? Incidentally, I feel that the "unneeded whitespace" is good as it results in all actual article text starting at the same height.) – Dagnabit 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You could also type it in rather than use the template if the only complaint is the whitespace. —Centrx→talk • 02:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

America

The example given for redirects to disambiguation pages is America (disambiguation), which is just a redirect back to America, the real disambig page. Is this a mistake or am I missing something? We've had this discussion at Use of the word American, when someone changed the direct link to America to a link to America (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example that helps distinguish accidental links to the disambiguation page from intentional ones. The theory is that links to a disambiguation page should, in general, be disambiguated. Many editors routinely examine "What links here" for disambiguation pages to fix any links (especially so for pages that are frequently mislinked--such as America). Deliberately linking to the form of the page with "(disambiguation)" indicates that the link does not need to be "fixed". older ≠ wiser 22:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Different from/different than

I believe in the United States "different than" is quite commonly used, but in British English "different than" is incorrect (according to Ernest Gowers The Complete Plain Words). Because of American and British English differences#Different prepositions in certain contexts, I think we should use "different from". CarolGray 17:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If it were reworded to say "different from" or "different than", I'd agree. But the "rule" or guidline for preferring "different from" doesn't apply to "a different x than y". The "than" there is a different function word. -- JHunterJ 17:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it to avoid the issue, but I can't help wondering it you're applying a different standard from I am... :-) -- JHunterJ 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Okay, I concede. CarolGray 13:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UNDAB

There is a new proposal at Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation. Please can a few people comment on it. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Quality assessment

Is there any rating system for disambiguation pages? I have noticed that biographies have quality scales. Do disambiguation pages have such scales. If so, I am wondering how Breaking (disambiguation) rates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

I'm not aware of a rating system, other than the {{disambig-cleanup}} template. Looks like Breaking could use it; looks like a lot of cruft has become attached to it... -- JHunterJ 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Plurals

Okay. Hey. Forgive me if this comment is misplaced. Name's Ace. I've read and followed an apparent policy that plurals need to either link to the singular article title, or a disambiguation page. Now, on the other hand, this may not be policy and just an "unwritten rule". If the latter case is in effect, as it seems to be, I'd like to recommend this policy be made official, citeable and applied throughout the encyclopedia. The mean issue comes back to disambiguation, not naming conventions or redirects. "Pixies" was once the title of the article now known as "Pixies (band)". The users, to put it mildly, are/were uneducated and/or unrealistic in matters of disambiguation. Similar case at what is now "Eels (band)" and several other " (band)" articles, actually. Users had/have the misguided belief that listing an article at a title for the plural of a common word or phrase is okay. Anyway, that's actually kind of moot. The big issue is plurals. "Eels", the word, can refer to the species,—and other varieties thereof—the band and many other uses. Thus, the redirect goes to the disambiguation page, not any of the articles. I first saw this method being implimented to with the redirect "heroes". It was redirected from hero, to Hero (disambiguation) so that readers could find Heroes (TV series) with more ease. No objections, to my knowledge, with the heroes edit and many objections due to...well...ignorance, with the eels disambiguation. Now, however, I have come across a problem. The redirect Pixies is being fought over. Fans of Pixies (band) believe that article to be the most notible use. They've even neglected to remove a move petition after an anministrator—also a fan and a bit of a jerk—moved the article to the current title. (It was at The Pixies for a time.) Anyway, the redirect of [[[Pixies]] could obviously refer to both Pixie and Pixies (band). And, let's face it, only the band, and, by fanatical devotion to them, some of the users, say simply "Pixies". They're arguably better known as the Pixies, like Joker (comics) as "The Joker. Also moot, however. The issue is, basically, this: I need a ruling. I cannot act per an unofficial practice. So...ahem...Help! :( ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of this is how we deal with "The" in titles; unless "The Pixies" is clear usage, as "The Joker" is, we should avoid it, because editors and readers will expect us to follow our usual rules. However, this page is a guideline, by its nature unofficial; take fanboy disruptive editing to an admin. JCScaliger 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, here or elsewhere, but what is the convention regarding plurals and "The title"? ENeville 02:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a disambiguation guideline for them, just the WP:NAME guidelines for article titles. Sometimes it makes sense to have separate dabs for plurals and singulars (for instance, when the singular is a 3CC and the plural is a 4CC), and sometimes for "title" and "The title", but sometimes (especially if both lists are short and don't warrant different footers) they can/should be lumped together. If lumped, the dab title should be singular and without the "The", I think. If separate, each dab should link to the other as a "See also". -- JHunterJ 02:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some links to dab pages are warranted

Consider a link to Boer Wars, like this one, taken out by a bot. If you want to link to both of them, this is the natual way to do it. An artificial construct like [[First Boer War|Boer]] [[Second Boer War|War]] seems unhelpful to the reader, and is not always possible. Comments? JCScaliger 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it should be a (short) article about the Boer Wars, with blurbs about each pointing to the main article, and should not be a disambig at all. -- JHunterJ 11:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple disambiguation?

Another editor and I are having a difference of opinion over the way to write toplinks, due to an ambiguity in these guidelines.

The problem revolves around the Muse article which describes "greek goddesses", however in addition to this, there is the well known band Muse (band). Further to this, there are a total of 19 links on the Muse (disambiguation) page (5 of which are redlinks).

I would argue that the guidelines suggest that only the dab link should go on the top of the page; specifically "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page." (my bolding).

The other editor would argue that the band is notable enough that the band link should appear at the top in addition to the dab link. This is justified because the guidelines do not explicitly prohibit this, and why else would there exist a template for it.

I would counter this by saying that first it is implied that only the dab link should appear, and second that we would open a whole can of worms if we allow some disambiguation in articles as there would be a lot of argument about what is notable, and that it defeats the object of dab pages, as it could cause article pages to be cluttered.

In any case, I would appreciate input on clarifying this, and have the following two proposals to resolve this:-

• Proposal 1 Change the wording to "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. Do not add any other disambiguation links."

• Proposal 2 Change the wording to "Where there are several articles to be disambiguated from each other, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there are several notable uses, additionally, provide links to the notable articles.

Discuss. Guinness 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of either guideline. In some cases (such as a revert-war over where a basename should point), two usages might both overshadow all others (the ship and the James Cameron film Titanic is the one I interacted with most recently). I don't think the band Muse reaches this same overshadowing. So I'd use each resolution you propose, one for Titanic and the other for Muse. -- JHunterJ 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Which demonstrates my point about arguing about what is and isn't notable nicely, hence I favour proposal 1 to remove the potential for such arguments. Guinness 22:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the other editor involved and I have to say that while I don't agree with Proposal 1, I don't necessarily support the wording in Proposal 2 to allow adding several links to other articles. In the case of Cold fusion, which I brought up in the preceding discussion, a link is also provided to ColdFusion at the top. What if a new article about a third (less common) use of "cold fusion" were created and established a need for a Cold fusion (disambiguation) page. Would -- or should -- this mandate removal of the ColdFusion link from the Cold fusion article, even though it is extremely notable? I would say certainly not - the italic text should provide a path to both ColdFusion (since it's very possible the user was looking for that topic) and a link to Cold fusion (disambiguation) for other uses. If done with the template ({{Two other uses}}), it looks consistent and provides additional help to the reader without really taking anything away from the article. Allowing a disambiguation link such as this is a good thing. Whether Muse is notable enough for a case like this is a different discussion. -- Renesis (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as the case of exactly 2 other uses, I think it's borderline, and a 2 entry dab page might be overkill in such a case. However, in this case, there are 18 other uses. What would we do if there were let's say 7 Muses as notable as ColdFusion. We could end up with a nasty mess. As for the exact wording of proposal 2, I'm not entirely happy with it myself, but provided it as a counter-example to proposal 1. I'd be more than happy for someone to proffer a better way of putting it (in fact, I was hoping to provoke this by this discussion), although again, I think it is difficult to define exactly what should or shouldn't be included in a way which would prevent disagreements, and risk cluttering toplinks with alternate uses. (Actually, if the consensus were to go with Proposal 2 or similiar, I might argue that Muse (band) are notable enough, however it is moot because I really think that having the dab link alone is the way to go) Guinness 00:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If situations like this arise, they should certainly not be written into the disambiguation guidelines (or, as was said, a can of worms would be opened). If there is such a disagreement about what dab links to include at the top of the page, that seems like a fine indicator that perhaps there is no primary topic, and the disambiguation page should be located at the article name itself. -- Natalya 16:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Valley

This page has one part where comprehensively describes an area of New York. Can someone sort this out? Also, can they fix any other problems on this disambig page? I just think this would be generally useful for anyone visiting that page. Simply south 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary Topic

So, I've always understood the idea of a "primary topic" in the following light. There are many things called London, so the term is theoretically ambiguous, and would need disambiguation. However, because the capital of the United Kingdom is by such a wide margin the most prominent usage of the term "London," the article on the city in England can be located at London without any difficulty, because it is the primary topic.

Now, this all works in the absence of any specific naming conventions for the topic at hand. Sometimes a naming convention can be agreed on whereby a primary topic does have a disambiguated title, for whatever reason.

One instance of this has always been U.S. cities. For whatever reason, a naming convention was agreed to whereby U.S. cities always go at "City, State" regardless of ambiguity or primary topic status. Recently, over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements), I and some other people have been trying to change this convention so as to move articles like Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles, and so forth.

I have been unsurprised to discover that there is opposition to this. Lots of people seem to feel that all the U.S. city articles need to be consistent with each other. This is an argument which I disagree with, but which I understand. What I don't understand is the number of people who seem to feel that we can't have the articles on Philadelphia, Pennsylvania or Los Angeles, California at Philadelphia and Los Angeles, because "Philadelphia" and "Los Angeles" are both ambiguous terms.

It seems to me that circumstances like these are exactly what the whole idea of "primary topic" is meant to address. I have repeatedly pointed people to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic when they make this argument, and in spite of the fact that Rome, another city, is the example, they never seem to grasp the concept. What's going on? Am I crazy? Are they crazy? Some of them seem to object to the idea of "primary topic", but others simply don't seem to understand. Is the idea this complicated? john k 00:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No John, you're quite right, AFAICT. The thing is, there have been editors (none very recently) who have essentially argued that there should not be any primary topics -- that is, whenever there is any need for disambiguation, the disamiguation page should go at the main title. Such proposals fortunately never gained much traction, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have not entirely gone away. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here. If you look over the city naming page talk page, you'll see that various people who oppose any move seem to be saying this, without quite coming right out and saying it. I think Agne has pretty much openly advocated this, and Will Beback has implied support for it. It's incredibly frustrating, because they're doing it in a way that suggests that there isn't a page which says that Rome is a primary topic, and gets to be at Rome. john k 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, John k. Thanks for giving me an "aha!" moment. What you say makes perfect sense to us, but it may be because we have had a lot of exposure to disambiguation pages, and understand what you are describing very easily. For those who many not be as familiar with disambiguation pages, they may be misinterpreting it by their own fault, even when you give them good references. -- Natalya 16:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)